5/29/04:  Trying to Catch Up
     For those of you on dial-up, may I extend once again my sympathies. Being stuck on dialup while traveling is enough to make me count my blessings for my office computer's high-speed internet access, believe me.
     Life these days involves the constant juxtaposition of the greatly encouraging next to the greatly discouraging. On the one hand I see the faithfulness of the Lord as I minister in small churches in the New York area (so far this week in Bayside Queens and in South Bronx), where God's people still hunger for His truth and the fellowship is sweet. On the other you have the insatiable desire of so many who once professed the same faith to establish a "Christian unity" that is devoid of the only thing that makes unity real: the gospel itself. On the one hand faithful saints, on the other, those seeking to compromise with error. The contrast is striking.
     You may notice I haven't mentioned here the current hyper-activity of the Roman Catholic "spin machine" in the wake of the IXth Great Debate. That is because I expect those who do not profess to hold the same faith to respond in particular ways. Such is hardly surprising. It has been fascinating to read the comments on the Catholic Answers forum and the Envoy message boards. Some reviewers have honestly evaluated the encounter and posted their comments. But others, who were not even there, have been quick to throw dirt so as to "spin" the results in Rome's favor. "Gerard" of the Envoy forums is a good example. When ignorant of what the debate was about and how it went, just insult James White with sufficient ferocity so as to add as much emotional "cover" as possible.
     I am a bit disappointed with the fact that Gary Michuta has chosen to do the "after debate" thing. He has put out a number of documents already, including one titled "Fifty Things You Must Believe In Order For James White To Win The Debate…" I sorta figure if you have to start firing off clarifications and expansions and the like the week after you do a debate, that might just indicate that you don't feel you did overly well in the actual encounter. Why not just let those who watch and listen judge for themselves? It reminds me a bit of Madrid's "The White Man's Burden" over a decade ago now. I do not have the time or inclination to get into an extended "he said/he said" after-debate debate, but there are two statements I would like to highlight in Michuta's responses. First, I had noted that I failed to press the fact that the Glossa Ordinaria, the medieval commentary on Scripture used across the medieval world, denied the canonicity of the Apocryphal books. Michuta writes, "Should I address the recycled Weber argument concerning the Glossa Ordinaria? But what does a medieval gloss have to do with whether or not the deuterocanon is inspired Scripture?" It only has to do with the issue if you do not begin with sola ecclesia, of course. For the person asking, "Is there a good reason to believe these books are canonical?" the fact that the medieval church could produce such a document speaks volumes. But you see, Michuta does not seem to see the central epistemological role the authority of Rome plays in his thinking. That is why he can state, "I did manage to get one important point across in my closing, although according to James’ blog and his closing statement, it fell on deaf ears. My entire presentation that night was done as a Protestant. Not once, in my opening statement or in any subsequent remarks, did I ever appeal to the authority of the Church, papal decrees or Church Councils." As I pointed out in the debate, Michuta failed to provide us with positive evidence of the canonicity of the Apocryphal books: he evidently does not recognize that he accepts them as canonical because Rome says to do so, and hence does not himself see that he handles all the information in that light. Thankfully, the audience got it, and will get it when they view the debate. And I can let the debate speak for itself, personally.
     Meanwhile, I sat in utter amazement as I read an article by Kevin Johnson on the "Reformed Catholicism" blog. It was another complete fulfillment of the citation I posted here a few days ago: “…such men that are for middle ways in points of doctrine have a greater kindness for that extreme they go half way to than for that which they go halfway from." Johnson once believed as I. Now he doesn't. But though he cannot seem to see it himself, there is almost nothing on "the other side" that he can truly criticize with any passion, while there almost nothing on this side he can keep himself from criticizing. Case in point is his entry on Mary. He's been reading a lot on Roman Marian beliefs of late, so it is easy to talk about how "bad" your former compatriots are on that issue. We are told that "generations of Reformed Christians have ignored her," and that "Reformed churches today can't even refer to the Blessed Mother as the Godbearer, the theotokos." Of course, as I noted a number of years ago in my book on the subject, theotokos is a perfectly valid Christological term. It accurately reflects the fact that Jesus' deity is not a later addition. But it is just as true that 99.99% of all usage of the term in the Roman communion today, and most particularly in the piety of the Roman Catholic faithful, has absolutely positively nothing to do with the original Christological significance of the term. What was historically a statement about Christ has been changed into an exalted title of a redeemed creature, Mary, with connotations utterly unbiblical and, yes, idolatrous. How many millions of times today has someone bowed and prayed, "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death"? Somehow that part, however, being in the realm of the "half way to" of Johnson's journey, does not receive mention.
     But most amazing was this line, "Her role in guarding Christian orthodoxy concerning the nature of Christ as the theotokos is well known by students of Church history, but her role in the lives of every day Reformed folks is simply non-existent." Mary had a role in guarding Christian orthodoxy? I would very, very much like to think that Johnson here has simply mis-stated himself, and that what he means is that the use of 'theotokos' was relevant to the definition of Christian orthodoxy regarding Christ at a point in time, but that is not the sense of his language. It almost sounds as if Johnson has gone a bit farther than half way and is granting to Mary activities and roles in divinely guiding events on earth. Just how is Mary supposed to have a role in my life that is substantially different from that of, say, Paul, or Jude, or Isaiah? Johnson goes on to talk about the "testimony" of the ancient church, yet, if he was serious here, would he not have to train his rhetorical guns on Rome itself for creating dogma out of whole cloth, and ignoring history itself in defining her Marian dogmas? But once again, we get only silence, for you do not train your guns on those you are seeking to befriend and with whom you are seeking to build unity based upon the "objectivity of the covenant." Things like the gospel, the ultimate authority of Scripture, and even idolatry itself, cannot be allowed to undo that objective unity.

5/27/04:  The New Manhattan LDS Temple
     I had never attended an LDS Temple Open House before, though there have been many such openings over the past two decades of ministry to Mormons.  But it happened in the Lord's providence that I was able to tour the new Manhattan LDS Temple today.  This is one of the most unique temples in the world, as space is at a premium in Manhattan, so the temple really exists "inside" a pre-existing building.  It takes up the first, fifth, and sixth floors, with a ward chapel taking up the second and third floors.  This is a small temple, with a small capacity.  In comparison with the pictures I have seen of the celestial rooms in the older, larger LDS temples, the celestial room here is hardly larger, floor space wise, than a couple of hotel rooms.  The baptistry, though still built upon the back of the statues of oxen, is simply tiny.  I did note the network connections in the floor for use by the recorders doing the baptisms.  It was fascinating to listen to the descriptions of the temple operations by the guides, especially when you know how the temple actually functions.  I likewise found it interesting that when the guide was asked about the function of the altar in the sealing room, he denied it had any special use.  I later asked him about it in personal conversation, having informed him that I had read Talmage's book on temples, and had done a number of debates in Salt Lake City.  He indicated that it was just not the appropriate time to get into the nature of the endowment.
     One thing is for sure: the temple struck me as oddly out of "time."  That is, it looks so 19th century America, like a piece of history plopped down inside of Manhattan.  It was truly odd. 
     Hopefully I can give a fuller description on the Dividing Line next Tuesday.

5/26/04:  A Very Relevant Quote
     A guy whose nickname uses the genitive form of a second declension noun sent me the following citation.  Man does it speak the truth:

5/25/04:  Greetings from Long Island
     The Lord was gracious once again, and here I am back on "the Island," as it is called by those who live here.  Modem is working, computer is on, and here we go...

What Do TGE, l0g0s, and Alexander the Coppersmith Have in Common?
     Evidently they now share a blog!  Now that's just what was needed, another blog!  There's a definite shortage, wouldn't you agree?  :-)
     Sadly, things have started off on the wrong foot (which isn't overly surprising, given the documented track record we've provided over the past few months).  Alexander decided to attempt to respond to the Sola Fide entry immediately below.  I am so thankful to discover that Reformed folks believe we are justified by faith as a passive instrument.  I mean, I had never thought of such a concept (outside of having discussed it in at least two books, anyway).  AtC informs us,

I would like to suggest that White's claims here reflect a widespread misunder-standing. Faith does NOT justify because it is alone. Rather, God justifies the ungodly only on the basis of their faith. The slogan "sola fide" is not so much a statement about what "kind" of faith justifies, as it is a statement about how we receive God's gracious gift of justification. White's mistaken notion actually turns faith into a ground of boasting, since I have a pure faith which qualifies me for justification, whereas the poor Roman Catholic tax collector has an impure faith (mixed with works) which cannot justify.

AtC is a scholar, and scholars are supposed to be able to follow arguments, which involves looking at contexts, etc.  Now, my blog entry was prompted by comments by Douglas Wilson on his blog.  I was responding, as the context indicates, to the repeated assertion (made by various "Reformed Catholics") that we are not justified by faith in justification alone, but by faith in Christ.  And as I read Wilson's blog, I noted that the issue that is being missed, especially as it relates to Roman Catholicism and the idea that Roman Catholics are our brothers due to a "valid baptism," is the fact that saving faith is the work of the Spirit; dead men cannot "work up" true saving faith, but we must be freed from slavery to sin so as to be able to truly believe.  The "alone" element of sola fide speaks to the kind of faith that is focused solely upon Jesus Christ, for a faith that is diffused amongst various objects, seeking reward or solace in its various objects, is not the kind of faith created by the Spirit, and is not the kind of faith exercised by the new creation in Christ Jesus.  I illustrated this from Romans 4:4-5, a passage that I am hardly alone in having seen as being directly relevant to Rome's teachings. 
     Now, one of the things that may well be useful about the combination of authors appearing on this new blog is that we can see how fair and balanced their argumentation really is.  How does Alexander respond to this presentation?  Did I ever say we are justified by faith because it is alone?  No, I didn't.  Would anyone who has read my works think I would say such a thing.  Not if they are fair, of course.  AtC's response has almost nothing to do with my actual words.  Does AtC touch upon the fact that Romans 4:4-5 does, in fact, speak to the kind of faith that justifies versus that which does not?  No.  Is there anything I said that could possibly be twisted into the assertion that our faith is a ground of boasting because it is focused solely upon Jesus Christ, and that as a result of the work of the Holy Spirit of God?  Again, surely not.  Finally, can one imagine the Roman Catholic who is attending Mass, seeking sacramental forgiveness therein, trusting in indulgences, priestly absolution, the merit of his or her penitential works, being likened to the tax collector of Luke 16?  What an incredible reversal of the reality that is orthodox Roman Catholic theology!  But, in the service of "Reformed Catholicism," facts are but a small impediment.

Back to Long Island...
     Today is a travel day, I speak tomorrow, and Thursday I'm visiting the new LDS Temple in Manhattan, so the blog explosion of the past few days will now come to a screeching halt.  Feast for famine I guess.

Sola Fide
     A major issue that has been lost in the recent "neolegalism" / "Federal Vision" / "I'm into Medievalism, aren't I cool?" / "Yeah, but I own all of NT Wright's books, so I'm cooler" debate is what sola fide, "faith alone," really tells us.  You hear it said all the time, "We are not saved by believing in justification by faith, we are saved by believing in Jesus."  I have never met anyone who confused justification by faith alone with Jesus, personally, so I'm not sure what is gained by the assertion.  So justification by faith alone is not the Savior.  But that completely misses the point.  What does sola fide tell us?  It is not a construct that takes the place of Christ, but it does tell us about what kind of faith actually saves.  A faith that is solely focused upon Christ (to the exclusion of the concept of self-righteousness and personal merit) is the faith of which sola fide speaks, in contrast to a faith that is wedded to works of righteousness.  This is Paul's point in Romans 4:4-5:

Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

The contrast is between working (with expectation of reward) and faith that does not expect or seek any reward at all, but instead casts itself upon another (the one who justifies) in recognition of that unworthiness (justifies the ungodly).  This is the "faith" of "faith alone," and it also explains why it is the only faith that saves (hence the "alone" part of sola fide). 
     So, the issue is simple: does a man or woman possess that  kind of faith, or do they possess a faith that is corrupt, one that is associated with self-righteousness?  Has their mouth been closed before a holy God (Romans 3:19) or are they still yapping about their goodness and how they are not as bad as someone else?  That is the issue.  The current rhetoric has completely missed this point.  At one time I thought everyone who claimed the name "Reformed" actually believed that saving faith comes from the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the elect.  It seems that the new emphasis upon "objectivity" is so over-shadowing the teaching of Scripture that this point is being lost.  How very odd to see "Reformed" folks embracing an emphasis that changes things to such a degree that the meaning of sola fide is obscured, while the meaning of "false brethren" is turned on its head as well. 

5/24/04:  Westminster Escondido Speaks to the Truth of Justification
     I am thrilled to link to the statement on justification by the faculty of Westminster Seminary in Escondido.  I truly believe over the next decade we will need to continue to epagonizomai in defense of the "once for all delivered to the saints faith" (Jude 3) and that it will be this very area that will be at the center of the battle.  And as with preceding generations, the lines of battle will shift and change, for the enemies of truth are always busy redefining themselves and their position so as to create as much confusion as possible in the hearts and minds of others.  As Calvin said in the sermon linked below, "His meaning then is that there were Cozeners [deceivers, frauds] which intermeddled themselves underminingly with the faithful, and yet all was no more but to cause the truth of the Gospel to be corrupted....Furthermore let us fight against such dogs, knowing that they be deadly plagues, and do much more harm then they that leap quite out of their sockets, and show themselves manifestly to be despisers of the Gospel. Those then that are intermeddled among us are the worser sort, and it standeth us on hand to resist them manfully.  For if we shrink from them in the battle, surely we shall have so much the greater confusion, and men shall not be able anymore to put a difference between white and black."  Goodness, yes, I know his phraseology is politically incorrect these days, and what is worse, he seemingly forgot to just grab these "frauds" by their baptism, they being false-but-still-true-in-a-sense brothers who are just like unfaithful husbands but are still husbands. 

Al Mohler on Canada's New Anti-Christian "Hate Speech" Law: click here.
     Christianity is heresy in a totalitarian secular state (or a totalitarian Muslim state, etc.).  The Inquisition isn't just a Roman idea.  Secularists like the idea as well.

The Catholic Answers Forums
     I noted in Karl Keating's E-letter that Catholic Answers was going to put up some forums on their website just a few weeks ago. I have been traveling (obviously), and am home for just a few days before heading back to Long Island, so I took advantage of a real Internet connection to check it out. First, this is a real high-quality system. Very nicely done, no question about it. Kudos to whoever designed it/runs it. Of course, web boards are the black hole of time, and hence though I have registered on the board, I am there to lurk, not to debate.
     What is very interesting is to note that while the forums are relatively new, I already have my own personal threads---at least two of them, in fact. It is fascinating reading, let me tell you. What people will say about you when they don't think you are around is utterly amazing. So many of these folks repeat utterly unfounded rumors without showing (in most cases, anyway) the slightest concern for accuracy or fairness, let alone factuality. When "in the house" the ad-hominem flies fast and furious, though those practicing it will always seek to say they are just reporting the facts. I truly would not like myself if a tenth of the stuff reported about me in such forums was true. Of course, it is frustrating to realize that the vast majority of the rhetoric is 1) either bald-faced lies, or, half-truths utterly divorced from a context, and 2) the ones repeating it would never have the temerity to say the same things to my face. I've witnessed it a million times: keyboards make lions out of kittens. Over the years I've dropped notes to folks who have gone on and on about how horrid I am, only to get lame replies or downright apologies when I simply asked for documentation.
     It was especially interesting to see some of the more notorious amateurs, like Phil Porvaznik, chiming in on the threads about me. Folks who would never, ever consider debating publicly, and whose work has never appeared in print above the level of a vanity publisher, find those forums their best way of self-promotion, at the cost of accurately representing the truth. Someone posted a question about me, asking for information, and it was fascinating to watch the RC spin machine kick in at full throttle. If the replies were any indication, there are only about four debates these folks feel my opponents did well enough to even recommend to folks, and one non-debate (the BAM show with Akin). Of course, they don't put it that way. Unless the fellow who asked the question stumbles across my website (and I hope he does), he will have no idea of the number of debates and topics we have done. Indeed, if you grant the list of debates these folks mentioned were "wins" for the other side, I'm still winning about 85% of the encounters! :-) (Oh, that will be taken as back-slapping self-congratulation, too).
     Anyway, I'll lurk as time allows. Kudos to Jason Engwer, who is holding off the hordes there just about by himself. No one can do that for long.

Also, no DL's this week, as I am traveling Tuesday and busy Thursday on Long Island.  Lord willing and I get my flights, we will be doing a live DL Tuesday, June 1st. 

5/23/04:  Striving for the Pure Truth of the Gospel
     Some "Reformed Catholics" have become quite adept at mocking the idea of standing for the purity of the gospel, as if that involves reducing the gospel to ethereal, fluffy concepts floating about above our heads.  They likewise insist that we are enemies of the gospel because we insist upon "parsing" particular theological statements (i.e., we stand against false gospels).  Well, it seems we are in good company.
     Here are extended selections from a sermon by John Calvin on Galatians 2:3-5.  As you read this sermon (I highly recommend it: like so much of his writings it is tremendously relevant to today's situation), ask yourself a few questions.  Doesn't it seem to you that for Calvin, the purity and truth of the gospel is foundational to the very definition of unity itself?  And are we reading him correctly to see that he is encouraging us to strive for the purity of the gospel while refusing to compromise with those who deny it?  I think anyone who has kept up with the recent controversies will see the relevance of this sermon. 

5/22/04: Congratulations Joshua
    I asked my parents a question as we sat at a reception for the graduates at our church Friday evening.  "When I graduated, did you sit there thinking, 'Wait, this can't be happening, because I graduated just a little while ago myself?'"  And they confirmed that this is in fact a normal response.  I feel better knowing that.  Congratulations, Josh!  High school is over, off to the next challenge.  Picture:  Joshua, his sister Summer, Dad and Mom.

Ronald Y.K. Fung on Galatians 2:4

These "interlopers" Paul roundly condemns as "sham-Christians," that is, persons who called themselves and were probably regarded by others as Christians but whose conduct in fact falsified their claim to be Christian....It thus emerges that the interlopers were sham-Christians precisely because they had not really grasped the fundamental principle of the gospel---justification by faith apart from works of the law.  (The Epistle to the Galatians in the NICNT, pp. 93-94).

      A few blog entries ago I noted the fact that when you gut the term "Christian" of all soteriological content, you are left with a term that means nothing more than "a person who was baptized." It seems that some want it to work just that way: that way you can build a "Christian society" based upon an act generally administered to infants and all the messy stuff about truth (the messy stuff the Apostles had to deal with) can be skipped over and made secondary. But at what cost? What do we get for this "objectivity" that renders the truth, the gospel, and faith itself, secondary? What is the value in a unity based upon a disemboweled word that simply says "this person went through a religious rite that was performed according to specs"? What motivates folks to want to make the word "Christian" something that must, by nature, be utterly disconnected from the gospel itself? 

And as Calvin said...

With what effrontery then will the Papists boast that they possess the gospel, which is not only corrupted by many inventions, but more than adulterated by many wicked doctrines? Let us remember that it is not enough to retain the name of the gospel, and some kind of summary of its doctrines, if its solid purity do not remain untouched. Where are the men who, by pretended moderation, endeavor to bring about a reconciliation between us and the Papists? as if the doctrine of religion, like a matter affecting money or property, could be compromised. With what abhorrence would such a transaction have been regarded by Paul, who affirms that it is not the true gospel, if it is not pure!  (Commentary on Galatians 2:5)

Gracious, that sounds downright....schismatic!  Well, at least to those who have missed the rather painfully obvious fact that without the gospel, unity is a myth.

Thoughts the day after....
     Did you know that Terminal 7 at JFK Airport is closed if you arrive at 2:25am? Yes indeedy. The things you learn when you travel. And did you know you have to get on that train thing and go to Terminal 4 to hang around at that time in the morning? And that they had Attila the Hun design the chairs you are forced to utilize in Terminal 4? But worse is the feeling of getting in line before 5AM and seeing the monitor saying your 7AM flight is canceled, calling the airline and having them confirm that you will not be able to get home before your son's graduation. Thankfully, they "un-cancelled" the flight ten minutes later, and I made it back in time. Note to self: bring more Advil for that dull, aching headache that comes when you skip sleeping for long periods of time.
     If Dave Armstrong had managed to catch a ride, it would have been a veritable congress of Roman Catholic apologists at the Huntington Townhouse Thursday evening for the Great Debate IX. As it was, Gary Michuta was joined by Steve Ray and David Palm. The topic was not one of those "magnet" types that really gets folks excited and brings them out to the debate. But it is obvious we have been trying to hit the key issues regarding Roman Catholicism in the series of debates, and this is an important topic. Mr. Michuta was very well prepared and had obviously done his homework. Just a few observations:
     First, it seemed his audience was pretty defined: Roman Catholics. That is, his arguments assumed a pre-existing belief in the canonicity of the Apocryphal books, and very little was offered to convince the unconvinced of the reality of that view. Instead, it was very clear that study had been done of previous debates touching upon the topic, and hence the presentation was focused upon offering other possible interpretations of the data presented by such sources as Roger Beckwith or William Webster rather than providing a robust, positive foundation for actually believing a book like Judith is inspired Scripture. But then again, given the functional reality of sola ecclesia in Roman Catholic apologetics, how else could it be?
     I wondered, even during the debate itself, whether the Roman Catholics in the audience were noting how very different his approach is than that seen on the web. That is, the argumentation being presented lacked the standard "Luther rejected these books because of purgatory" style simplicity that seems so compelling to most. I am hoping that the tremendous difference in presentation will, itself, indicate that popular level RC apologetics are very substandard.
     I was unable to understand a number of replies that were offered to my questions during cross-examination, and upon speaking with others after the debate, they could not follow the replies, either, and viewed them either as capitulations or chalked them up to obfuscation. When faced with Romans 3:2 and the fact that the oracles of God had been entrusted to the Jews, we were told "oracles" does not mean "written." OK, but at the time of Paul's writing, what did he mean by the phrase? I could not find out. Likewise, I heard no response to the fact that the Glossa Ordinaria, the equivalent of the NIV Study Bible of the Middle Ages, specifically rejected the Apocryphal books as canonical. I should have inquired concerning this during the cross-examination, but failed to do so.
     In talking with folks afterward the key issue that seemed to stick with them was the fact that given Michuta's position, we would have to conclude that the Assumption of Moses and the book of Enoch are likewise canonical works due to their citation by Jude. Outside of embracing the final authority of Trent, the arguments presented, including the bold assertion that the Lord Jesus and the Apostles used the Apocrypha in their teachings, would lead inevitably to this conclusion. It was interesting that when I asked Gary Michuta if the Apostles or the Lord ever cited the Apocryphal books with the key phrases "it is written" or "thus says the Lord," his reply was to spend at least two minutes enumerating the way in which those key phrases are used and how few of the Old Testament books are cited in that fashion, even though he himself had referred to those key phrases as important in evaluating the use of the early Fathers. I finally had to stop him and get back to the question, at which time he said that no, they did not do so. Evidently, the idea was to create as much doubt as possible about the canon of the Old Testament at the time of the writing of the New Testament so that the Apocryphal books could be sort of "grandfathered in" so to speak.
     As always, the cross-examination was when the issue was most clearly addressed. For some reason Michuta asked me some questions that really did not help his case, such as asking me to relate the history of the Mishnah and Talmud. I am not sure if there was an assumption on the part of the Roman Catholic side that I am personally unfamiliar with ancient Judaism or just what, but while I could understand the thrust of the questions, they were not designed with a debate audience in mind, to be sure. On the other hand, his replies regarding Judith, his assertion that Trent "passed over in silence" the difference between the LXX and the Vulgate (and hence ended up promulgating a different canon than Carthage and Hippo), and his refusal to see that Leo X approved the publication of a viewpoint that would bring the anathema of God only three decades later, all left many in the audience unconvinced, to say the least.
     Again it was an honor to have the opportunity to speak to important issues, and I thank Chris Arnzen and Brian McLaughlin especially for all their hard work in organizing the debates. Of course, Rich Pierce and Warren Smith labored diligently and beyond the call of duty once again to record the debate so that all of you not in the New York area will be able to enjoy it, and many others joined in to make it all happen.

5/20/04:  Today is The Great Debate IX
     It's the Ninth Annual "Great Debate" here on Long Island. As I get ready to leave to travel to the Huntington Townhouse I wanted to take a few moments to reflect on what we've done here over the past decade now. What topics have we covered? 1) The Marian Dogmas (Matatics) 2) Sola Scriptura (Matatics) 3) The Papacy (Pacwa) 4) The Mass (Sungenis) 5) Justification by Faith (Sungenis) 6) Purgatory (Stravinskas) 7) Veneration of Saints and Images (Madrid) 8) The Priesthood (Pacwa) 9) The Apocrypha (Michuta) What will #10 bring? We don't yet know, but are already working on it. One thing is for certain: as you look over the list it is clear that things have changed a lot since the 1980s when Catholic Answers was going about doing debates with local pastors who, in general, were not up to the task of responding to their apologetic approach. Now it takes a major effort on our part to obtain solid, orthodox representatives to debate the issues. And, unlike what some say, it is not because of how the debates are handled. I was mentioning to some of the brothers here on the Island last night that in almost every single instance where someone criticizes me for how I behave in debates, I discovered that they were going on second and third hand information, and had never themselves viewed a single debate! We have all of the Great Debates on video (now DVD), and anyone can view them for themselves and decide if, in fact, these debates are handled in a God-honoring, fair fashion. These debates have, I believe, proven clearly that the person who stands upon the inspired and inerrant Word of God can present a compelling, coherent, thoroughly biblical defense of the Protestant position on authority and the gospel. This was our goal, and we are thankful that the work has been useful to so many people.
     This evening I hope those who attend will gain a clear picture of the evidence regarding the issue of the dogmatic decree (replete with anathema) of Rome canonizing, fully, the Apocryphal books, books which themselves deny they were written during a time when prophets ministered in Israel, and which give evidence of recognizing the already existing three-fold canon of the Old Testament, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. This is surely an area where much confusion and ignorance exists on both sides, so I hope this evening the Lord will bless so that the presentations on both sides are clear so that the differences can be clearly delineated. Also, pray for Rich and Warren as they record the debate, that all will go well with the sound and video recording.
     I am going straight from the debate to the airport (!) so that I can get back to Phoenix for my son's high school graduation Friday night (congratulations, Joshua! Your dad is very proud of you!). As I will be quickly "reloading" and heading back here to NY next week for five or six more days of ministry, I can't guarantee a lot in the way of blog action. I thank all of you who are praying for the debate, and for the ministry here in New York.

Alexander the Coppersmith on smelly Baptist schismatics.  Click here.

5/19/04:  More from the Religion of Peace
     Islam means "submission," not peace.  Proof is available linguistically, and here, culturally.

Alexander the Coppersmith blew a fuse a couple of days ago.  I'll try to find time to document the words of this "zealous Reformed Catholic" later on, though the next few days do not look good for allowing much time for that.  Just one gem from the words of this wonderful correspondent:

The theology of the Baptist schismatics stinks. Its fumes offend any biblically balanced person like the smell of a contruction (sic) site porta-potty at a fancy wedding. It is a subtle form of legalistic justification by works.

5/18/04:  Sorry About the DL!
     As I told Rich, I had not given it a single thought since last Thursday.  Too focused on the Apocrypha to do much else right now.  So I apologize that we didn't do the long-distance DL this morning.  We are having transportation problems as it is, so it is next to impossible to schedule anything anyway.
     Don't forget the debate Thursday evening on Long Island!  Your prayers are appreciated.

The NRCT (New Reformed Catholic Translation), Coming to a Blog Near You
     Hey, dynamic equivalency is all the rage, and no one wants to be a literalist and actually worry about things like context and word meaning, so the NRCT may well be a big hit.  Here's an example:

For Christ did not send me to make people Christians and join them to the new covenant by an external religious act, but to preach fluffy but correctly parsed discreet propositions about soteriology, with great use of very complex and flowery (but generally irrelevant and empty) speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void (though this would require specifics regarding doctrine and theology).  (1 Cor. 1:17, NRCT)

5/17/04:  Mark This Day on the Cultural Decay Calendar
     Just think of it folks: today the God-ordained covenant of marriage can be "legally" violated in the same state in which Jonathan Edwards preached Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God and on the same day the International Olympic Committee cleared transsexuals to compete in the Olympics in Athens!  It does seem the brakes have come off on the Cultural Decay Express.

Blonde Theology Rocks
Douglas Wilson posted this on his blog today:

Q. What should the Reformed establishment do with a teaching or doctrine that emphasizes our need to believe all the promises of God, especially those promises that concern our children? Keep in mind that this is a doctrine that underscores the necessity of faith from first to last. The purveyors of said doctrine (as in, like, me) believe that we are justified by faith, through faith, unto faith, on faith, under faith, and everything else a squirrel can do to a tree. All faith, all the time, all the way down.

A. Well, of course, the only appropriate response would be to question the commitment of said fellows to sola fide. And have conferences.

And this is why I prefer my theology Auburn. Rather than Blonde.

Hey, we are having a conference on that topic!  But I'm not blonde!  Oh, man, I'm so confused.  Just can't keep up with all this stuff.  Wait...we are having a conference, but, first, we are having a debate, featuring...Doug Wilson!  Hence, we seem to be allowing those with Auburn theology to not only define their views, but they get to defend their views in debate as well!  Who knows, but as that well known Reformed Catholic l0g0s has said, we "Neo-Donatists" cannot defend our views from history or the works of the "magisterial Reformers" or from the Scriptures, so I guess you'd have to be truly blonde to put on a conference in defense of the indefensible!
     BTW, the title "Neo-Donatist" makes me wonder...would the RC's (Reformed Catholics) agree with Augustine's handling of the Donatists in North Africa, including the use of force to suppress them?  If not, why not?  Does make you wonder....

A Quote from Greg Bahnsen
     The Gobbler (a not-so-famous theological super-hero) sent me this quote from a sermon by Greg Bahnsen.  No date was included, but it may have been post-ECT and had relevance to (seemingly) Gerry Matatics.  In a sermon titled The Road to Rome, Was the Reformation Right?, the late Dr. Bahnsen said, "No, I cannot embrace a Roman bishop and say we are all in the church together because of the doctrine of justification that is taught there, and the Romanist view of the remission of sins, confession, satisfaction, and the Mass."

5/16/04:  Cloudy Ethereal Doctrines and Oxymoronic Titles
     In case you’ve run into the new-fangled “Reformed Catholics” running about the web, eagerly displaying their erudite insights, “ecumenical” willingness to read Calvin (they only seem to see parts of what he wrote, however) while extolling Chesterton and the like, you may be a tad confused by their constant discussions about how everyone else (hey, isn’t that very….sectarian?) believes in “discreet propositions about salvation” that must be “correctly parsed” and how everyone else views the doctrines of the faith as “abstract and invisible” things that “float about” above our heads.  They, of course, have a holistic, robust, culture-changing view that somehow manages to maintain the substance of the doctrines of the faith without ever really talking about them, defining them, or defending them against those who deny them.  In other words, their theories, sort of like the “ecclesiastical text” theory, sound really neat in the very unlife-like world of the blogosphere, but whether they actually mean anything in the real world of time and space is something else. 
     What is so odd about these new-fangled folks is that they don’t seem to have a solid grasp on the views of those they constantly lampoon (indeed, one wonders if they could define their position without making reference to others?).  That is, do they seriously expect to get away with this constant misrepresentation of others that is so plainly in error?  Surely there may be some folks, somewhere, who believe the truths of the gospel are merely ethereal, other-worldly realities that just float about in a hazy fog of theological introspection, but I don’t happen to know them.  Do you?  It’s ridiculous to say I believe this about the doctrines of the faith simply because I do not accept a particular form of post-millennial sacralism that seeks to build a “Second Christendom” by chopping down trees and baptizing pagans without repentance or confession of faith in Christ.  The irony is, some of these “Reformed Catholics” well know that I have consistently taught the need to live the faith in life and not merely in profession.  There is nothing “ethereal” about forensic justification or total depravity or the nature of the new covenant: they are exegetical truths that the Spirit makes real in the life of the believer and, because of this, in the life of the gathered community as well.  So don’t let this new breed of highly sectarian cyber-theologians get away with their misrepresentations: without those false representations of others, they’d really have little to say.  Just realize this is their means of avoiding the fatal flaw of their system: they can’t survive the one-on-one, honest, open, biblically based debate that would take place if they would accurately represent the views of their opponents.  But they cannot do so. 

 “For piety has no enemies more inveterate than those who have sincerely embraced a false religion, thinking it true.”  Theodore Beza

5/14/04:  Greetings From Long Island!
     Sorry to disappear without even a notice, but packing up and prepping for a debate often takes more time than one might think!  I will be headed to New Jersey very early in the morning, but hope to get caught up a little on the net and the blog when I get back tomorrow afternoon.  For now, remember this coming Thursday is the Great Debate on the topic of the Apocrypha.  Will we once again get to the end of the evening and say, "See, sola scriptura is still the fundamental issue"?  Probably, but the facts of history will be very clear as well.  At least that is my hope.

5/11/04:  The Blood of the Martyrs is the Seed of the Church
     So said Tertullian during the Roman persecutions of the church long ago.  There are still martyrs today, and Islam is busy making them.  You probably won't hear about this on the news.  They are far too busy with other things.

5/9/04:  Anti-Catholics and Anti-Protestants
     A while back I was reading Jimmy Akin's comments about my being a Christian on his blog.  Of course, the idea was "White was validly baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, therefore he is a Christian."  And this has been the basis many RC apologists have used for saying that I am an anti-Catholic but they are not anti-Protestants.  The idea is, "How can I be an anti-Protestant when I say you are a Christian?  You, however, say I am not a Christian, therefore, you are an anti-Catholic."  And given that few folks these days spend much time analyzing arguments very closely, for most of their followers, that works.  But let's think about it a second. 
     In the argument above, we have a classic case of equivocation, using a particular word in two different ways.  You see, what the Roman Catholic is granting me in the term "Christian" is far less than what I mean when I say "Christian."  I am talking about one of the elect, a person who has been truly born again, born from above, regenerated, justified, adopted into the family of God.  I'm talking about a person holding to the truth who is a servant of Jesus Christ. I define the word "Christian" by the gospel, not by a ritual.  All the Roman Catholic is granting me is that I underwent a valid baptism: given the reality of mortal sin in Catholic theology, whether that baptism still has any meaning to me is very much up in the air.  They certainly cannot guarantee that I remain in a "state of grace."  So what I am denying to them (due to the fact that I believe their gospel to be "another gospel" that is under the condemnation of God and cannot save) would be far more parallel with a different term for them: a believing Roman Catholic! 
     But, returning to the argument, we see that there really is no basis for saying I am an "anti-Catholic" because I deny a much fuller, much broader, much more meaningful definition of a term (Christian) to them when all they are saying when they say I am a Christian is that I was validly baptized.  How can this non-parallel comparison provide a meaningful basis for calling me an anti-Catholic while they engage in apologetics against Protestants but refuse to be called anti-Protestants?
     Which brings us to the topic of the upcoming debate with Doug Wilson as well.  I was listening to Pastor Wilson's sermons on Galatians today, and I noted an odd thing: after saying that refusing communion due to doctrinal differences between denominations was wrong (which included the very popular "we are justified by faith in Jesus, not justified by faith in justification by faith" diatribe), I then noted that the list of those allowed to partake of the supper at his church did not include Roman Catholics.  Now, he made reference to the back of the bulletin, and noted it said, "All who profess belief in the Lord Jesus Christ are cordially invited to participate with us in the Lord's Supper," but when he went through the list of denominations that included, Roman Catholicism was conspicuous by its absence.  I would think, however, that given his acceptance of the validity of Roman Catholic baptism, and his rejection of the idea that "properly parsing" justification by faith is a proper basis for exclusion from the table, to be consistent, a Roman Catholic would have to be allowed to partake.  I hope someone will let me know if in fact that is the case.  Now, I know, canonically it would be a sin for a Roman Catholic to do so, but we are not discussing Roman canon law, but the consistency of defining the term "Christian" on the basis of such things as a "valid baptism done rightly" over against defining it by the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Just a thought....

5/8/04:  A Personal Confession
     Irrationality drives me nuts.  There, I said it.  I lose my low-level sanctification in a big fat hurry when someone demonstrates by their words or actions that they haven't the first interest in thinking logically or fairly.  Ask the folks in #prosapologian.  I can be very long-suffering with some folks, but demonstrate that elementary logic is missing in your thinking and it can get ugly real fast.  Recently a friend of mine got into a political conversation with a young fellow in the airport.  The man's second sentence was about how G.W. Bush was the "most dangerous President of all time," and it slid downhill from there.  Very quickly the guy exclaimed, "You're an idiot!"  Well, there you have it!  Convincing argumentation! 
     Now, in our world today many who hate God's law and do everything they can to abolish every monument to its existence exemplify in their every argument the utter disrespect for truth that marks irrationality.  They are the ones who argue along these lines:  "You disagree with me.  You say I am wrong.  To say I am wrong is to hate me.  Therefore, your view is hate-speech, and should be suppressed, by force of law, if need be."  If you try to point out the logical inconsistencies in their position, you are informed that they will not respond to your hate-speech.  And thus not a single iota of intelligent dialogue takes place, though they are quick to claim the high ground of "tolerance" and "scholarship" in the process.  These professional victims are all around us, and though their views represent a small minority, their voice is magnified by an adoring press so that it echoes across our culture.  When you pray today, thank the Lord for the freedom you have to speak His truth...and then pray He will maintain it.  There are so many who wish to see it suppressed.

5/7/04:  My Presbyterian Friends Aren't REALLY Presbyterians, You See....

As one very familiar with the work of James White, and having been myself involved in a number of discussions with him over the past year specifically arising out of my affiliation with the work in Moscow, this debate will be very interesting to me as well. There may be...many Reformed Baptists who are the friends of Presbyterians. However, James White is not one of these. To be sure, he is friends with men who *claim* to be Presbyterians, but these men are really more like low church, revivalistic Baptists in their sacramentology than classical Presbyterians. The one thread that ties them all together is not genuine *Reformed* theology, but a vicious, anachronistic, and in many ways outright prejudicial anti-Romanism that cannot stand to be challenged, but takes all challenges as being fundamentally "attacks on the Gospel".

This will be an interesting debate, indeed. I think that many will come to see the absolute poverty of the type of Baptist theology (and I recognize that not all Baptist theology is like this) that hates the vision of catholic culture that this list is about--that is, hates historic Christianity and everything it stands for, and instead advocates the perpetuation of Modern novelties and faith-corroding compromises with the contemporary culture. If my experience with White is any indicator, I guarantee you that White's major point
against Wilson is going to be of the nature of "I don't have any traditions in my exegesis of Scripture and so my exegesis of Scripture is objective, but you are a slave to your traditions and so you miss the *obvious* meaning that Roman Catholics are not even Christians because they do not parse the theology of justification
correctly." The metaphor of White's entire ministry is "The Dividing Line", and so I hope to see Wilson strongly portray the fact that men such as White draw that line, that antithesis, in the wrong place and so damage the cause of the Reformation and the *catholic* Christianity upon which it was based.

Tim Enloe
Moscow, ID

Dear Tim:
     Hey, long time since your last shot across my bow!  It had been 48 hours, so I started to wonder.  Anyway, I sure hope you can attend the debate.  There are all sorts of things you've said I'd love to ask DW about in your presence, especially those judgments about the wrath of God and all.  Anyway, don't you think it is just a bit odd to say that I am no friend to Presbyterians and then in the same breath say that all those I would call my friends are not really Presbyterians?  You know some of those men are ordained ministers in the PCA, and yet you have, well, the gall to set yourself up as the arbiter of their "true" standing?  Amazing, truly amazing.  I will allow level-headed folks to read your materials and judge the accuracy of your use of terms like "vicious, anachronistic" and "prejudicial anti-Romanism," and the rest of your "I've stuck my fingers in my ears so I can't hear the refutation of my argument but I will continue repeating it because it is all I have to explain my flight off into zaniness and I know I can't touch the text of Scripture to defend my new views so I will just call everyone else hateful and say they detest historic catholic Christianity and throw out a bunch of silliness about how exegesis really can't tell you what God wrote in Scripture and now I will repeat myself yet again because I have run out of anything else to say" stuff.  I just wanted to let all my Presbyterian friends know that their memberships had been revoked due to friendship with a Reformed Baptist (insert gasps here).  I'm sure they will appreciate the notification. 

James>>>

5/5/04:  When You Don't Understand, Just Bludgeon
     A few weeks ago there was a small chance that maybe, maybe TGE would truly get away from the net long enough to maybe regain a little balance and some perspective.  Sadly, that did not end up happening, and lo and behold, "He's baaaack."  You will note the title of the blog article below: "Theocentric vs. Anthropocentric Religion Illustrated."  It provides a documented illustration from a Roman Catholic (Jimmy Akin) taken directly from the text of Scripture.  Now, Mr. Enloe decided to make a vague (yet obvious) reference to it today on his blog, prompted, it seems, by some comments on Douglas Wilson's site.  He said, "it occurs to me that if people want to avoid "man-centered" religion (see the bald guy with the goatee waving in the background?  That's me!) they need to avoid religions that treat God's works as if they are man's works. A Christian--especially one who claims to be Reformed--should not want a colorless, odorless faith, after all."  The link takes us to Douglas Wilson's blog, where a glaringly false dichotomy regarding living or dead faith (James 2) is presented in a tongue-in-cheek manner (which is the common theme on that blog, I've noted).  Given Wilson's voluminous writings, he may well have produced a full exegesis of James 2 along the lines of the chapter I included in The God Who Justifies, but I have not found it.  Be that as it may, Mr. Enloe followed this with a paragraph of what I can only call "Medievalistic Federal Visionist Historio-Babble," stuff that has been shot through four dozen times before, but no one is home to hear the refutation.  I do not want, nor do I have, a "colorless, odorless faith," if by that Enloe is insinuating that unless one embraces his particular form of medieval sacralism (which, of course, he identifies as being truly Reformed) then one has pushed truth off into heaven to keep it safe from the liberals and has reduced the gospel to a few "intellectually-formulated sentences" that do not impact life.  And in light of recent events in the life of my own fellowship (including the baptism of my son and my daughter and their joining in the life of the fellowship in the observation of the Lord's Supper), I would like to invite Mr. Enloe to think just a little more about his empty rhetoric before he posts it publicly.
     But the reason I even note this newest retread of TGE's complaints is that it seems people in our society (and in evangelicalism) focus upon the act of complaint rather than asking if there is any merit in the complaint itself.  You see, if someone wanted to actually provide a meaningful response to what I wrote in the blog entry below, would they not have to actually address the substance of the article itself?  You would think so.  But TGE didn't seem to think about that.  Earlier today, Alexander the Coppersmith provided another example (thirteen of them, actually) on a webboard, seeking to take pot shots at The Potter's Freedom.  And the constant element of his attempts was the same: when you are criticizing someone their original intent is irrelevant: just shoot wildly and most folks will never know the difference. 
     And such puts those who seek to live consistently in the light of God's truth in a tough spot, one that requires divinely-given wisdom.  We can't do that to others.  When I wrote TPF I spent a great deal of time and even money to make sure I was accurately representing Dr. Geisler's position and views.  Hence, it is truly aggravating when someone like Alexander comes along and shows me, and anyone who would read his words, deep disrespect by refusing to invest the same effort: and in the same way, when TGE rambles on and on, attributing to others beliefs they have repudiated, what does this say?  The temptation exists to respond in kind: but we cannot do so.  That means at times we will respond much more slowly than those who see truth as a "take it or leave it" commodity.  We will often have to suffer their rejoicing over us falsely as well, knowing that only in God's time will the truth of such things be fully known. 

5/2/04:  Theocentric vs. Anthropocentric Religion Illustrated
     Over the course of the debates we have done I have often had to point out the difference between theocentric religion and anthropocentric religion.  This normally comes up when encountering someone who reads one of the passages in the Bible that can be read prescriptively ("do this so as to be saved") or descriptively ("this is what a saved person does").  For example, "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Mark 13:13) is read by someone who views the faith in a man-centered fashion, "by enduring to the end one brings about one's own salvation" (even if the person then says, "Oh, but I can only do that because God graciously gives me the opportunity of doing so").  A person who views salvation as centered upon God and what He does reads the passage, "the one who is saved endures to the end" as a description of what it means to be truly saved: faith that comes from God endures.
     One of the most striking tests of whether someone looks at the Bible from a man-centered or (by grace alone!) a God-centered view is found in John 6:38-39, where the Lord Jesus explains the reason why all those who come to Him will never be driven away.  Here the will of the Father for the Son is expressed in that it is the Father's will that the Son lose none of those who are given to Him by the Father (referring back to v. 37, where Jesus said that all that the Father gives Him will come to Him) but that He raise them up at the last day.  The person who understands that Christian salvation is a divine act, free, sovereign, and all to God's glory, can fully understand these words.  Jesus has the power and ability to save completely all those who trust in Him (Hebrews 7:24-25).  He is a perfect Savior who does not need meritorious works on the part of men to "complete" His work.  But one who has a man-centered understanding will have to work very hard to escape the meaning of these words.
     While looking for James Akin's "inceptive aorist" argument in his debate notes posted at cin.org a few days ago, I ran across the following "explanation" of John 6:38-39 that illustrates anthropocentrism to the nth degree:

Next, Jesus says, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day."

True. It is the Father's will that he lose none of those given to him. It is also the Fathers will that nobody commit murder and adultery, but that doesn't mean that people don't commit murder and adultery. They do. You have to distinguish between which divine will you are talking about, the will by which he desires what will happen and the will by which he decrees what will happen. In this passage, Jesus is talking about the former, and we know that because some who have been given to him are lost. In John 17:9-12, Jesus says: "I am praying for . . . for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. While I was with them . . . I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled."

So of those the Father gave to Jesus, Jesus lost Judas in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled. In one sense God wants all who are given to Jesus to persevere, but in another sense God allows some of them, like Judas, to not persevere.

First, distinguishing between the will of God expressed in His law ("you shall not murder") and His actual decretive will expressed in creation itself is quite proper: but it has nothing whatsoever to do with this context.  John 6:38-39 is about the divine will of the Father for the Son in the eternal covenant of redemption, which is hardly relevant to the fact that while God expresses His law, sinners break that law!  What needs to be seen here is that Mr. Akin is saying the Son of God can fail to do the will of the Father!  What an amazing statement! What in the text leads Mr. Akin to this conclusion?  Well, nothing in the immediate context is cited (nor could there be anything cited, at least from any meaningful exegetical viewpoint), but one idea is offered by leaving this context and confusing categories with reference to John 17.  There, in the context of Jesus' High Priestly Prayer, Jesus makes reference to Judas, the son of perdition, and says, in reference to the apostles, that He has lost none of them, except Judas, "so that the Scripture might be fulfilled."  The idea that it was God's intention to give Judas to the Son and the Son raise him up on the last day (the context of John 6) is utterly without merit.  This is a simple confusion of one context (John 6 being salvation) with another (John 17 being in reference to the apostles and Judas as the son of perdition), resulting in the overthrow of the plain words of Jesus in John 6:38-39.  Indeed, one must wonder: what if Judas had persevered, at least past the point where he was to fulfill his role as the betrayer?  Such are the conundrums faced by those who view the faith from an anthropocentric position.  Further, the eisegetical nature of Akin's comment is seen by noting that he forgets that vs. 38-39 are an explanation of v. 37: why will the Son not drive away any who comes to Him?  His interpretation divorces the answer from the question and leaves the question with its opposite answer, since, in the judgment, Christ will in fact drive away some of those who came to Him at one point, but did not persevere!
     It is truly a blessing to be delivered from such man-centeredness, and hence to rejoice in the divine reality that the Son will never fail to do the will of the Father, and that is the only hope I have for salvation! 

5/1/04:  A Few Items Relevant to Roman Catholicism
     Just a couple of items.  First, I tracked down the Dividing Line program where I played the phone call where Akin tried to deal with his claims about inceptive aorists in John 6:44.  Here's the link.  Fast forward to 33 minutes in, if you wish to only hear the relevant section.  I would love to ask Mr. Akin how he defends his simple, basic error on this topic (and that documented below).  Note that we invited Akin to come on the Dividing Line to defend his position.
     Next, there is another "Mary sighting," this time at a hospital in Ensenada, Mexico.  Here's a not-overly-impressive picture of what is so painfully obviously a water stain.  See the light there?  Yeah, water drips off of it.  Drips on the wall.  Water leaves stain.  The effect of water over time on a surface is called a water stain.  According to stories I have read, they are already holding vigils, prayer services, and a group is staying the night each night to "protect Mary."  As well they have to.  A number of years ago a yucca branch appeared in Phoenix that someone said looked like Mary.  People began flocking to it.  But a few days into the "apparition" someone came along with a machete and wacked the branch off.  For some odd reason the yucca did not produce another Marian-shaped branch.    
     This is not the first time Mariolatry has led to people bowing down before water stains.  Here is a picture of the reconstituted water stain Mary from Clearwater Florida, before which thousands prostrated themselves.  Ironically, recently someone de-Marianized the building with a slingshot.  I wonder if the Marian group that bought the building for millions of dollars will lose the ability to get messages from Mary due to this action? 
     Some folks have criticized us in the past for debating Roman Catholics on the Marian dogmas.  Not only do those dogmas illustrate, more clearly than almost anything else, how Rome's attacks on sola scriptura exist solely to allow them to free themselves from the constraints of Scripture and any meaningful use of the term "tradition," but the fact is that Mariolatry is epidemic in Roman Catholic life all across the world.  It gives a false hope, and if we truly care about those trapped in its grip, we will speak the truth to them with clarity.

Akin on Proxies
     Just got back from a most enjoyable morning exercising my 2nd Amendment rights and launching model rockets, all at the same time (ah, the smell of gunpowder in the morning!).  When I popped into my office to watch an AVI I shot of one of my old, old rockets CATOing on the launch pad (engine mounts gave way...I'm still laughing hysterically about it!) I noticed that Mike O'Fallon had sent Jimmy Akin an e-mail.  I chuckled, since I have not spoken to Mike about the situation, nor did I ask him to contact Akin, but being the go-getter he is, he had taken the initiative, probably after reading the blog yesterday.  Fulfilling the "we will think the worst of White on all levels" stereotypical mindset, Akin put on his blog:

Should Mr. White and I be able to agree to a debate (which is now less likely after him sending you as his proxy only hours after I repeatedly made the point that he would need to speak to me himself--something I'm sure you'll understand is hard not to regard as a deliberate tweak on White's part), I will be happy to arrange logistical matters with you. I'll also introduce you to our seminar coordinator, to help handle what needs to be done logistically from our side.

I hadn't asked Mr. O'Fallon to contact Akin; there was no "deliberate tweak."  And it seems that Mr. Akin is saying, "My way, or the highway."  Well, we will see.  I would rather Akin respond to the repeated demonstration of his eisegetical errors, personally. 

Exegesis and Context  [And A Final Rejoinder]
     I grabbed my copy of Jimmy Akin's book to write my second response (linked immediately below) and as I thumbed through it again I ran across the following argumentation, which is quite similar to the errors Mr. Akin made in our KIXL debate when he mis-identified the aorists in John 6 as inceptives.  He writes,

     One passage Fundamentalists often cite as a prooftext against the Catholic view of salvation is Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God---not because of works, lest any man should boat."
     Typically, those who use this verse assume that the works Paul is speaking of are good works.  If that were true, it would in no way conflict with Catholic theology.  Note that the passage speaks of salvation as a past event---"you have been saved."  In Greek this is the perfect tense, which denotes a past, completed action that has continuing effects in the present.  The passage thus refers back to the salvation one received at the beginning of the Christian life, the effects of which are still with one through the possession of sanctifying grace.
     We know from other passages in Paul that salvation also has present and future aspects..., so the kind of salvation Paul is discussing in Ephesians 2:8-9 is initial salvation.  It is the kind we received when we first came to God and were justified, not the kind of salvation we are now receiving (see 1 Pet. 1:8-9, Phil. 2:12) or the kind we will one day receive (see Rom. 13:11, 1 Cor. 3:15, 5:5).  (The Salvation Controversy, p. 117).

I refer the reader to Akin's comments about the Greek perfect tense in Ephesians 2:8.  As far as a very basic description of the Greek perfect tense when used of a finite verb, this would be sufficient.  But there is no finite perfect tense verb in Ephesians 2:8.  It is a common error to look at a computer program, grab some basic information, and present this as if it represents a meaningful inquiry into the original language.  Few areas of Greek grammar and syntax expose such a procedure more quickly than that of the Greek participle.  I commented on this phrase in The God Who Justifies:

The NET reflects the fact that the last phrase, “by grace you are saved,” is periphrastic in nature, and sets it apart accordingly.  This phrase, repeated in verse 8, is a three-word summary of the essence of the gospel.  Grace is the means, the realm, the power by which salvation takes place.  Grace is all, and grace is enough. And this salvation is not merely some provisional or temporary state.  Paul uses a perfect passive participle along with a  finite verb to express the fact that we have been and continue to be saved by that grace.  Saved by grace, kept by grace: such is surely the Pauline doctrine.

And in a footnote:

Some grammarians believe the force of the periphrastic, where the finite verb strengthens the on-going element of the perfect participle, had weakened, or passed from use, by the time of the writing of the New Testament.  Others believe this force remains evident in the New Testament.  Given the context of its usage here, it is difficult to explain the effort to insert the periphrastic if there is no inherent meaning being attached to it.

Computer programs generally do not instruct the user on the significance of periphrastic constructions, and hence the need to still actually learn the original languages.  Be that as it may, Akin's comments are wide of the mark, for they do not recognize that a perfect tense participle is not the same animal as a perfect tense finite verb; further, this participle is accompanied by a finite form of eimi, creating a periphrastic construction.  Periphrastics have specific tense-meanings, depending on the combination used by the author (see William Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, p. 277 for a helpful chart).  So, to meaningfully address the passage, Akin should have noted this (if he is even aware of it).  He did not.
     Beyond this, Eph. 2:8-9 is part of a context, and without that context, the commentary offered is truly without substance.  The idea that Paul's view of salvation in this passage can be sliced and diced into "initial, on-going, and future" components that are somehow distinguishable so that the salvation that is solely and completely of grace is merely the "initial" aspect of salvation not only flies in the face of the meaning of the periphrastic (the "with on-going results to the present" part of even the proper description of the perfect tense seems to have escaped Akin's notice) but utterly misses the preceding context where Paul already has us seated in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus (v. 6)!  It is hardly necessary to point out that we are viewing eisegesis when we see the perfect's meaning (even without the acknowledgement of the periphrastic) cut in half and the Roman Catholic idea of "sanctifying grace" appearing out of thin air, all at the same time. 
     There is no question that Pauline theology recognizes the all encompassing nature of salvation; there is no question that Pauline theology recognizes the eternal past of salvation in God's decree of election, its powerful present in the redemption of those elect in time, and its glorious future in the glorification of the saints in the presence of the Triune majesty.  But to say that Paul would have agreed with the idea that the initial experience of salvation (which Akin would identify with baptism anyway) is by grace alone while later "elements" can be made synergistic (and determinative of final glorification through synergistic cooperation) is to demonstrate why I have said so often that the Roman Catholic who is faithful to the magisterium finds it very, very hard to honestly deal with the text in a fair, hermeneutically sound fashion.  But in direct opposition to Akin's false assertion that it is "not the kind of salvation we are now receiving...or the kind we will one day receive," for Paul there is only one kind of salvation: that which is all of grace, from start to finish, and stands opposed to human merit at each and every point.  The problem is not with "fundamentalists" who cite the passage (and, admittedly, many do so with just as strong an attachment to a traditional interpretation as anyone else), but with Roman Catholics who separate the text from its context and force it through the filter of the Roman magisterium.