Sigh! Read here. It's one thing to just simply answer an allegation, it's another thing to do a personal attack while you're at it. That seems prominent to Atty. Llasos blog. He even got pictures from my Facebook account. If I was a girl, I would really be flattered that there is a man looking at my profile. But I am not a girl...
His recent article is a response to my article here. Before we proceed to answer the main issue, let's get rid of some immature statements Atty. Llasos thrown at me:
Mr. Gerry Soliman called me “a Marian dogma defender.” I thank him for honoring me thus. However, I wish to point out something. In my article that Mr. Soliman quoted, I was explaining Mary’s title of “Mediatrix” – and as all Catholics know, Mediatrix is not a dogma of the Catholic Church! So here it is clear that Mr. Gerry Soliman’s knowledge of Catholic teaching on Mary is almost totally bereft and his research is once again proven to be nil. This, again, goes into the credibility and competence of Mr. Soliman as a critic of Catholic Mariology.
We are tempted to ask Atty. Llasos, where in my article did I say Mary as Mediatrix is a dogma? I have other articles on Mary as Mediatrix which you can look, and none of them has me stating it is a dogma. I simply introduced Atty. Llasos as a Marian dogma defender. If this is Atty. Llasos' attempt to smear me, I'd say the act is childish. By the way, you're welcome.
So moving on. To simplify his rebuttal, Atty. Llasos defends Fr. Abe Arganiosa with his use of the term "only Mediator" by stating that I got the quote from a discussion on Pontifex Maximus:
First, Fr. Arganiosa’s article is about the Papacy, specifically with St. Peter being the First Pope. In the quote yanked by Mr. Soliman from Fr. Arganiosa’s article, Fr. Arganiosa is responding to the accusation of blasphemy for the Pope to use the title “Pontifex Maximus” because according to the accuser “Pontifex Maximus” is “a name of blasphemy for a man to take, and Peter never saw himself as such. Jesus Christ is the only Bridge Maker between earth and heaven. John 1:51.”
Furthermore:
What Mr. Soliman is hiding from his readers is the fact that I said:
“Obviously, Peter did not accept the title "Pontifex Maximus" because it was then used by the Roman Emperors at that time. It was only accepted by the Bishops of Rome after Constantine parted with it, thereby acknowledging the authority of the Bishop of Rome as Vicar of Christ, the Mediator between God and Man (1 Tim. 2:5). The acceptance of this title by the Pope was symbolic of the victory and triumph of Christianity over the pagan Roman Empire.”
Note that Fr. Arganiosa’s statement that “Jesus is the only Mediator between God and Man” is a direct reference from 1 Timothy 2:5, which is also the same Bible verse I quoted. It is plain deception for Mr. Soliman for not having pointed that out. Clearly, Mr. Soliman’s purpose is not to arrive at the truth, rather to deceive and mislead many by his gross misrepresentation.
Atty. Llasos even wrote an article about it and claimed that they are in agreement. Yes, so it seems that they are in agreement... to obscure the facts. Okay, so I got it from a discussion on Pontifex Maximus. But, is this the only instance where Father Abe used the term "only Mediator"?
The Catholic Church accepts the teaching that Christ is the only Mediator between God and men. But, it doesn't mean that human persons including the true ministers of God or prophets of God, as Nathan did to David in 2 Samuel 12:13-14, have no power from God to forgive sins.
I just don't know if those are Fr. Abe's own words but it is nevertheless posted in his blog. So at least he agrees with it. Here is another:
The Catholics also believe that Jesus is the only Mediator between God and Man. We believe and practice that. But, it is nowhere stated in that passage that: "Since Jesus is the only Mediator between God and Man, therefore don't communicate with every body else, particularly angels." That is absurd. Mr. Chua is imposing his own personally invented prohibition which is not stated in the Bible.
Got to hand it to Fr. Abe, he is consistent here. At this point some may protest, "Yes, Fr. Abe did say only Mediator but that doesn't mean he denies that there are other intercessors." I can see that, but did I make a statement that Fr. Abe denies it? At the start of my article I said:
We all know that Roman Catholics consider as Mary as Mediatrix and that in no way this title is in conflict with the one mediatorship of Christ in 1st Timothy 2:5.
Therefore, I didn't. Let's answer the allegations of Atty. Llasos:
Now, the question is: Did I deny that Christ is the “one” or only Mediator between God and Man according to 1 Timothy 2:5? I challenge Mr. Soliman to come out with a single shred of proof that I am denying Our Lord Jesus Christ as the “one” Mediator between God and Man (1 Tim. 2:5). Did I ever say or believe that Jesus is not the one Mediator between God and Man? I wish Mr. Gerry Soliman could present proof on that.
Whoa there! Did I say you denied Christ as the "one" mediator between God and Man? I even posted your "exegesis" on the word "one" of 1st Timothy 2:5 so how would I make such an outrageous allegation? What you're not denying is the admition of other participation on His mediation. However, your article denied a possibility of interpreting "one" as "only" for 1st Timothy 2:5. Therefore, from your end it cannot mean that Christ is the "only" mediator between God and men. Here is what you said:
We already explained that the Greek word used for “one” in the passage does not mean exclusivity but admits of participation.
Yet Fr. Abe is using the the term "only Mediator" (while at the same time admits other participatory intercessors). And oh, did Atty. Llasos claim that he is not denying that Christ is the "only" mediator between God and men? Well see for yourself when he responded to Anthony Pezzota's article:
Dr. Anthony Pezzotta makes the following diagram in p. 143 of his book.:
God
↑
Jesus, the only mediator
↑
Sinners
Pezzotta argues that “[w]herever you insert Mary in the diagram above, whether between sinners, or alongside of Jesus, she becomes a mediator between man and God” (TE, p. 143).
Readers of Truth Encounter should know that Pezzotta’s diagram is unbiblical.
Although not exactly direct, here is another instance where you denied Christ as the "only" mediator. When Anthony Pezzota stated that Christ alone is our advocate and used 1st Timothy 2:5, you said:
I totally agree and proclaim that Jesus is our Advocate to the Father as the Bible categorically teaches. It is beyond dispute that Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior, is the Advocate of our salvation.
However, I have a problem with Pezzotta’s position that Jesus alone is our advocate. What then happened to the Holy Spirit? Isn’t He another Advocate sent by Our Lord Jesus Christ?
I guess Atty. Llasos better check on how he uses the term "only". He claims he does not deny that Christ is the only Mediator but didn't Atty. Llasos just said one does not mean exclusive?
Some will say, "What's the difference? Fr. Abe and Atty. Llasos are not opposed to admitting other intercessors to participate in Christ's one mediation." Well, here is a question that Atty. Llasos should answer:
Do you believe that Christ is the "only" mediator between God and man?
We cited that Fr. Abe's believes so, let's see if Atty. Llasos does too after all that exegesis of the word heis or "one" in 1st Timothy 2:5.
His recent article is a response to my article here. Before we proceed to answer the main issue, let's get rid of some immature statements Atty. Llasos thrown at me:
Mr. Gerry Soliman called me “a Marian dogma defender.” I thank him for honoring me thus. However, I wish to point out something. In my article that Mr. Soliman quoted, I was explaining Mary’s title of “Mediatrix” – and as all Catholics know, Mediatrix is not a dogma of the Catholic Church! So here it is clear that Mr. Gerry Soliman’s knowledge of Catholic teaching on Mary is almost totally bereft and his research is once again proven to be nil. This, again, goes into the credibility and competence of Mr. Soliman as a critic of Catholic Mariology.
We are tempted to ask Atty. Llasos, where in my article did I say Mary as Mediatrix is a dogma? I have other articles on Mary as Mediatrix which you can look, and none of them has me stating it is a dogma. I simply introduced Atty. Llasos as a Marian dogma defender. If this is Atty. Llasos' attempt to smear me, I'd say the act is childish. By the way, you're welcome.
So moving on. To simplify his rebuttal, Atty. Llasos defends Fr. Abe Arganiosa with his use of the term "only Mediator" by stating that I got the quote from a discussion on Pontifex Maximus:
First, Fr. Arganiosa’s article is about the Papacy, specifically with St. Peter being the First Pope. In the quote yanked by Mr. Soliman from Fr. Arganiosa’s article, Fr. Arganiosa is responding to the accusation of blasphemy for the Pope to use the title “Pontifex Maximus” because according to the accuser “Pontifex Maximus” is “a name of blasphemy for a man to take, and Peter never saw himself as such. Jesus Christ is the only Bridge Maker between earth and heaven. John 1:51.”
Furthermore:
What Mr. Soliman is hiding from his readers is the fact that I said:
“Obviously, Peter did not accept the title "Pontifex Maximus" because it was then used by the Roman Emperors at that time. It was only accepted by the Bishops of Rome after Constantine parted with it, thereby acknowledging the authority of the Bishop of Rome as Vicar of Christ, the Mediator between God and Man (1 Tim. 2:5). The acceptance of this title by the Pope was symbolic of the victory and triumph of Christianity over the pagan Roman Empire.”
Note that Fr. Arganiosa’s statement that “Jesus is the only Mediator between God and Man” is a direct reference from 1 Timothy 2:5, which is also the same Bible verse I quoted. It is plain deception for Mr. Soliman for not having pointed that out. Clearly, Mr. Soliman’s purpose is not to arrive at the truth, rather to deceive and mislead many by his gross misrepresentation.
Atty. Llasos even wrote an article about it and claimed that they are in agreement. Yes, so it seems that they are in agreement... to obscure the facts. Okay, so I got it from a discussion on Pontifex Maximus. But, is this the only instance where Father Abe used the term "only Mediator"?
The Catholic Church accepts the teaching that Christ is the only Mediator between God and men. But, it doesn't mean that human persons including the true ministers of God or prophets of God, as Nathan did to David in 2 Samuel 12:13-14, have no power from God to forgive sins.
I just don't know if those are Fr. Abe's own words but it is nevertheless posted in his blog. So at least he agrees with it. Here is another:
The Catholics also believe that Jesus is the only Mediator between God and Man. We believe and practice that. But, it is nowhere stated in that passage that: "Since Jesus is the only Mediator between God and Man, therefore don't communicate with every body else, particularly angels." That is absurd. Mr. Chua is imposing his own personally invented prohibition which is not stated in the Bible.
Got to hand it to Fr. Abe, he is consistent here. At this point some may protest, "Yes, Fr. Abe did say only Mediator but that doesn't mean he denies that there are other intercessors." I can see that, but did I make a statement that Fr. Abe denies it? At the start of my article I said:
We all know that Roman Catholics consider as Mary as Mediatrix and that in no way this title is in conflict with the one mediatorship of Christ in 1st Timothy 2:5.
Therefore, I didn't. Let's answer the allegations of Atty. Llasos:
Now, the question is: Did I deny that Christ is the “one” or only Mediator between God and Man according to 1 Timothy 2:5? I challenge Mr. Soliman to come out with a single shred of proof that I am denying Our Lord Jesus Christ as the “one” Mediator between God and Man (1 Tim. 2:5). Did I ever say or believe that Jesus is not the one Mediator between God and Man? I wish Mr. Gerry Soliman could present proof on that.
Whoa there! Did I say you denied Christ as the "one" mediator between God and Man? I even posted your "exegesis" on the word "one" of 1st Timothy 2:5 so how would I make such an outrageous allegation? What you're not denying is the admition of other participation on His mediation. However, your article denied a possibility of interpreting "one" as "only" for 1st Timothy 2:5. Therefore, from your end it cannot mean that Christ is the "only" mediator between God and men. Here is what you said:
We already explained that the Greek word used for “one” in the passage does not mean exclusivity but admits of participation.
Yet Fr. Abe is using the the term "only Mediator" (while at the same time admits other participatory intercessors). And oh, did Atty. Llasos claim that he is not denying that Christ is the "only" mediator between God and men? Well see for yourself when he responded to Anthony Pezzota's article:
Dr. Anthony Pezzotta makes the following diagram in p. 143 of his book.:
God
↑
Jesus, the only mediator
↑
Sinners
Pezzotta argues that “[w]herever you insert Mary in the diagram above, whether between sinners, or alongside of Jesus, she becomes a mediator between man and God” (TE, p. 143).
Readers of Truth Encounter should know that Pezzotta’s diagram is unbiblical.
Although not exactly direct, here is another instance where you denied Christ as the "only" mediator. When Anthony Pezzota stated that Christ alone is our advocate and used 1st Timothy 2:5, you said:
I totally agree and proclaim that Jesus is our Advocate to the Father as the Bible categorically teaches. It is beyond dispute that Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior, is the Advocate of our salvation.
However, I have a problem with Pezzotta’s position that Jesus alone is our advocate. What then happened to the Holy Spirit? Isn’t He another Advocate sent by Our Lord Jesus Christ?
I guess Atty. Llasos better check on how he uses the term "only". He claims he does not deny that Christ is the only Mediator but didn't Atty. Llasos just said one does not mean exclusive?
Some will say, "What's the difference? Fr. Abe and Atty. Llasos are not opposed to admitting other intercessors to participate in Christ's one mediation." Well, here is a question that Atty. Llasos should answer:
Do you believe that Christ is the "only" mediator between God and man?
We cited that Fr. Abe's believes so, let's see if Atty. Llasos does too after all that exegesis of the word heis or "one" in 1st Timothy 2:5.
0 comments:
Post a Comment