Last year I wrote a short article about Tim Perry. I asserted there that Tim Perry is an Ecumenical Protestant and he does not represent all Evangelicals. The basis for my assertion is the transcript of an interview with Mr. Perry. I also admitted in my article that I haven't read his book, Mary for Evangelicals, which is being quoted by Atty. Marwil Llasos in some of his articles to say that there are Evangelicals who agree with his view on Mary. Nevertheless, I still had basis to make my assertion.
Two and a half months after that, Atty. Llasos wrote his comment on my article. He argued that my comment on Tim Perry is hearsay. He further argued that the interview is not the best evidence for my assertions. After a series of article on the woman of Revelations 12, Atty. Llasos made an article about me going against Tim Perry and the World Evangelical Fellowship. Even before Atty. Llasos made the said article, he has been using the book, Mary for Evangelicals, to hammer my arguments down and saying I have been refuted by a fellow Evangelical. His main reason for quoting from the book:
I got hold of Tim Perry’s Mary for Evangelicals because I wanted to know where an evangelical is coming from when it comes to the issue of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I don’t want to be accused of misrepresenting the evangelical position.
I'm an Evangelical, but does the book actually state the Evangelical position? It's very ironic that after I accused Atty. Llasos for treating Mr. Perry as representing the position of all Evangelicals and worse, an authority for all Evangelicals, he retaliated:
Mr. Gerry Soliman is a Certified Public Accountant yet there seems to have a problem in his quantitative analysis. “There are” does not translate to “all,” Mr. Soliman. Moreover, there is really something wrong with his reading comprehension. Since when has “there are” been translated to “all”? Perhaps only Mr. Soliman knows.
In an earlier protest:
If Prof. Perry does not represent all Evangelicals, then who does? Could Mr. Gerry Soliman represent all Evangelicals? He could not. He could only represent himself. Who has ever given him the full authority to speak for and in behalf of all Evangelicals? No one.
How in the world do you reconcile using the book of Tim Perry in avoiding to misrepresent the Evangelical position on Mary with a denial of treating Tim Perry as representing and an authority for all Evangelicals? "Ooh, I bought an Evangelical book so that I won't misrepresent the Evangelical position. But this does not mean I treat its author as a representative of all Evangelicals." It's that how it goes?
In the recent article, Atty. Llasos asserted that I made a veiled accusation that he is taking the works of Mr. Perry and others out of context:
This is a veiled accusation that I took the statement of the WEF out of context. Being intellectually dishonest, Mr. Soliman accuses others of committing his own moral dysfunction. I challenge Mr. Soliman to check the reference and if he could prove that I quoted the statement out of context, I would apologize. I am quick to apologize if I am wrong, accept full responsibility for the error and set it aright. I hope Gerry Soliman does so too. If he finds out for himself that the statement is not taken out of context, he must be the one to apologize.
Nevertheless, Atty. Llasos challenged me to check his Evangelical references. So, enough is enough: I bought Tim Perry's Mary for Evangelicals. I ordered it through Powerbooks and I got it Friday, February 11, 2011.
Let's go back to the intention of Atty. Llasos for buying Mary for Evangelicals:
I got hold of Tim Perry’s Mary for Evangelicals because I wanted to know where an evangelical is coming from when it comes to the issue of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I don’t want to be accused of misrepresenting the evangelical position.
Atty. Llasos even argues:
As I said, reading the woman of Revelation 12 as exclusively the “people of God” is Mr. Soliman’s personal stance borne out, of course, by his own private interpretation of Scripture. But, is Mr. Soliman’s position normative for all Protestants and Evangelicals? I don’t think so. Could Mr. Soliman impose his private interpretation and personal opinion on other Christians? Again, I don’t think so. That would be very arrogant – and impossible.
Now that I have the book, we can play his game. And this time Atty. Llasos has no more excuse to dismiss my assessment because I didn't use a valid source. Let's see if Tim Perry represents the Evangelical position. On page 16:
Having said all that, I recognize that what I have written will not resonate with many in the global evangelical Christian family. My perception of the way things actually rises from and is directed to my North American context. I recognize that brothers and sisters in contexts where Catholics and Protestants are rivals will perceive matters differently. To be blunt: in North America, Mary is not nearly as controversial, polemical and even intimidating as she is in, say, Northern Ireland, Latin America, and some parts of Asia. I hope that, had I written from one of those situations, I would have written substantially the same book; I recognize, however, that I would have said some things (very) differently.
I also acknowledge that I run the risk of being accused of being out of touch with the concerns of evangelical Christians in those kinds of situations. Granting that in at least some cases these accusations will be legitimate, I invite these as yet unknown critics to read, to reflect and to consider whether there is anything applicable in what follows before they dismiss it entirely.
Tim Perry wrote at the way end of his book on page 308:
So the Reformation is neither in actuality nor in my opinion about to end anytime soon. I hope, however, that I have helped to clear away some of its unhelpful polemical baggage (and each side has a truckload) in order that productive conversations may take place-conversations that articulate clearly just where we can and cannot agree, not in order to perpetuate that disagreement, but in order to prayerfully set those disagreement before the one who prayed that we might be one:
O God Most High, who didst endue with wonderful virtue and grace the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of our Lord.
Grant that we, who now call here blessed, may be made very members of the heavenly family of him who was pleased to be called the first-born among many brethren; who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.
There you have it, Tim Perry is aware that there will be Evangelicals who will not agree entirely with his work. Ask yourself this question now: Does he represent the Evangelical position? Yes they represent the Evangelicals... who are ecumenical. Ecumenical Evangelicals are those who seek to be one with Roman Catholicism. They are not like me who has been labeled as a biased anti-Catholic heretic.
Wait, there is more. In the foreword written by Mr. William J. Abraham on page 9:
Over twenty years ago, I was honored to preach at the St. Patrick's Day celebration in the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Seattle. When I went home later in the year to Ireland, my mother asked me what I had been doing lately and I told her about the service. She looked at me in pain and said plaintively, "Billy, you didn't really do that now, did you?" At that moment, I knew I had crossed a line that thousands of evangelicals have crossed in the last generation. We had simply ceased to see Roman Catholicism as the theological enemy. We had entered into a whole new relationship in which neither side could ever be the same again.
Need we quote more? At this point, and with all due respect to Mr. Tim Perry, it has now becomes obvious that Tim Perry barely represents the Evangelical position since not all Evangelicals are ecumenical. If I am Ecumenical, I shouldn't be in apologetics, or at least I shouldn't be refuting Roman Catholicism.
One has to wonder why of all Evangelical authors Atty. Llasos picked, among others, Tim Perry to learn the Evangelical position. Why did he not pick James White, Eric Svendsen, William Webster, Turretinfan, Joe Mizzi or even the former priest whom he is fond of criticizing, Anthony Pezzota, to learn the Evangelical position? Could it be that the works of these men be unfavorable to Atty. Llasos? Well, that's being selective.
These men I mentioned have greater credentials than mine. I'm just a certified public accountant and a certified internal auditor with no professional degree or formal training in theology; also, I cannot hold a candle beside these men. So going back to my question, why didn't Atty. Llasos refer to these men to learn the Evangelical position?
Speaking of being one with Roman Catholicism, author James White in his book The Roman Catholic Controversy, made this statement on page 25:
"All who accept Christ as Lord and Savior are brothers and sisters in Christ." So says the widely read and distributed accord Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT). Many Christian leaders accept this statement as true. Yet, leaders on both sides question the ease which such a statement is made. What does it mean? How far can we probe such a statement before encountering unresolvable differences? And should we even try to test such as statement? Shouldn't we just rejoice together and leave all the rest of the "theologians"? Many think so.
Those who support the ECT accord and other such statements insist that we have a common evangelistic mission, and we must not dishonor the Lord by quibbling over nonessentials. The question that must be asked however, is this: Does not a common evangelistic mission assume a common evangel? If we are to share in preaching the Gospel, shouldn't we first be in agreement on what the Gospel is? And are the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants such that an honest inquirer must conclude that we do not, in fact, believe in the same Gospel?
Yes, like James White there are still Evangelicals who do not wish to be one with Roman Catholicism. So for one to say that Tim Perry represents the Evangelical position... well it's only valid that an objective reader must say that Atty. Llasos is dead wrong.
Let's now answer Atty. Llasos' outrageous arguments :
Point No. 1. Gerry Soliman is quick to blunt the witness of Dr. Tim Perry just because he is “ecumenical.” This is the genetic error fallacy. “To trace an argument to its source and thereby assume that one has either proved or disproved a point is to commit the fallacy of the “genetic error” [William S. Sahakian and Mabel Lewis Sahakian, Realms of Philosophy (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Shenkman Publishing Co., Inc., 1965) p. 31]. Soliman committed this fallacy when he traced an argument to its source of an “ecumenical” author.
If I say, Tim Perry is wrong about Mariology because he is ecumenical, then that's not only a genetic fallacy but also an ad hominem. But I don't make that kind of argument. What is being contested, which Atty. Llasos is doing is best to obscure, is to present Tim Perry (or at least his books) as a valid representative of Evangelicals. He even proudly boasts:
Gerry Soliman is correct in saying that Dr. Perry’s book proves that there are Evangelicals who share my view. This just proves that Mr. Soliman’s views are his alone and I am dealing with him on an individual level.
News flash: I am not alone in my views. Atty. Llasos research is so inadequate:
In 2009, when I had a dialogue with Rodimus on the issue of Mary’s perpetual virginity of Mary, I scouted around for scholarly Marian sources from evangelicals. Since Dr. Tim Perry’s book seemed to be the only one in the market, I ordered a copy of the book from Inter-Varsity Press through Totus Bookstore.
Seemed to be the only one in the market? Whatever happened to the books by Evangelicals which you labeled as "anti-Catholics"?
We already exposed the type of Evangelical that Atty. Llasos find appealing... to his religious views, that is. We will examine the writing of Tim Perry to find out if he is right or wrong.
By they way, I also do not represent all Evangelicals. My articles are open for scrutiny even by fellow non-compromising Evangelicals. I don't claim to be infallible and I am open for correction. I just want to be of help, I don't want to be an authority.
Now if Atty. Llasos would pit me against Tim Perry habitually, I hope he won't mind if others pit him with Catholics for a Choice (CFC). This group may agree for the implementation of the RH Bill in the Philippines. These may not represent all Roman Catholics but nevertheless Atty. Llasos and CFC are both Catholics. However, honesty compels us not to do this because we should be objective. We acknowledge that CFC is in rebellion against the Vatican. [Side note: CFC can be used to challenge Roman Catholic unity.]
Point No. 2. Gerry Soliman is guilty of hypocrisy and double standard. While is charging Catholic apologists for alleged contradiction, yet he has not looked within his own backyard. He can see the speck in the eyes of others but not the mote in his own eyes. This just proves his ineradicable anti-Catholic bias that has already clouded his judgment.
I have looked at my own backyard and Tim Perry wasn't there. He keeps screaming that Tim Perry is an Evangelical without realizing that his kind wants to be one with Atty. Llasos' church. So who is being biased and hyprocrite here?
Point No. 3. We were dealing with an interpretation of Scripture – Revelations 12. When Catholics interpret the woman in Revelation 12 as Mary, Soliman is quick to condemn us that we are wrong in our interpretation. But when a fellow evangelical (and a scholar at that) sees a Marian referent in Revelations 12, Gerry Soliman would not bother to raise even a whimper of protest. Isn’t that double standard?
We have not read their books yet. We don't know for sure the context of it as Atty. Llasos is quoting some of it. Now that we got hold of Tim Perry's book at the very least, we can read it objectively. And since Tim Perry is not in my arguably "biased anti-Catholic heretic" backyard, we can comfortably refute his arguments if we find it in error.
Of course, Atty. Llasos may protest, "I may be quoting from Tim Perry but I don't agree with all of it. Besides, I never said Tim Perry represented all Evangelicals." Well, look how you evaluated the book:
Mary for Evangelicals is scholarly written, balanced and with copious sources and eferences. The book is endorsed by Protestant and evangelical authorities from various denominations.
And look what's your purpose for reading it:
I don’t want to be accused of misrepresenting the evangelical position.
Atty. Llasos simply picked a book without checking where is the author coming from. When Atty. Llasos read the word "Evangelical", he concluded oh, this is the Evangelical position.
At this point some may ask, will Atty. Llasos quote from the book of Tim Perry again? It's possible. He can quote it as much as he likes. In fairness there are indeed points in the Mr. Perry's book which Atty. Llasos may find disagreeable, so Atty. Llasos can be objective at times. But for him to use Tim Perry as a representative of the Evangelical position without realizing that he is Ecumenical, well... it is inconsiderate at the very least. Then again, I'm not surprised. Roman Catholics consider the cults (Mormons, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses) as Protestants because they belong to the so-called 33,000 "Protestant" denominations as recorded World Christian Encyclopedia (in reality it is grossly inflated by Rome's apologists). So I won't be surprised if Atty. Llasos would consider Ecumenical Evangelicals as valid representatives of the entire Evangelical position.
Modesty aside, whenever I would like to know the Roman Catholic position I always quote from their widely acceptable sources like the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Catechisms of the Catholic Church. I also quote from Catholic apologetic websites which I think represent a more accurate Roman Catholic position such as Catholic Answers, Steve Ray, EWTN, and even Fr. Abe Arganiosa's blog. I make sure that I work my way from a tight spot so that there will be no excuses that I misrepresented my opponents.
Atty. Llasos have other rebuttal articles on the woman of Revelations 12. We will address these in the succeeding articles.
Two and a half months after that, Atty. Llasos wrote his comment on my article. He argued that my comment on Tim Perry is hearsay. He further argued that the interview is not the best evidence for my assertions. After a series of article on the woman of Revelations 12, Atty. Llasos made an article about me going against Tim Perry and the World Evangelical Fellowship. Even before Atty. Llasos made the said article, he has been using the book, Mary for Evangelicals, to hammer my arguments down and saying I have been refuted by a fellow Evangelical. His main reason for quoting from the book:
I got hold of Tim Perry’s Mary for Evangelicals because I wanted to know where an evangelical is coming from when it comes to the issue of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I don’t want to be accused of misrepresenting the evangelical position.
I'm an Evangelical, but does the book actually state the Evangelical position? It's very ironic that after I accused Atty. Llasos for treating Mr. Perry as representing the position of all Evangelicals and worse, an authority for all Evangelicals, he retaliated:
Mr. Gerry Soliman is a Certified Public Accountant yet there seems to have a problem in his quantitative analysis. “There are” does not translate to “all,” Mr. Soliman. Moreover, there is really something wrong with his reading comprehension. Since when has “there are” been translated to “all”? Perhaps only Mr. Soliman knows.
In an earlier protest:
If Prof. Perry does not represent all Evangelicals, then who does? Could Mr. Gerry Soliman represent all Evangelicals? He could not. He could only represent himself. Who has ever given him the full authority to speak for and in behalf of all Evangelicals? No one.
How in the world do you reconcile using the book of Tim Perry in avoiding to misrepresent the Evangelical position on Mary with a denial of treating Tim Perry as representing and an authority for all Evangelicals? "Ooh, I bought an Evangelical book so that I won't misrepresent the Evangelical position. But this does not mean I treat its author as a representative of all Evangelicals." It's that how it goes?
In the recent article, Atty. Llasos asserted that I made a veiled accusation that he is taking the works of Mr. Perry and others out of context:
This is a veiled accusation that I took the statement of the WEF out of context. Being intellectually dishonest, Mr. Soliman accuses others of committing his own moral dysfunction. I challenge Mr. Soliman to check the reference and if he could prove that I quoted the statement out of context, I would apologize. I am quick to apologize if I am wrong, accept full responsibility for the error and set it aright. I hope Gerry Soliman does so too. If he finds out for himself that the statement is not taken out of context, he must be the one to apologize.
My response is: I'm sorry... it's not a veiled accusation. That's just a product of your imagination when you read between the lines. I said that it is possible that they were taken out of context, I never said you really did. Why? Because I said I would still have to read their writings.
Nevertheless, Atty. Llasos challenged me to check his Evangelical references. So, enough is enough: I bought Tim Perry's Mary for Evangelicals. I ordered it through Powerbooks and I got it Friday, February 11, 2011.
Let's go back to the intention of Atty. Llasos for buying Mary for Evangelicals:
I got hold of Tim Perry’s Mary for Evangelicals because I wanted to know where an evangelical is coming from when it comes to the issue of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I don’t want to be accused of misrepresenting the evangelical position.
Atty. Llasos even argues:
As I said, reading the woman of Revelation 12 as exclusively the “people of God” is Mr. Soliman’s personal stance borne out, of course, by his own private interpretation of Scripture. But, is Mr. Soliman’s position normative for all Protestants and Evangelicals? I don’t think so. Could Mr. Soliman impose his private interpretation and personal opinion on other Christians? Again, I don’t think so. That would be very arrogant – and impossible.
Now that I have the book, we can play his game. And this time Atty. Llasos has no more excuse to dismiss my assessment because I didn't use a valid source. Let's see if Tim Perry represents the Evangelical position. On page 16:
Having said all that, I recognize that what I have written will not resonate with many in the global evangelical Christian family. My perception of the way things actually rises from and is directed to my North American context. I recognize that brothers and sisters in contexts where Catholics and Protestants are rivals will perceive matters differently. To be blunt: in North America, Mary is not nearly as controversial, polemical and even intimidating as she is in, say, Northern Ireland, Latin America, and some parts of Asia. I hope that, had I written from one of those situations, I would have written substantially the same book; I recognize, however, that I would have said some things (very) differently.
I also acknowledge that I run the risk of being accused of being out of touch with the concerns of evangelical Christians in those kinds of situations. Granting that in at least some cases these accusations will be legitimate, I invite these as yet unknown critics to read, to reflect and to consider whether there is anything applicable in what follows before they dismiss it entirely.
Tim Perry wrote at the way end of his book on page 308:
So the Reformation is neither in actuality nor in my opinion about to end anytime soon. I hope, however, that I have helped to clear away some of its unhelpful polemical baggage (and each side has a truckload) in order that productive conversations may take place-conversations that articulate clearly just where we can and cannot agree, not in order to perpetuate that disagreement, but in order to prayerfully set those disagreement before the one who prayed that we might be one:
O God Most High, who didst endue with wonderful virtue and grace the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of our Lord.
Grant that we, who now call here blessed, may be made very members of the heavenly family of him who was pleased to be called the first-born among many brethren; who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.
There you have it, Tim Perry is aware that there will be Evangelicals who will not agree entirely with his work. Ask yourself this question now: Does he represent the Evangelical position? Yes they represent the Evangelicals... who are ecumenical. Ecumenical Evangelicals are those who seek to be one with Roman Catholicism. They are not like me who has been labeled as a biased anti-Catholic heretic.
Wait, there is more. In the foreword written by Mr. William J. Abraham on page 9:
Over twenty years ago, I was honored to preach at the St. Patrick's Day celebration in the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Seattle. When I went home later in the year to Ireland, my mother asked me what I had been doing lately and I told her about the service. She looked at me in pain and said plaintively, "Billy, you didn't really do that now, did you?" At that moment, I knew I had crossed a line that thousands of evangelicals have crossed in the last generation. We had simply ceased to see Roman Catholicism as the theological enemy. We had entered into a whole new relationship in which neither side could ever be the same again.
Need we quote more? At this point, and with all due respect to Mr. Tim Perry, it has now becomes obvious that Tim Perry barely represents the Evangelical position since not all Evangelicals are ecumenical. If I am Ecumenical, I shouldn't be in apologetics, or at least I shouldn't be refuting Roman Catholicism.
One has to wonder why of all Evangelical authors Atty. Llasos picked, among others, Tim Perry to learn the Evangelical position. Why did he not pick James White, Eric Svendsen, William Webster, Turretinfan, Joe Mizzi or even the former priest whom he is fond of criticizing, Anthony Pezzota, to learn the Evangelical position? Could it be that the works of these men be unfavorable to Atty. Llasos? Well, that's being selective.
These men I mentioned have greater credentials than mine. I'm just a certified public accountant and a certified internal auditor with no professional degree or formal training in theology; also, I cannot hold a candle beside these men. So going back to my question, why didn't Atty. Llasos refer to these men to learn the Evangelical position?
Speaking of being one with Roman Catholicism, author James White in his book The Roman Catholic Controversy, made this statement on page 25:
"All who accept Christ as Lord and Savior are brothers and sisters in Christ." So says the widely read and distributed accord Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT). Many Christian leaders accept this statement as true. Yet, leaders on both sides question the ease which such a statement is made. What does it mean? How far can we probe such a statement before encountering unresolvable differences? And should we even try to test such as statement? Shouldn't we just rejoice together and leave all the rest of the "theologians"? Many think so.
Those who support the ECT accord and other such statements insist that we have a common evangelistic mission, and we must not dishonor the Lord by quibbling over nonessentials. The question that must be asked however, is this: Does not a common evangelistic mission assume a common evangel? If we are to share in preaching the Gospel, shouldn't we first be in agreement on what the Gospel is? And are the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants such that an honest inquirer must conclude that we do not, in fact, believe in the same Gospel?
Yes, like James White there are still Evangelicals who do not wish to be one with Roman Catholicism. So for one to say that Tim Perry represents the Evangelical position... well it's only valid that an objective reader must say that Atty. Llasos is dead wrong.
Let's now answer Atty. Llasos' outrageous arguments :
Point No. 1. Gerry Soliman is quick to blunt the witness of Dr. Tim Perry just because he is “ecumenical.” This is the genetic error fallacy. “To trace an argument to its source and thereby assume that one has either proved or disproved a point is to commit the fallacy of the “genetic error” [William S. Sahakian and Mabel Lewis Sahakian, Realms of Philosophy (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Shenkman Publishing Co., Inc., 1965) p. 31]. Soliman committed this fallacy when he traced an argument to its source of an “ecumenical” author.
If I say, Tim Perry is wrong about Mariology because he is ecumenical, then that's not only a genetic fallacy but also an ad hominem. But I don't make that kind of argument. What is being contested, which Atty. Llasos is doing is best to obscure, is to present Tim Perry (or at least his books) as a valid representative of Evangelicals. He even proudly boasts:
Gerry Soliman is correct in saying that Dr. Perry’s book proves that there are Evangelicals who share my view. This just proves that Mr. Soliman’s views are his alone and I am dealing with him on an individual level.
News flash: I am not alone in my views. Atty. Llasos research is so inadequate:
In 2009, when I had a dialogue with Rodimus on the issue of Mary’s perpetual virginity of Mary, I scouted around for scholarly Marian sources from evangelicals. Since Dr. Tim Perry’s book seemed to be the only one in the market, I ordered a copy of the book from Inter-Varsity Press through Totus Bookstore.
Seemed to be the only one in the market? Whatever happened to the books by Evangelicals which you labeled as "anti-Catholics"?
We already exposed the type of Evangelical that Atty. Llasos find appealing... to his religious views, that is. We will examine the writing of Tim Perry to find out if he is right or wrong.
By they way, I also do not represent all Evangelicals. My articles are open for scrutiny even by fellow non-compromising Evangelicals. I don't claim to be infallible and I am open for correction. I just want to be of help, I don't want to be an authority.
Now if Atty. Llasos would pit me against Tim Perry habitually, I hope he won't mind if others pit him with Catholics for a Choice (CFC). This group may agree for the implementation of the RH Bill in the Philippines. These may not represent all Roman Catholics but nevertheless Atty. Llasos and CFC are both Catholics. However, honesty compels us not to do this because we should be objective. We acknowledge that CFC is in rebellion against the Vatican. [Side note: CFC can be used to challenge Roman Catholic unity.]
Point No. 2. Gerry Soliman is guilty of hypocrisy and double standard. While is charging Catholic apologists for alleged contradiction, yet he has not looked within his own backyard. He can see the speck in the eyes of others but not the mote in his own eyes. This just proves his ineradicable anti-Catholic bias that has already clouded his judgment.
I have looked at my own backyard and Tim Perry wasn't there. He keeps screaming that Tim Perry is an Evangelical without realizing that his kind wants to be one with Atty. Llasos' church. So who is being biased and hyprocrite here?
Point No. 3. We were dealing with an interpretation of Scripture – Revelations 12. When Catholics interpret the woman in Revelation 12 as Mary, Soliman is quick to condemn us that we are wrong in our interpretation. But when a fellow evangelical (and a scholar at that) sees a Marian referent in Revelations 12, Gerry Soliman would not bother to raise even a whimper of protest. Isn’t that double standard?
We have not read their books yet. We don't know for sure the context of it as Atty. Llasos is quoting some of it. Now that we got hold of Tim Perry's book at the very least, we can read it objectively. And since Tim Perry is not in my arguably "biased anti-Catholic heretic" backyard, we can comfortably refute his arguments if we find it in error.
Of course, Atty. Llasos may protest, "I may be quoting from Tim Perry but I don't agree with all of it. Besides, I never said Tim Perry represented all Evangelicals." Well, look how you evaluated the book:
Mary for Evangelicals is scholarly written, balanced and with copious sources and eferences. The book is endorsed by Protestant and evangelical authorities from various denominations.
And look what's your purpose for reading it:
I don’t want to be accused of misrepresenting the evangelical position.
Atty. Llasos simply picked a book without checking where is the author coming from. When Atty. Llasos read the word "Evangelical", he concluded oh, this is the Evangelical position.
At this point some may ask, will Atty. Llasos quote from the book of Tim Perry again? It's possible. He can quote it as much as he likes. In fairness there are indeed points in the Mr. Perry's book which Atty. Llasos may find disagreeable, so Atty. Llasos can be objective at times. But for him to use Tim Perry as a representative of the Evangelical position without realizing that he is Ecumenical, well... it is inconsiderate at the very least. Then again, I'm not surprised. Roman Catholics consider the cults (Mormons, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses) as Protestants because they belong to the so-called 33,000 "Protestant" denominations as recorded World Christian Encyclopedia (in reality it is grossly inflated by Rome's apologists). So I won't be surprised if Atty. Llasos would consider Ecumenical Evangelicals as valid representatives of the entire Evangelical position.
Modesty aside, whenever I would like to know the Roman Catholic position I always quote from their widely acceptable sources like the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Catechisms of the Catholic Church. I also quote from Catholic apologetic websites which I think represent a more accurate Roman Catholic position such as Catholic Answers, Steve Ray, EWTN, and even Fr. Abe Arganiosa's blog. I make sure that I work my way from a tight spot so that there will be no excuses that I misrepresented my opponents.
Atty. Llasos have other rebuttal articles on the woman of Revelations 12. We will address these in the succeeding articles.
0 comments:
Post a Comment