Josiah Concept Ministries

Even though I do not endorse Tekton Apologetics Ministries webmaster J.P. Holding’s consistent use of sarcasm and mockery as opposed to loving enemies and praying for the ones who persecute you, I still found this item hilarious beyond words.

I seem to get this same complaint, especially from a guy I work with, that the Bible just isn’t clear.  As Holding observes, the people who say this are just flat out unwilling to approach the Bible on its own terms.  They rant and rave that God should have been more clear in what He revealed to mankind.  Yet after I explain both the clarity and the unique way that each item in the Old Testament foreshadows or is a symbol of an event or a belief in the New Testament, their eyes glaze over and they protest that what I’ve just said makes too much sense for it to be right (Eph 4:18).
A good example would be the time that my atheist coworker asked about the animal sacrifices.  As usual, he asked me why God changed His mind about animal sacrifices.  This guy loves to start the conversation by pointing out that God changes His mind quite a bit, implying that, in reality, people just get tired of religion one way, so they change it by declaring that God no longer wants us to do something.

So I told him that God didn’t change His mind, but instead something better happened.  I explained that Jesus’ death on the cross was full payment of all sins we have, are, and will commit.  I told him that if he took the care to examine the passages in Exodus that describe the care and preparation of a Passover lamb, then compare them to the description of Jesus’ crucifixion in the gospels, followed by the theological exposition of Jesus’ position as High Priest in the letter to the Hebrews, that he would understand why animal sacrifices are no longer necessary.

He didn’t believe me.  Instead, he just scoffed at how convenient all of that was.  In his mind, that was just evidence that these guys planned all of it just to make money.  Just a story, a carefully contrived story, designed to make its authors a lot of money.   Of course, he has no reasonable explanation for why all of the Apostles were very poor and why they were so willing to march to their deaths to proclaim a message that not only wasn’t making any of them rich, but that they knew was a lie.

And, he has also said that the inconsistencies in the story make it badly in need of editing.  Funny how he seems to claim both that the story is too well written, and that isn’t written well enough.

In light of all that, I would like to be the first one to say that I would buy Holding’s bumper sticker if he ever gets around to marketing it:

Leave it to Tom in the Box News Network to make something this hilarious. This is even funnier when you realize who the caveman is.

I think I laughed the hardest at the line “You may already be pre-selected for a quote” than at anything else in this ad.

What makes TBNN so darned funny is the ability to come up with articles that sound real enough to make you wonder whether or not they really are supposed to be a theological satire site.

Take this one, for example.  Now this would be an easy verse to misread!  And given the fictional church’s background with feuds that last for a long time, coupled with the inability of previous pastors to make peace in the congregation, it would be easy for a person to conclude that this church is “called” to be an angry church.  A new cult is born, as Christian cults are often born, by snipping a single phrase from a single verse out of the context it resides within.

Whew. When I started this I just figured that it would span one post, and instead I’m already up to three, and I believe that in order to truly do this justice, one more post will be required. After I finish out the remainder of his points with this post, I will finish out with a commentary of Romans 11:11-24, which is the “model” that Mike’s geocreationism platform is built on.

Old Earth Creationism is Correct that the Earth is Old

I find little to disagree with here. As noted in the previous entry, passage of time was not created until Day Four (Gen 1:14). This means that it is impossible to truly estimate the age of the earth. As a result, I find no inconsistency between Scripture and an old earth. The primary reason that organizations like Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries International fight so hard for a 6,000 year old earth is that death and destruction, by definition, cannot exist prior to sin. To have millions, or even billions, of years of death, disease, and carnivorous activity prior to the first sin removes the Genesis foundation of the gospel message.

At least that is the position of “mainstream” creation scientists. Recently, I’ve begun diving deeper into that very issue, and I’ve begun to wonder if that is really necessary. It seems that human death is more important than animal death–why animal death is a factor at all is beyond me for they have no will and no soul.

Gap Theorists are Correct that There is a Gap in the Creation Story

Most Gap Theorists place a gap in the creation story, between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. They believe that in that time, prior to Adam, is when all of the fossils that we are discovering for which we have no corresponding living creature lived. Shortly after God created the heaven and the earth (verse 1), this would be the time of the trilobites, dinosaurs, and other creatures that, according to paleontologists, lived before man walked this earth. In this gap, they reason, were also the primitive hominids, such as Neanderthals and Homo habilis.

God then destroyed all of this in a global flood followed by a massive ice age. Hence, we now have the Spirit of God hovering above the waters (verse 2). The rest of the story follows.

It’s obvious that we have no Biblical support for such a theory. But Mike places the gap later in the creation account, at Day Four. So, what is it about Day Four that seems to have some sort of mysticism about it? Let’s examine it closely:

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. [Gen 1:14-19]

This passage starts with the creation of lights in the sky, separating day from night and marking the passage of time. Then, the text has God make two great great lights, the sun and the moon. Then, He makes the stars.

The key to the mystical allure of Day Four is that it is the first place in all of this creation account where we can begin to measure time. Prior to this day, there is no way to actually do that. Now, it is here that Mike wants the gap to occur–but we encounter a serious problem.

At this point in the account, God has separated light from dark (Day One), separated heaven from earth (Day Two), created land and ocean and made vegetation grow on it (Day Three). Day Four sees the heavenly bodies–sun, moon, and stars–but we have yet to see any sort of animal life. Placing the gap here doesn’t account for millions of years of fossils–at least not of any animals. Animals see the light of day for the first time in Day Five.

Day-Age Theorists are Correct that Each Day Maps to an Age

Since I see no inherent Scriptural problems with an old earth, so long as no death occurs prior to the Fall, I see nothing wrong with this notion, either. In the creation account, Moses uses the Hebrew word yom, which typically means either a 24-hour day, sunrise to sunset (as in a Jewish holiday), or an indeterminate period of time (that is, an age). Though the young earth creationists argue that the phraseology “evening came and then morning, and so was the xth day” removes any room for interpreting yom as anything but a 24-hour day, I disagree for two reasons.

First, God does not experience duration in the same way that we do. It is said of Him that a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is but a day (2 Pet 3:8). These are days from God’s point of view, not ours. Second, I believe that the use of the phrase “evening came and then morning” is to show that overlap of these days is not possible. Otherwise, we will truly lose the significance of the Sabbath day.

While I generally find that a young earth is more consistent with what Scripture teaches, I find no problems with an old earth model. Definitive proof an old earth model would not shake my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, and more importantly, would not affect my belief in God.

Theistic Evolutionists are Correct that God Caused Mutations and Allowed Natural Selection to Occur

And now we have the largest problem with Mike’s theory of geocreationism: theistic evolution, marrying God–a sovereign deity with an unsearchable purpose in creating mankind–with the purposeless entity of evolution and its counterpart, natural selection. That is a major contradiction in terms. Doing this does not explain anything; it only attempts to add an ultimate purpose to a process that doesn’t have one.

I see from both my stats page and my comments page that my previous post on this topic is getting quite a bit of attention. Let me assure everyone, especially Mike, that I will cover all every aspect of that post, and I will get to Romans 11. Right now, I am going through the post in a logical order. After I covered my initial reaction to the list, I can now move into looking at each item on the list and cover it in some more detail, which is the subject of this post.

Science is Accurate

I don’t know that anyone is necessarily arguing to the contrary, except for some attacks on the underlying assumptions of some of the science that is used in regard to aging the earth.

I would only wonder if some conclusions of scientists could be challenged. Mainstream science doesn’t like it when people argue with their conclusions, but that is precisely what a peer review period is for.

However, one of my arguments against the Christ-myth group is that it always the same modern people (Acharya S, Richard Carrier, drawing on a theory proposed 1800 years after the time of Christ, an opinion only shared by a minority of discredited scholars (such as Kersey Graves). This group never seems to make anything breakthrough; they always “bastardize” their works using the same sources and never anything up to date. Creation scientists seem to be the same way: always the same names appearing on every single publication, and always from either CMI or AiG.

Maybe the only real challenge that can be offered to science is that the earth is, in fact, older than mainstream science estimates, or the actual age is incalculable.

The very creation account that we are talking about here would provide some evidence to that effect. God doesn’t create the flow of time, or at least any way to measure the passage of it, until day 4 (Gen 1:14). This means that, prior to day 4, we had no way to mark the passage of time, and thus, no way to measure how much “duration” preceded this moment.

I, therefore, submit that it is impossible to know the true age of the earth, and by extension the universe itself. This explains why some measures of the age of the universe calculate 9 billion years, while others estimate 15 billion years or older. I’m not doubting the measurements, mind you, just our ability to accurately determine something that Scripture hints we are not able to accurately determine.

Scripture is Accurate

Nothing to argue here. I am a firm believer in biblical inerrancy.

Young Earth Creationism is Correct that Genesis 1 is Literal and Historical

This is a logical extension of point #2, that Scripture is accurate. Genesis 1 lacks the mythological elements of most creation stories. There aren’t deities fighting for supremacy, there are no divinely mandated missions, no prophecies to fulfill. In fact, an atheist friend of mind once said that if he were inventing a religion, this is the last sort of creation account that he would use, since it is so boring!

In fact, Josh McDowell argues in Evidence for Christianity that is precisely this blandness that proves the literalness and the historicity of the Genesis creation account. This account is written in the humdrum style of someone who is simply recording history, with none of the language of a person trying to construct a grand epic adventure story.

Greek creation, with Zeus having to journey below the Underworld to Tartarus to free the Titans, the Cyclopes manufacturing the weapons (Zeus’s thunderbolt, Poseidon’s trident, Hades’s helmet of invisibility, Athena’s bow and sword, etc.), the epic battle between Zeus and his father Cronus for the rule of the entire universe; these elements make a great movie. Something tells me that God speaking everything into existence isn’t going to be the next project that New Line Cinemas options in wake of the ironic combination of Lord of the Rings followed by His Dark Materials.

In Part III, I will finish the remaining items on the list. These items require some additional research and I will hop to it. Hopefully later today or tomorrow I can get these on the blog.

Mike from Geocreationism.com, in his post on February 13, 2007, has given the following seven points as the founding principles of his viewpoint of creation vs. evolution:

1. Science is accurate.
2. Scripture is accurate.
3. Young Earth Creationism is correct that Genesis 1 is literal and historical.
4. Old Earth Creationism is correct that the earth is old.
5. Gap Theorists are correct that there is a gap in the creation story (it’s Day 4 though, not Genesis 1:1)
6. Day-age Theorists are correct that each day maps to an age.
7. Theistic Evolutionists are correct that God caused mutations and allowed Natural Selection to occur. [source]

This seems to me as though Mike is starting with the assumption that everyone is correct and working on the premise that some sort of middle ground exists between the various viewpoints. That middle ground, which he calls Geocreationism, is the subject of his blog.

The crux of the matter, really, comes to how the reader answers the following question: For all of the competing theories, must someone necessarily be wrong? Obviously, Mike has decided to ride a seven-way fence by deciding that no one has to be wrong. But let’s take a closer look at Mike’s list and see if he is actually on to something.

First, as a student of human nature, I recognize that the order in which someone lists items is extremely important and reveals something about the nature of his underlying premise. For example, when receiving Christmas gifts from my wife’s family, I very well expect that such gifts will be To Jody and Cory. However, Christmas gifts from my side of the family are addressed To Cory and Jody. The reason for this should be obvious. When my side of the family sends a gift addressed first to my wife, I know that it is a gift that, while useful for both of us, is actually intended for her–such as a pastel colored set of towels. And when my name is listed first from her side of the family, likewise–the gift is usually something intended for spiritual development, which the husband ideally is in charge of.

So it is therefore significant to me that Mike lists science first, and Scripture second. The implication, from my perspective, is when science and Scripture meet in a place that has no reconciliation, I expect Mike will side with science. This is borne out by even a casual perusal of the Geocreationism blog, which is heavily pro-evolution. In fact, the site never doubts that humans evolved, however, it teaches that God used evolution as one means of creating the kinds of things He wanted.

This site does not teach Darwinian Evolution, but a variation where God introduces what he [sic] will, and then alternately lets the species tree grow wildly for a time, and then prune [sic] and graft [sic] until it looks like what He wants. He then lets the entire cycle go again, letting it grow, and pruning it back again. Evolution on the other hand is a continuous a process, where Natural Selection goes unchecked; I do not believe God lets nature go unchecked. He reigns it in. Regularly. Forcefully. Actively. Lovingly. In a similar fashion to how He maintains the Olive Tree of faith in Romans 11. That is the model for creation advocated here. [source]

Notice the inherent contradiction of this position already within only one paragraph: “. . . God introduces what he [sic] will, and then alternately lets the species tree grow wildly for a time, and then prune [sic] and graft [sic] until it looks like what He wants.” This is almost immediately followed by “I do not believe God lets nature go unchecked. He reigns it in. Regularly. Forcefully. Actively. Lovingly.”

Science 1, Scripture 0. See, mainstream science believes in natural selection as a process, and in order for Mike to make Scripture fit the science, he has to create a contradictory position where God lets nature take its course, but exercises meticulous sovereignty over it.

God cannot create a rock so big He couldn’t move it, because He can’t create something greater than Himself. He can’t make a square circle, simply because that is impossible to do within the geometric system He created. By allowing for free will, He necessarily allows for rebellion against His cause. Stark contrasts and opposites must exist within an orderly world, and God cannot create something that is defined by its opposite (such as a square circle, a triangle with five sides, or a greater deity than God Himself). This is the significance of separating Light from Darkness on Day One of Creation. The point here is that God cannot, by definition, allow something to propagate wildly by natural selection while also exercising meticulous sovereignty over it. This is logically, scientifically, theologically, and (most importantly) physically impossible.

Tomorrow, in part II of this series, I will take a closer look at each of the seven points.

Well, Pope Benedict XVI has released a document that has the entire Protestant community up in arms. Some examples include the following:

• A spokesman for Egypt’s Coptic Church, the largest Christian community in the Middle East, warned today that comments such as those expressed in the Vatican document “fan tensions and arouse negative emotions”. [1]
• The World Alliance of Reformed Churches, which represents over 200 Protestant churches, said the document “goes against the spirit of our Christian calling towards oneness in Christ”. [2]
• The liberal Catholic movement Wir Sind Kirche in Germany said the document was a “fresh and unnecessary slap in the face of the ecumenical community” and questioned whether the Vatican was serious about interfaith dialogue. [3]
• The Evangelical Church in Germany also termed it “a snub” for the interfaith community and “a major set-back” for the dialogue between Churches. [4]

Catholics dismiss these statements, telling the people involved to read the document for themselves. So I did, and it is exactly what I expected it to be. It is not, however, what the majority of the Protestant community thinks it is. Read more »

Three Christians, Ante and Kathy Pavkovic and their daughter Christen Sugar, were arrested Thursday by the Capitol Police when they disrupted the Senate hearings they were attending. The opening prayer was being offered by a Hindu chaplain, Rajan Zed. The three Christians were shouting Bible quotes, first Psalm 33:12, then from John 14:6, and finally Exodus 20:3.

DefCon is all over the story (of course) and posted the video here. TheHill.com has the story here, as does RNB. The Pavkovics represent Operation Rescue/Operation Save America, and their parent organization’s statement is found here.

So, where do I stand? I don’t know. I think I’ll sleep on it for now.

I’ll blog on this issue later, once I’ve had some time to pray some more about it.

Jimmy Akin linked to this article on CNN’s website, with the desire to write a rebuttal. Akin called commentator Roland Martin an ex-Catholic, anti-Catholic bigot. In his short blog post, Akin asserts only that Martin can’t get his facts straight, with no further reply or rebuttal. If CNN won’t print the reply, hopefully he’ll post it on his blog. I’d be interested to see exactly what errors that Akin notices.

In the comments section of the blog post, a poster with the moniker Fr Bill P answers Akin detractor Jeb Protestant’s assertion that the Catholic Church doesn’t encourage Bible reading, and shows in the process that Catholics have no understanding of what sola scriptura actually means.

Well, Jeb, I was raised Baptist and was taught to use the Bible as a way of bashing Catholics and such. We were dissuaded from studying ‘troublesome passages’ like John 6, I Corithians 11, all of the Letter of James…and well pretty much everything that wasn’t written by St. Paul or was in the Apocolypse.

First Corinthians 11 and John 6 are often used as Catholic proof texts of the Eucharist. First Corinthians teaches a reverence for the Eucharist, and it teaches of Christ’s presence at the Lord’s Supper, however the concept of transubstantiation is not found there. It doesn’t teach the idea of re-presenting the sacrifice of Christ. It only teaches the Supper as a way to remember Christ–not change simple bread and wine into the literal body and the literal blood of Christ. That’s gross. Likewise, John 6 specifically teaches that Jesus is not here to give us physical food. He is here to give us spiritual food. John 6 is a symbolic passage, and makes sense in that way if studied next to the Jewish thought process of the time.

The letter of James talks quite a bit about action, which seems contradictory when placed next to Paul’s letters about salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Paul seems to be adamant that no action is required on our part, that salvation is God’s work and that we just can’t do anything but stay along for the ride. Then, here comes James with all his talk about taking action and doing something.

But there is no controversy. Paul said that we are saved by the grace of God first, and after that we will act to do good. James said that we are saved when we act on that grace and perform service pleasing with God. Which is true? Both! The infamous Internet apologist J.P. Holding wrote this essay on the semitic totality concept–that both statements are actually true at the same time and that both the grace of God combined with willing repentance and good works is actually what saves us. Making a decision means nothing without a corresponding action. Being saved, that is, thinking as a Christian should, will, according to Jewish thought, produce a corresponding change in behavior and is an inevitable fruit of true salvation.

Despite continuous citation of verses like Ephesians 2:8-10, Paul also stated the importance of good works in salvation (cf. Rom 6:1-2 and 12:1-2). Paul writes that sin means death for us, and asks the ultimate question: “Why continue to live in a way that leads to death?” It doesn’t make sense now, but it makes even less sense when read in light of the semitic totality concept.

More than likely, since Catholicism is based primarily on works (or sacraments) rather than any of the less famous Reformation solas, Fr. Bill is talking about James 5:14-15, which is a Catholic proof text of the sacrament of extreme unction (anointing of the sick). While the Scriptures certainly teach us to anoint the sick with oil and to pray over them for recovery, to define it as a sacrament (outward demonstration of God’s grace) isn’t scriptural. Got Questions Ministries provides a lengthier discussion here.

Fr. Bill is implying that ministers have no answers to these three Catholic proof texts. Therefore, by his reasoning, the Catholic Church must be correct in its ideas about transubstantiation and sacraments. For a lengthier discussion, see Got Questions Ministries’ answers to the sacraments here and to transubstantiation here.

Maybe you can answer me this as well, for a guy who things [sic] that the Bible can just picked up by anybody and read: How is it that there are 25,000+ strains of protestantism, all of whom claim to be reading the Scriptures correctly? Do we have such a low opinion of the Sacred Scriptures that we think anyone can pick it up and understand as if it were written by Dr. Suess? THe [sic] Bible is not a piece of literature to through personal biases and prooftexted [sic] to death. It wasn’t written in English. Why say that?

Twenty-five thousand? Is that the new number that Catholics are using for Protestant denominations? I’d love to see some documentation on that. Now, as for calling them “strains,” well, that’s just writing to purposely incite. Now, in my above statement, I believe it is very clear that I have treated the Scriptures with the reverence they deserve. I’m reading them by attempting to understand the thought process and culture of the time and place they were written. I also understand the limitations of any translation from one language to another. Anyone who wishes to practice sola scriptura effectively must have this knowledge, or be willing to learn it!

In regard to the typical Catholic argument that there are 25,000 varieties of Protestantism, does that imply that all Catholics are of one mind? Because even on Jimmy Akin’s website alone I see plenty of the Catholics disagreeing about not only Scriptural matters, but also interpretations of Church law and writings. If Catholics were of one mind, then organizations like Vox Populi, Married Priests NOW, and the Society of St. Pius X would never exist. [Please, no comments or e-mail that tell me that these are splinter groups that aren't true Catholics. You wouldn't accept a similar response from me about Fred Phelps.]

Fr. Bill, in his first paragraph, just threw out three Catholic proof texts. Now he is bashing Protestants for using proof texts of their pet theologies. That’s pretty inconsistent. But I suppose if I believed that only the Pope had the authority to infallibly define doctrine, then this argument would make sense.

Why he feels the need to mention that the Bible wasn’t written in English, I don’t know. That is irrelevant, especially in light of the fact that it is translated by folks who know much more than the rest of us do about the history and the context in which the Bible was written. They have also extensively studied the etymology of the languages that the Bible was written in. I trust the translations. Does Fr. Bill?

Some time ago, a person came here spouting off about how Catholics are wrong about the papacy and proceded [sic] to dress us down for not understanding our Greek (the original language of the NT) and cited the word Cephas as an example. Except Cephas is Aramiac, not Greek, and the arguemnt [sic] for ‘you are rock (Cephas/Petros) and on this rock (Cephas/petra) I build my church. An english [sic] speaker doesn’t understand the concpet [sic] of words having gender (believe me, I have taught spanish [sic]!) You wouldn’t nickname a male (Petros)by using a feminine word (Petra)even if the words had a slightly different ending. IN aramaic [sic], both are the same which only solidifies what Catholics believe.

Okay, first of all, the person who came on the blog and cited Cephas as an example of people not knowing Greek obviously didn’t do his homework. But I’m left to wonder a bit about Fr. Bill’s argumentation. He’s saying that (1) Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek; (2) the quote from Matthew 16:18 would therefore have been spoken in Aramaic originally; (3) words with gender in Greek would never be used to nickname a person of the opposite gender; (4) since the words are the same gender in Aramaic, it is possible that Jesus is nicknaming Peter in the Catholic way; therefore, (5) the Catholic case for this is solidified. But in Isaiah, the keys are only given to the Messiah, and there is no mention of Him passing them to an earthly successor. Further, the rest of the New Testament is firm on the fact that Jesus’ place was very unique (cf. Heb 4:14-5:10 and 1 Tim 2:5).

And, does your average reader know the significance of the Gospel placing the story in Ceseraea Philipi…where there is a large hill that essntially [sic] in a solid rock? Or does your average reader know the connection between this scripture passage and the one in Isaiah, and the historical significance of the keeper of the keys? NO, probably not. But it is OK for an average reader to look at this Scripture and get out of it whatever they think?

I think that this is a classic example of the Catholic thought that sola scriptura–scripture alone–is equivalent to “scripture in a vacuum.” No Protestant believes that, nor do we understand sola scriptura in this way. We who hold to sola scriptura believe that Scripture alone holds the only infallible source of faith and morals, and we do not use outside sources of either. However, we are only too happy to seek outside assistance with interpreting these Scriptures. We ascribe no infallibility to the interpreters the way that the Catholics do to the Pope.

Tim J, another JA.O regular, has this to say on authority to interpret:

I have believed now, for some years, that this authority is vested in the Church and especially in the Pope. If I call some teaching “out of bounds”, well, that doesn’t mean much… if the Pope says the same, it really MEANS something. In this way, He is the servant and protector of the word of God in a way you and I can never be.

Maybe someone can help me understand this. I have just said that I look for help in interpreting Scripture from friends and family and pastors. They have differing opinions of what the Scriptures say. I happen to read the Scriptures in a Calvinist light, while the rest of my family hates Calvinism. My pastor has a much more conservative view than the rest of us. I know two people who are King James Onlyists, and at least one insists that the AV 1611 is the only true Bible and that all of the other translations are corrupted tools of Satan–so fervent is this belief that it has caused him to lengthen his engagement to a wonderful girl so that they can further debate this issue.

Bottom line: we’re all human, just like the Pope. Why is his interpretation the only meaningful one?

Apostolic succession is the answer that most Catholics put forward. While they say that Peter was the first Pope, he obviously didn’t have the same powers and position as the Pope (such as papal infallibility, cf. Gal 2:11-14). In fact, it is Peter who teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet 2:4-6)–which is in direct opposition to Roman Catholic theology!

Continuing now with Fr. Bill’s remarks:

The Scriptures need to be taken far more seriously and reverently than that! Maybe, just maybe, that is why the Catholic Church has not encouraged people to just pick a Bible and start reading without some serious study. The Sacred Scriptures are not some amorphous words that don’t have any centralized meaning…they are the self-communication of God with His people.

I agree, with one caveat. There is a plain meaning to most passages (e.g. Eph 2:8-10) that contradicts the Catholic teaching on the essentials of salvation. Wouldn’t the more logical reason for not wanting the general public to read the Bible be to keep them from discovering this fact?

Fr. Bill concludes:

Is this commentator a bigot? You’re damned straight he is! Catholic bashing is still the one true acceptable bias left. Considering that many protestant groups don’t even consider Catholics to be Christians, at least Catholic teaching will recognize that protestants are Christians.

Interesting that he wraps up by trying to turn the other cheek.  Earlier in the post, this guy said “strains” of Protestantism, which is language that is quite inflammatory.  I wonder if he can see the inconsistencies in his own position?

Praise God! A new magazine is out that preaches the possibility of “recovery” from a gay lifestyle. “Recovery” really isn’t the best term, I don’t think. Perhaps the word I used so prolifically in my previous post on David Vitter will work here as well: repentance.

Venus Magazine is a relatively new publication (so far as I can tell) that preaches a message of hope and deliverance from the sin of homosexuality. They feature the testimonies of former gay activists and generally encourage people who are “in the lifestyle” to seek a right relationship with God.

This is all so very counterculture. While society rattles on about how homosexuality is a state of being, ministries like this one–staffed by former gays and lesbians–preach a message of hope for all that this lifestyle is a choice. Deliverance and repentance come from Jesus Christ, by the grace of God.

Keep up the good work!

Related Links

• Interview with the founder of Venus Magazine
• About Hope/Not Hatred Ministries
• Genesis Counseling
• NARTH

The folks over at DefCon, who came to my attention as they fought viciously against the Creation Museum, have a new regular blogger. Although Eliza has posted with some regularity before, it looks like they have granted her full-time status as of today.

I mention this because her post today illustrates how atheists misunderstand our view of sin, and moreover sin itself. She is posting her thoughts on the latest political scandal to hit Louisiana: Senator David Vitter, who admitted involvement in a prostitution ring on Monday.

According to the Associated Press, Vitter rallied against the abysmal display of indifference toward corruption in political office. Ironically, this same indifference will be the key to his reelection. According to the article’s Man-on-the-Street interviews:

“He doesn’t know what’s going on in my bedroom, and I don’t care what’s going on in his,” said Robyn Beaugez, a 34-year-old insurance agent and registered Republican. “As long as he’s not taking money from taxpayers.”

Robin continues:

“Jefferson got elected and we knew what he did,” she said, referring to Rep. William Jefferson, a New Orleans Democrat recently indicted on corruption charges. Jefferson was re-elected in December by a wide margin despite allegations he took $100,000 in bribes, $90,000 of which was found in his freezer. He has denied any wrongdoing.

Ed Buchanan, a mortgage recorder, favorably compared Vitter to former President Clinton. “I’m glad he went to a professional instead of an intern,” Buchanan said.

To me, the most disturbing quote is this:

“The only way it could become an issue is if his opponent was a Pentecostal preacher. I say that tongue in cheek,” said Joe McKeever, director of missions for the Baptist Association of Greater New Orleans.

“Do you remember that quote about (former Louisiana Gov.) Edwin Edwards: ‘The only way I’d lose is if they catch me in bed with a live boy or a dead girl,’” McKeever asked. “Our expectations are abysmally low.”

The minister should be speaking against this sin! Instead, he’s just shrugging it off. Eliza thinks that this is the same attitude of Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council blog, who defends Vitter to the AP and in his blog.

Eliza, however, links to this article where Perkins spoke out against Mitt Romney for not doing enough to stop the flow of porn into hotel rooms. Then Eliza sarcastically remarks, “So, just to recap: it’s ok to sleep with a prostitute if you say you are sorry, but it is definitely not ok to offer pornography in hotel rooms. Good to know.”

Eliza wants readers to think that Perkins’s position is inconsistent with Christianity’s own stance on sin. While it is doubtful that Eliza does, in fact, understand Christianity’s view on sin, I have no way to know that for certain. Instead, I will demonstrate why Eliza’s own view is inconsistent. I believe that it is inconsistent on purpose to feed anti-religious right sentiment, which is exactly DefCon’s purpose for existence.

First, Tony Perkins is consistent with Christian values for defending Vitter but attacking Romney. Perkins is a personal friend of Vitter, according to the AP, a fact that Eliza fails to mention. As a friend, a Christian friend, Perkins should forgive Vitter (see Mat 18:21-22 and my commentary here).

One other thing that Eliza misses–on purpose, I’m sure–is what Perkins is defending. Perkins is not defending Vitter’s behavior, but is supporting his friend in his time of need. Perkin’s blog and press statement reflect this fact.

On his blog, Perkins said:

The statement by my friend and former colleague, Louisiana Senator David Vitter, was very disappointing. He admitted to a “serious sin” in a statement he released to the press on Monday, prior to news reports revealing that his phone number appeared on a long list of client’s numbers of the now infamous DC Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey. [emphasis added]

And went on:

While I commend him on assuming personal responsibility and working to make things whole in his life, I cannot defend David’s behavior. Adultery is a serious matter that affects not only the individuals involved but families and the well being of the entire community. Voters have the right to consider issues like this when they assess the character of an elected official. [emphasis added]

I didn’t expect Eliza to point any of that out. Her position is very unbalanced, written specifically to incite readers’ emotions. She makes it sound as if Perkins considers Vitter’s actions as justified because they worked together on some issues. She fails to point out statements that I have quoted above, statements that flesh out Perkins’s relationship with Vitter and give a better insight to Perkins’s true position on this issue.

As Christians, we must forgive our brother not seven times, but seventy times seven times, which is a first-century Jewish idiom for infinity. Seven isn’t a cap or a limit, but the number of wholeness and completion. The Bible’s use of the number seven implies similar usage as we would use the English words or phrases “always” and “for all time.” In that light, we can better understand Perkins’s use of Proverbs 24:16.

Perkins told the press:

“There’s room to make a mistake and come back,” said Tony Perkins, an evangelical former state representative and head of the Family Research Council in Washington. Perkins, who calls Vitter a personal friend, said he would vote for the senator if he proves he has “moved on.” [emphasis added]

The key to understanding this in a way that Eliza does not is the words “moved on.” Christianity isn’t a calling to simply say “I’m sorry,” the way Eliza paints in her short post. It is a call to repent–that is, to change. After all, what did John the Baptist say? It wasn’t “Say you’re sorry and move on.” It was “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!” (Mat 3:2, emphasis added) Change is implicit within the call to repent.
Perkins wants evidence that Vitter has moved on, has conquered this sin, before voting for his friend. And why not? The apostle Paul said:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? [Rom 6:1-2]

Why would a person, saved by the grace of God, continue in a life that only leads to death? It doesn’t make sense. Repentance is a call for us to change our lives and live lives that are pleasing to God. As Paul states:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. [Rom 12:1-2]

Perkins is calling for that repentance–that change. If no call to repent was found anywhere within Perkins’s defense of Vitter, then Perkins would be inconsistent. However, the call for change is found both on his blog and in in his statement to the AP.

Eliza thinks that Christians are OK with sleeping with prostitutes if the john says he’s sorry, but we’re never OK with pornography in hotel rooms. Well, I think I have effectively answered the first half of that: we are never OK with sin, but we are called to forgive our own, always. I have shown that saying “sorry” is not enough, the person must repent. Now, I will show why Perkins’s position on Mitt Romney is still perfectly consistent.

This article has all of the answers. Romney has spoken out against the availability of pornography many times, and rallied to have it regulated. However, when he was a member of the the board of the Marriot hotel chain, he did nothing to stem the flow of it into the rooms. Romney didn’t even bring the issue up at a board meeting. He claimed to be unaware of how much revenue came from it. In this case, Romney is the one who is being inconsistent, not Perkins! Perkins was right to point that out. Again, silence on that issue from Eliza.

So let’s everyone welcome Eliza to the DefCon blog. Her inconsistent position, filled with cherry-picked details that fail to paint the whole picture of what is going on, along with her misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches will be just what DefCon needs to win more support from people who will read the short posts and not investigate the details. They will continue to see what DefCon wants them to see. They will continue to be incensed about Christianity’s seemingly inconsistent positions without investigating why we seem to have them–and in the process discover not only that they are consistent but also discover the Savior who first taught us.

That will continue to fuel more misunderstanding about the nature of sin and how it separates us from a God they refuse to acknowledge.