Solutions Finder Apologetics

Does Joshua 7:6-7 justify the Use of Images in Worship?

2012-01-23T17:43:00.006+08:00

Joshua, together with the elders of Israel, tore their garments and fell face down before the ark of the LORD until evening; and they threw dust on their heads. “Alas, Lord GOD,” Joshua prayed, “why did you ever allow this people to cross over the Jordan, delivering us into the power of the Amorites, that they might destroy us? Would that we had been content to dwell on the other side of the Jordan. (New American Bible, NAB)

The Ark of the Covenant has two images of angels (Exodus 25:18-21). Modern Roman Catholic apologists argue that since Joshua bowed before the ark which has the said images of angels, their practice of using images to "venerate" God and the saints is justifiable. After all, it is claimed that Roman Catholics are not praying to the images but rather to the one being represented by the images. Surely, Joshua wasn't praying to the images of angels for he was praying to God. But since there appears to be a similarity between what Joshua did and the practice of Roman Catholics, it is further argued that Roman Catholics are doing God's will.

Does the act of Joshua of bowing before the image in the Ark of Covenant really similar to Roman Catholics bowing before their images of Christ, Mary, and the saints? Not in a million years. Only the careless and gullible would believe that.

Let's read the reason why God ordered the Israelites to make the ark:

They are to make a sanctuary for me, that I may dwell in their midst. Exodus 25:8 NAB

There I will meet you and there, from above the cover, between the two cherubim on the ark of the covenant, I will tell you all that I command you regarding the Israelites. Exodus 25:22 NAB

It is very clear that God's presence would be in the ark and it is the designated place that he will meet Moses. Why does the ark has images of angels? Could it be because the ark is some sort of a replica of God's throne in Heaven?

In the year King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne, with the train of his garment filling the temple. Seraphim were stationed above; each of them had six wings: with two they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they hovered. Isaiah 6:1-2 NAB

What else does the ark serve?

King David rose to his feet and said: “Hear me, my kinsmen and my people. It was my purpose to build a house of repose myself for the ark of the covenant of the LORD, the footstool for the feet of our God; and I was preparing to build it. 1st Chronicles 28:2 NAB

Unlike the ark, the images used in Roman Catholic "veneration" represent saints (so they say, but in reality it is idolatry). The distinction between the ark and the Roman Catholic images are miles apart.

In the book of John, chapter 4 Christ was talking to the woman at the well:

Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain; but you people say that the place to worship is in Jerusalem.” Jesus said to her, “Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You people worship what you do not understand; we worship what we understand, because salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth; and indeed the Father seeks such people to worship him. God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth.” John 4:20-24 NAB

It is so clear that no images are necessary for the worship of God because God is omnipresent. People can worship him without the use of images, including those in the ark.

Acts 9:31 - Catholic Church?

2012-01-18T13:21:00.007+08:00

Fr. Abraham Arganiosa (Fr. Abe) of the Splendor of the Church blog argued that the words "Catholic Church" is found in the Bible:

ANG CATHOLIC CHURCH AY MAKIKITA HINDI SA TAGALOG BIBLE KUNDI SA GREEK BIBLE. BASAHIN MO ANG ACTS 9:31 IN GREEK DUON NAKASULAT ANG "EKKLESIA KATH'OLES".
[Translation: The Catholic Church can be found not in the Tagalog Bible but in the Greek Bible. Read Acts 9:31 in Greek, there you will find "Ekklesia Kath'oles]

We know that argument such as these are in the form of bragging rights of some religions asserting that the name of their church can be found in the Bible. You may have heard how the names "Iglesia ni Cristo", "Ang Dating Daan", and "Church of God", are quoted by their respective members to boast that they are the true church because their names are arguably biblical. For the above instance, the name Catholic Church is asserted to be found in the Greek rendition of Acts 9:31 in some sort of a derivation from "Ekklesia Kath'oles".

In fairness to Fr. Abe, the words Ekklesia Kath'oles do appear together in Acts 9:31:

However when one reads it, especially translating it to English, you will not be able to interpret it as Catholic Church. Let's see how does a Catholic version of the Bible renders it:

Now the church had peace throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria; and was edified, walking in the fear of the Lord, and was filled with the consolation of the Holy Ghost. (Douay Rheims)

What was throughout all (kath holEs) Judea, etc. is peace. This peace was being experienced by the church (ecclesia). It does not read as "the Catholic Church had peace throughout all Judea..." because there is only one kath holEs in the verse.

Fr. Abe is misleading his readers here due to what is seemingly convenient positioning of Greek words. Probably he has forgotten about analyzing the words within their context.

Yes, we also believe that the church can be called Catholic Church for it welcomes people from all nations, races, age, gender, and status; therefore, it is a universal church. The title is not its official name but it nevertheless describes the church. However, this is not to mean that the Catholic Church we are speaking of is the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today.

Postscript:

It came to my attention that there are versions of the Bible which translate Acts 9:31 as, "the church throughout (ecclessia katholes) all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace..." The thought of the context still remains even if it were to be translated this way: Throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, the church enjoyed peace...

Isahel Alfonso versus Marwil Llasos on the Immaculate Conception

2012-01-03T17:11:00.010+08:00

Mr. Isahel Alfonso of Catholic Faith Defenders continues his attempt to refute the book written by Pastor Jun Ballesteros titled, Important Questions and Answers. This time his article tackles the response of Pastor Ballesteros concerning the alleged sinlessness of Mary, aka Immaculate Conception.

Now before we proceed to show how Isahel contradicted the position of Atty. Marwil Llasos (a defender of Marian doctrines), we must first respond to the former's so-called rebuttal on the writing of Pastor Ballesteros for the sake of those who want to learn how to deal with the opposing arguments.

I am not yet done in exposing Pastor Ballesteros' false accusations against the Catholic Church as written in his book Important Questions and Answers.

Really? Sigh. That means more work for me.

This time we'll tackle his opposition to the dogma of Immaculate Conception. Upon reading his book Pastor Ballesteros did not provide any explanation for his opposition to this God given truth. He chose to simply cite two biblical passages that he thinks contradict the dogma of Immaculate Conception. What Pastor Ballesteros trying to do is to leave the interpretation of these passages to his readers. But that is a big NO NO in knowing the meaning or interpretation of a given passage, the scriptures condemns private interpretation.

Looking at the Tagalog version of the book, there is a very brief explanation for the two biblical passages cited. In fact the wordings of the cited verses were not written at all, just the explanations.

Know this well no prophecy of Scripture can be handed over to private interpretation, since no prophecy comes from human decision for it was men moved by the Holy Spirit who spoke. 2 Peter 1:20-21

Since the Sacred Scripture was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit therefore it must also be interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

2nd Peter 1:20-21 simply means the Scriptures originated from God and not from men. There is no prohibition of using private interpretation in reading the Scripture. Your mind processes whatever information is given to you whether orally or in writing. This is private on every individual. What Isahel is using here is some faulty, non-sequitir logic.

And this is the task of the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church alone is the infallible interpreter of the Sacred Scripture (Mt.16:18-19, 1 Timothy 3:15). But Pastor Ballesteros violated this fundamental principle of Scriptural interpretation he wanted his readers to simply interpret on their own the passages he cited that appears to contradict the dogma of Immaculate Conception.

The irony here is that Isahel quotes Scripture to prove his point. If one cannot exercise private interpretation of the Bible then how do you expect someone to browse over the Bible to confirm his biblical references?

Of course for Isahel, the infallible church is the Church of Rome. It makes me wonder how he managed to decide that Rome was the infallible church over the other churches without using private interpretation of the Bible. Maybe he just accepted what was fed to him without questioning.

The first Scriptural passage that Pastor Ballesteros cited is Like 1:46-48 which says;

And Mary said, "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit exults God my savior! Lk.1:46-47

Although Pastor Ballesteros did not provide any argument using the passage but basing on experience most Protestants would argue that since Mary admitted that she needs a savior therefore Mary is not Immaculate as what Catholics believed but she too is a sinner like us. With this kind of reasoning protestants are missing the point of this passage. Notice that Mary claimed Christ as her savior even before Christ died on the cross.

What? Mary claimed Christ as her savior in Luke 1:46-47? She was referring to God the Father, duh!

Mary was redeemed in a most perfect and special way she was preserved free from all stain of sin.

Which of course the text doesn't warrant no matter what direction you read it.

Another passage that Pastor Ballesteros cited is Rom.3:23

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Rom.3:23

There are two interesting points that I can see in this passage. Consulting the Greek text the word that was used for "all" is "pantes" which describes a large number of people however it allows exemptions from "all" and that would be Jesus Christ and Mary. If St. Paul meant that each and every person without exemptions he could have use a more strict and restrictive Greek word which is "hapas". But that is not the case St. Paul is trying to say that sin is universal, but universality of sin does not mean everyone has sinned, we have Jesus and Mary who have not commit any sin. Just as we say that the Catholic Church is universal but not everyone is Catholic.

Sure there are exception to the rules. Yes, take advantage of that to justify that Mary is sinless. While you're at it, try to find out who else are sinless. Please, don't stop at Mary because it would be obvious that you're biased. And when you identify the other sinless humans, award the immaculate conception for them.

Now we turn our focus to the phrase fall short of the glory of God the Scriptures testified that there are only two people who falls not short of God's glory and that is Jesus and Mary. In John 1:14 it says The Word was made flesh he lived among us and we saw his glory, the glory that is his as the only Son of the Father full of grace and truth. Co-relatively Mary too was called full of grace, Luke 1:28 The angel came to her and said, Rejoice!, full of grace the Lord is with you". Very clearly the passages that Pastor Ballesteros used did not contradict the Marian dogma of Immaculate Conception rather it brings to light the biblical soundness of this dogma.

Isahel makes use the phrase "full of grace" to justify the immaculate conception of Mary. Unfortunately, the phrase "full of grace" in John 1:14 is pleres charis while Luke 1:28 is kecharitomene. While kecharitomene is in the perfect passive participle, it doesn't tell us when the object (Mary) possessed that attribute and how long the attribute will last. So granting that Mary is indeed full of grace, it is not necessarily permanent from her conception. Modern translations like the New American Bible translates kecharitomene as highly favored.

By the way, in Acts 6:8 of the Douay Rheims version, Stephen was full of grace. So was Stephen immaculately conceived?

THE MAIN EVENT

In the subject of the immaculate concpetion, Atty. Marwil Llasos made this response to the book titled The Truth Encounter by Dr. Anthony Pezzotta, who is a former Roman Catholic priest:

Dr. Anthony Pezzotta accuses the Catholic Church of trying “to prove that Mary was conceived without sin by saying that only someone who was sinless could have given birth to a sinless one.” Once again, Pezzotta does not give evidence or proof for such claim. In vain will readers of Truth Encounter look for its author’s references and sources for the above statement. This blunder is typical of Dr. Pezzotta’s level of scholarship (if any).

I challenge Dr. Pezzotta, a scholar and expert on Catholicism, to point to official Catholic documents that say precisely that “Mary was conceived without sin because only someone who was sinless could have given birth to a sinless one.” Here we see that Pezzotta is passing off as an official argument of the Catholic Church something that is not. Such is the fallacy of assumption non probata (assuming without proving).

For Atty. Llasos, it is not a Roman Catholic teaching that Mary had to be sinless for Christ to be sinless. He challenged Dr. Pezzotta to show evidence of this allegation.

Well, let's take a look how Mr. Isahel Alfonso, a worthy ally and comrade of Atty. Llasos, has to say about it:

Granting that Mary is with sin how can Christ offer an unblemished sacrifice of flesh and blood on the cross if the very flesh and very blood of Christ came from a defiled person? Thus God must have preserved Mary from all stain of original sin for her to give Christ a pure and unblemished flesh and blood to be sacrificed on the cross and redeem mankind.

Isahel's argument is similar to the one being asserted by Dr. Pezzotta. Now, will Isahel take Atty. Llasos' challenge to show official documents using this reasoning? Gentlemen, let's get it on!

By the way, Isahel is not the only one who contradicted Atty. Llasos. Click here to find out another comrade of Atty. Llasos who gave a similar argument.

The problem with defending an unbiblical doctrine is that you can't have a consistent method applied due to personal biases.

John 20:28 - OMG!

2012-01-02T11:24:00.004+08:00

and Thomas answered and said unto him, “My Lord and my God!”- John 20:28

Greek transliteration:

kai apekrithe ho thomas kai eipen auto ho kurios ho kai ho theos mou
and answered the Thomas and said to-Him the Lord of me and the God of me

One of the most irrefutable evidences in proving Jesus Christ is God in found in John 20:28 where Thomas acknowledged Jesus as his Lord and God. In the context of John 20:24-29, Thomas refused to believe the testimony of the other apostles that Jesus had risen from the dead; Thomas demanded proof. Jesus then appeared and asked Thomas to see His hands and touch His sides. Thomas finally believed and he recognized the very Jesus who is his Lord and God.

Of course those who deny the deity of Christ have a way of going around this verse. Here are the frequently used objections and our rebuttal:

1. Thomas was just surprised to see Christ alive. His statement was like saying, "Oh my God!"

This is the most common objection. There is no Jewish expression of astonishment in that time similar to "Oh my God" as uttered by English-speaking nations. In fact, the objection has no merit since the original Greek is structured as, the Lord of me and the God of me.

Second, Jesus would have rebuked Thomas right there and then if it were not true that He is God. He would also rebuke him for using the name of God in vain.

Lastly, detractors of Christ's deity capitalize on certain Bible version that renders, "Thomas exclaimed". However, such versions are mistranslated as the verbs used there are apekrithe (answered) and eipen (said) which are hardly an expression of astonishment.

2. Thomas was addressing Christ on the "Lord" part while the Father is for the "God" part.

This is wishful thinking. The verse says "unto Him" and not "unto them". The context is clear that Thomas was doubting the resurrection of Christ. Thomas and the other apostles were obviously not talking to the Father at that time. There's no way for them to see the Father. So there is really no merit for the above objection.

3. John stated in 20:31 that his book was written so that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God. There is no mention that we would believe Jesus is God, so John 20:28 cannot support Christ's deity.

This objection is also problematic to the detractors of Christ's deity as John 20:31 also does not mention that we may believe Jesus is Lord. John 20:31 is only presenting two titles of Jesus that we must believe without necessarily denying both His deity and lordship.

4. It has to be an expression of astonishment because Thomas is in error here. Jesus already said that the Father is the only true God (John 17:3) and He even called the Father as His God (John 20:17).

For this objection to be valid, the interpretation of John 17:3 and John 20:17, which allegedly imply Jesus is not God, should be correct beyond doubt. Obviously, the objection is dependent on the correctness of the said interpretations and therefore begging the question.

In John 17:3, Jesus was indeed declaring that the Father is the only true God. But this verse is not saying Jesus is not God. In Mark 10:18, Jesus declared that God alone is good but it doesn't necessarily follow that Jesus is not good. Likewise for John 17:3.

John 20:17 isn't a problem for the proponents of Christ's deity because a difference in position does not mean inferiority in nature. It is true that Jesus was subjected to the Father thereby requiring Jesus to acknowledge the Father as His God. It's ironic that the voluntary submission of Christ to the Father would be used against His deity. Jesus could have rebuked, "No Thomas, I am not God." But He never did.

Conclusion

Those who attempt to go around John 20:28 to deny Jesus is God are just acting on their own biases. They do not allow the verse to speak for itself. As we have said before, if Thomas was really mistaken then there should have been a rebuke.

Isahel Alfonso slips on the word Vessel

2011-12-02T14:04:00.005+08:00

It's been a while since we wrote a comment on the articles written in the blog Catholic Eternal Truth by Mr. Isahel Alfonso. Mr. Alfonso has recently wrote three installments on an attempt to refute the book titled, Important Questions and Answers which is written by an Evangelical Pastor named, Jun A. Ballesteros. I have the said book but it is the Tagalog version.

For each of the three articles Mr. Alfonso has written so far, he places the title "Evangelical Pastor’s Lies and Deceptions". It's a very catchy title. However, enough is enough. In his third installment, Mr. Alfonso has written something quite awful (or funny depending on how you go about it) that we just simply can't say no to write a rebuttal.

The issue which Mr. Alfonso wages war against the book of Pastor Ballesteros is about calling Mary a vessel. Mr. Alfonso cited the Merriam-Webster dictionary on the definition of the word vessel (a container for holding something) where he reinforced his complaint:

Therefore for Pastor Ballesteros Mary is just a container for holding Jesus Christ for 9 months and worst of all he made it appear that as if God is the one who made Mary a mere vessel for Christ but in fact it was him who made Mary a mere vessel. Nowhere in Scripture ever stated implicitly nor explicitly that Mary is a vessel for Christ.

Mr. Alfonso cited Hebrews 2:14 to prove that Mary is not a vessel for Christ:

Basing on the facts of this passage Mary is not a vessel because Mary is the one who gave Christ is very own flesh and blood! A vessel does not share its nature with the thing that it holds, like a jar it does not share its nature with the water that it holds. But Mary gave Christ his flesh and blood, the very flesh and blood that he sacrificed on the cross to save us. Not just an ordinary sacrifice but a perfect and unblemished sacrifice (Heb.9:14). Another anti-Mary bushing of Pastor Ballesteros is by reducing Mary as a mere decoration in the history of Christianity.

Some of you may already have concluded that Mr. Alfonso here commits the fallacy of equivocation, not to mention adding malice to how Pastor Ballesteros used the word vessel in his book. The section of the said book, Pastor Ballesteros no where intended for degrade Mary the mother of Jesus Christ. Mr. Alfonso simply is overreacting here.

While there is nothing wrong with referring to the dictionary, we wish that Mr. Alfonso had considered that the same Merriam Webster which he quoted from also gave this definition:

1b: a person into whom some quality (as grace) is infused vessel of the Lord — H. J. Laski

Mr. Alfsonso did not use that definition. Why did Mr. Alfonso just concentrated on the definition 1a? Simple, his goal is obviously not just to refute the book but to detract Pastor Ballesteros himself. In addition, the Tagalog version of Important Questions and Answers, Pastor Ballesteros used the word "kasangkapan" (page 24). This already blows in the face of Mr. Alfonso because he maliciously presented that Pastor Ballesteros intended a meaning of "container" (or lalagyanan in Tagalog) for the word vessel. But in reality, after reading the Tagalog version of the book, Pastor Ballesteros intended the meaning "instrument" which is synonymous to the word "vessel".

Furthermore, it has also become obvious that Mr. Alfonso does not read his Bible well. The Bible is has made use of the word vessel to pertain to people. Here is a good sample:

If anyone cleanses himself of these things, he will be a vessel for lofty use, dedicated, beneficial to the master of the house, ready for every good work. 2nd Timothy 2:21 New American Bible Revised Edition (a Roman Catholic version)

2nd Timothy 2:21 made use of the word vessel or skeuos in Greek. It can also be translated as instrument. Ironically, Mr. Alfonso's comment on the use of the word vessel should be an insult to his beliefs about Mary's immaculate conception. In the immaculate conception, Mary is absolutely "cleansed". Since the above verse tells that in order for a person to be vessel of God a person should be cleansed. Now Mr. Alfonso is telling us that Mary is not a vessel, is he implying that Mary is not cleansed?

Finally, how does Mr. Alfonso react to a fellow Roman Catholic apologist, Atty. Marwil LLasos, using the word vessel:

Since Mary would be the Mother of God, she must herself be holy and spotlessly pure. Since Jesus, as God, can make His own Mother, He made her all-holy to be a fitting vessel for Him.

Mr. Alfonso should accuse Atty. Llasos, an experienced Mariologist, of insulting Mary for calling her a vessel!

We all want to serve God by being a worthy vessel. If Mr. Alfonso does not want to be a vessel of God, well that's his problem.

What did Tim Perry actually say on the Woman of Revelations 12?

2011-11-13T18:22:00.001+08:00

Before we proceed, I would like to refresh everyone's memory. Several months ago, I wrote an article about Tim Perry and his book, Mary for Evangelicals. Atty. Llasos has been quoting from this book in support of (or complimentary to) his beliefs. If you are just like any common reader of blogs, you would wonder why such an Evangelical would write such things that are pleasing to Atty. Llasos. He even compared Prof. Perry's credentials to mine in attempt to discredit me. Look how he even boast about Perry's support for his beliefs:

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.

Unfortunately, Atty. Llasos does not want to emphasize to his readers that Prof. Perry is an Ecumenical Evangelical. To put it simply, being ecumenical means seeking to be united with Roman Catholicism. So what Atty. Llasos thinks to be an "Evangelical" reference turns out to be a compromise of Evangelical beliefs. After we wrote that expose, there was no word of response from Atty. Llasos and no further articles quoting from Perry's book.

Since we have Mr. Tim Perry's book, Mary for Evangelicals (MFE), which Atty. Llasos loves to quote from, we can now examine if Atty. Llasos' quotation from the book about woman of Revelations 12 really checks out. In fairness, the quotations from the book which Atty. Llasos published in his article are word for word. But he left out some important stuffs.

Here is the article where Atty. Llasos responded to my initial questions. Let's lay down how Atty. Llasos quoted from MFE (Atty. Llasos words are in brown while Tim Perry's words are in violet as quoted by Atty. Llasos; those which are not quoted are colored red):

It is correct to say that I don’t discount Marian interpretation of the woman in Revelation 12. In fact, in my argument, I quoted an Evangelical theologian and professor who actually concurs with my view. I stated: “We understand the Woman to be Mary, the Mother of the Savior. We know that for sure because we read the Book of Revelation alongside the Gospel especially the Johannine. In finding a Marian referent to the Woman of Revelation 12, Evangelical Professor Tim Perry argues that “[s]et alongside the Gospels, in others, it is virtually impossible a Christian reader to perform such a radical act of epoche that all thought of Mary is removed .... As a part of the New Testament canon, Revelation’s depiction of the heavenly woman completes the biblical Marian material” [Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) pp. 112-113].

To continue:

Speaking of the woman of Revelation 12, Prof. Perry categorically affirms that “the case can be made for a fourth secondary referent: Mary” [Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006) p. 112]. Indeed, for Prof. Tim Perry, “There are grounds to read the heavenly woman as Mary, the maiden of Nazareth through whom God’s plan was realized not in heaven but in this world. But those grounds reside in Revelation only after it is placed in its context as Christian canon” [Ibid., p. 112].

Almost all the above quotations in violet belong to the same paragraph. Unfortunately, Atty. Llasos didn't explain what is meant by a fourth secondary referent. In an earlier article, Atty. Llasos cited Perry for identifying the woman as Eve, Israel, and the Church. But what Atty. Llasos didn't tell that these three are primary referents according to Perry. From that same article, look how Atty. Llasos presented the quotation:

Without altogether excluding other interpretations, Catholic and some Protestant) exegetes normally argue for a Mariological interpretation of the woman of Revelation 12. There are, however, Protestants who share this view. Prof. Tim Perry, an Evangelical, affirms that “the case can be made for a fourth secondary referent: Mary” (ibid.).

It is presented as if Atty. Llasos and Mr. Perry have a similar understanding. As I mentioned, Atty. Llasos didn't explain why Mr. Perry considered Mary as a secondary referent for Revelations 12 while Eve, Israel, and the Church are primary referents. Here is the sentence that precedes it:

The primary referents for the symbol end here. Nevertheless, the case can be made for a fourth secondary referent: Mary.

Atty. Llasos did not elaborate on the meaning of secondary referent in the chapter quoted. The point of all of this is that Atty. Llasos see the woman of Revelations 12 as the individual Mary but it isn't clear if Mr. Perry also sees it just the same as Roman Catholics. If we were to read the previous chapter, we will find Perry stating the following:

I tentatively suggest that there is such a literary purpose for Mary: She is Luke's symbol for God's people, whether defined as Israel or the church. Mary is the specially elected crucible in which the general election of the nation of Israel receive its fullest expression. ( MFE, page 95)

Also:

Mary is now a person. So sharply drawn is she that it is possible to detect within Luke an emerging representative or symbolic role. It remains for the Johannine literature, however, to fully explore her symbolic significance. (MFE, page 96)

With that on hand, it now helps to understand the entire paragraph in pages 112 to 113:

There are grounds to read the heavenly woman as Mary, the maiden of Nazareth through whom God's plan was realized not in heaven but in this world. But those grounds reside in Revelation only after it is placed in its context as Christian canon. There are no indicators in John's text on its own term or in the imagery he uses to suggest that he had Mary in mind. Having said that, "when Revelation was placed in the same canon of Scripture with the Gospel of Luke and the Fourth Gospel [in which Mary and the people of God seem to be symbolically related], the various images of the virgin, the woman at the cross, and the woman who gave birth to the Messiah would reinforce each other." Set along side the Gospels, in other words, it is virtually impossible for a Christian reader to perform such a radical act of epoche that all thought of Mary is removed. It is not surprising therefore, to find that Marian interpretation of Revelation 12 begins in the fifth century, after the New Testament canon is fixed. As part of the New Testament canon, Revelation's depiction of the heavenly woman completes the biblical Marian material.

Therefore, a person can read the woman in Revelations 12 as Mary provided that he or she has taken in to consideration of the Mary in the gospel of Luke as symbolizing the church or Israel.

The final quotation made by Atty. Llasos involves identifying Mary as Queen of Heaven:

The Evangelical professor goes on to state, “In Revelation, at least in its canonical context, she retains her corporate referent and is exalted as the Queen of Heaven” [Ibid., p. 113]. Let me put on record, however, that I don’t have an exclusively Marian view of the woman in Revelation 12. I follow what other exegetes say about her.

For this quotation, Atty. Llasos merely quoted Perry and did not make explicit statements that Perry agrees that Mary herself is Queen of Heaven. Since Roman Catholics uses Revelations 12 to prove that Mary, as an individual, is Queen of Heaven, it is implied that Atty. Llasos thinks Perry also has exactly the same view.

What Atty. Llasos does not explain is the term "corporate referent". The word corporate is opposed to the word individual. Here is the next paragraph after the above quoted statement:

There is tension here. One the one hand Mary has been portrayed in the pages of the New Testament in such a way as to become a symbol for the corporate faithful. On the other hand it is not all clear that the exaltation rightly associated with the symbols - the Heavenly Queen, Eve, the faithful of both the Old and New Testaments and so on - may be abstracted from the obviously figurative context of these symbols in order to be applied in a more literalistic fashion to the handmaid of Nazareth. The legitimacy of such a move, which has surely taken place in the history of mariological developments, is not all obvious. The symbolic exaltation, however, cannot be denied. Indeed, the symbol of corporate faith is drawn so sharply that Mary the individual is overwhelmed.

In the succeeding page, we read:

For John she is a symbol of corporate faith that has no role in the ministry of Jesus, but becomes the mother of all believers at the advent of his hour. For the seer, she is the exalted Heavenly Queen who is Eve and the persecuted faithful all at once.

And further away in page 298:

There must also be factored into the equation the more symbolic portrayals of Luke, John and the Revelation. Here, she retains her role as model, but instead of a model of individual discipleship, it is a model of the church both militant and triumphant...

...The church lives, and protects it with the lives of its members. In all these things, the Marian church is the woman pursued by the dragon - seemingly overpowered by the forces of evil and relying only on the protective power of God.

That's the real score.

Now here is the part where we write our disagreement with Tim Perry and other Roman Catholic Mariologists who renders a symbolism of Mary in the gospel of Luke. Does Luke intend a Marian symbolism (e.g. God's people) in his gospel?

If that would be the case one has to honestly ask, why only Mary? Why not make a symbolism for her husband, Joseph, in the book of Matthew? He could be paralleled with Joseph the Dreamer in Genesis. Both had dreams, both went to Egypt. For that matter, let's make symbolism on all people, places, events, and objects in the Bible so that our personal beliefs are satisfied. Of course, doing this would show our personal biases.

In Ecumenism, beliefs are compromised and differences can be set aside so that Ecumenical Evangelicals can be one with Roman Catholics. Concerning the Roman Catholics belief that the woman of Revelations 12 is Mary, we can say that Roman tradition prevails over Scriptures.

Mother of my Lord Logic

2011-11-03T06:37:00.002+08:00

In proving that Mary is the Mother of God, Roman Catholic apologist often quote Luke 1:43 where in it says: And how does this happen to me, that THE MOTHER of MY LORD (kuriou) should come to me? As the logic goes, since the word "Lord" is a title for God, and Jesus is indeed God, it follows that Mary is the mother of God. But we have to be clear that the word God in the title "Mother of God" pertains only to Jesus Christ being God the Son.

This is the same logic used by Mr. Cenon Bibe of Tumbukin Natin:

ANO ang IBIG SABIHIN ng "KURIOU"?
[What does "KURIOU" mean?]

Eto ang SABI ng EKSPERTO sa WIKANG GRIEGO:
[Here is what an expert of the Greek language says:]

STRONG'S EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE: Ang "KURIOU" ay "GOD, LORD, MASTER, SIR."
[Kuriou is God, Lord, Master, Sir]

So, ILAPAT NATIN ang KAHULUGANG GRIEGO sa AKTWAL na SINABI ni ELIZABETH.
[So let's apply the Greek meaning to what Elizabeth actually said.]

Ang AKTWAL NIYANG SINABI sa LUKE 1:43 ay "And how does this happen to me, that THE MOTHER of MY GOD should come to me?"
[Luke 1:43 actually said, "and how does this happen to me, that THE MOTHER of MY GOD should come to me?"]

Does this "exegesis" have any merit at all? Is Mary the Mother of God because Elizabeth addressed her as the mother of her Lord?

A passage from Luke would help us debunk the logic:

My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice. Luke 8:21 NIV

The very words of Christ stated that those who hear God's word and put in to practice are His mother and brothers. Applying Mr. Bibe's logic:

Jesus is God.
Jesus' mother is the one who hears the God's word and put it into practice.
Mrs. X hears the God's word and put it into practice.
Therefore, Mrs. X is a mother of God.

If you think that is silly, so is Mr. Bibe's logic. In fact in Galatians 1:19, Paul addressed James as the brother of the Lord and not the brother of God (or if the Roman Catholics prefer, the cousin of God, to adhere to their perpetual virginity of Mary doctrine). When Elizabeth addressed Mary as the mother of her Lord, she was referring to Christ's position of authority. Nowhere in Elizabeth's mind would she equate that Mary is the mother of God. None of the apostles ever acknowledged this title. Neither would they use that logic.

We will leave you with a quote from Augustine in his work from Tract. in Ioannem (VIII,9):

Why, then, said the Son to the mother, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come?" Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had. She was the mother, then, of His flesh, of His humanity, of the weakness which for our sakes He took upon Him. But the miracle which He was about to do, He was about to do according to His divine nature, not according to His weakness; according to that wherein He was God not according to that wherein He was born weak. But the weakness of God is stronger than men. His mother then demanded a miracle of Him; but He, about to perform divine works, so far did not recognize a human womb; saying in effect, "That in me which works a miracle was not born of thee, thou gavest not birth to my divine nature; but because my weakness was born of thee, I will recognize thee at the time when that same weakness shall hang upon the cross." This, indeed, is the meaning of "Mine hour is not yet come." . . . How then was He both David’s son and David’s Lord? David’s son according to the flesh, David’s Lord according to His divinity; so also Mary’s son after the flesh, and Mary’s Lord after His majesty. Now as she was not the mother of His divine nature, whilst it was by His divinity the miracle she asked for would be wrought, therefore He answered her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"

Paul and Onesiphorus

2011-10-26T21:06:00.004+08:00

Here is a very short article in a Catholic website about Onesiphorus. He is a believer in Christ who help the apostle Paul in the ministry. His feast day is September 6 year 81. It's understood that he died in the year 81 AD (also stated in Wikipedia).

Here is also another Catholic website about the apostle Paul. According to the article, he died in year 64 AD (though there are other sources says he died in year 67 AD).

Okay so why am I so concerned about the year of death of these two saints? Well, Roman Catholic apologists make use of 2nd Timothy 1:16-18 to justify praying for the dead who are in Purgatory as Paul seemingly prayed for Onesiphorus:

May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains. On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me. May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day! You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus.

Here is how Scripture Catholic does "exegesis" of that verse:

Onesiphorus is dead but Paul asks for mercy on him “on that day.” Paul’s use of “that day” demonstrates its eschatological usage (see, for example, Rom. 2.5,16; 1 Cor. 1.8; 3.13; 5.5; 2 Cor. 1.14; Phil. 1.6,10; 2.16; 1 Thess. 5.2,4,5,8; 2 Thess. 2.2,3; 2 Tim. 4.8). Of course, there is no need for mercy in heaven, and there is no mercy given in hell. Where is Onesiphorus? He is in purgatory.

But from what we just read earlier, Paul died in year 64 (or 67) AD while Onesiphorus died in year 81 AD. So common sense will tell us that Paul died first before Onesiphorus. Therefore, Paul was praying for a man who was still very much alive.

Some may argue that even if Onesiphorus was alive why would he be needing mercy if he is already a believer and thus, a hint of Purgatory. In the event Onesiphorus died, Paul prayed he be granted mercy God "on that day". Well, it's really too much of an assumption. Just look at the range of meanings of the word mercy (eleos). You must take in to consideration these meanings and not merely content yourself with the phrase "on that day".

So those who are using 2nd Timothy 1:16-19 to prove purgatory are really interpreting it to suit their own taste.

Lame Excuse

2011-10-21T21:44:00.006+08:00

I would like to express my appreciation for a Catholic apologetic blog for posting this article from the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) 1914.

This is an article for which the ministers of the INC explaining why they don't have a Bible version which they think is free from mistranslation. Unlike the New World Translation of the Holy Scripture of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the INC does not have a Bible of their own. We all know how they "hop" from one version to another to support their doctrines.

We have given examples of this version hopping before like Lamsa's version of Acts 20:28 to support the name Church of Christ as being the official name of the church. They would use Moffat's version of Hebrews 1:8 which says "God is your throne" instead of "Your throne, O God" to debunk the belief that Jesus Christ is God. Their ministers all reason that this version is in error, that version is mistranslated, and here is what we think is correct. So why can't they have their own Bible version? The answer:

Your suggestion that the Iglesia ni Cristo publish her own Bible with all the correct translation of mistranslated verses is both well-meaning and appealing. It would be truly convenient and handy to have just one Bible with all the verses that we cite or quote from different translations gathered in one compendium.

By publishing her own Bible, the Iglesia ni Cristo will in effect have a "sanitized" version of the Scriptures--tailor made for her teachings. This is the very thing that the Iglesia ni Cristo avoids, that is, to be accused of manipulating the Scriptures to suit her doctrines.

My comment can be expressed in one word: Baloney! Yes folks, try to imagine that you're their presiding minister making an executive decision on whether or not to make a Bible version free of error. You stand up and say, "No, let's not make our own Bible version because we could get criticized for being biased." Well, that seems a very compelling reason not to make one. Okay, so the government will not make new infrastructures in a city because they might be accused of corruption. Yeah right.

In all fairness there's a little objectivity there. After all, they are using their opponent's Bible. But then again how does one know what version to use? They answer:

How, then, are we to know which particular translation of the Bible to use, for example in delivering a sermon? Apostle Paul states the guiding principle to the doctrines of the Bible, thus:

"This is what we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words." (I Cor.2:13, New International version)

Therefore, there must be no contradiction between the different version of the Bible because spiritual things are compared to spiritual truths.

I have had asked some INC member on how that principle works. They gave an instance like why we should agree with Moffat's "God is your throne" as the correct translation of Hebrews 1:8. It's because Christ already said the Father is the only true God in John 17:3 and therefore there cannot be two gods.

Folk's that is not comparing spiritual with spiritual. What happened here that the INC assumes that their interpretation of John 17:3 is correct before they can come up with the conclusion on how Hebrews 1:8 must be rendered. Nothing in John 17:3 denies the deity of Christ; just like how nothing in Mark 10:18 (No one is good except God alone) denies Jesus is good. What the INC is doing is forcing their beliefs on the translation. Proof? They can't do it for all other verses, especially those that are without doctrinal controversy.

In case you haven't noticed, the word "translation" involves language. You convert a language to make it understandable to a foreign language (Bible in English, Biblia in Tagalog). They only way to translate Greek to another language is to study Greek grammar and see how your language matches it. That's objectivity at work and not "Well, it should be translated this way because this other verse already said something."

To continue with their response:

But one may ask, "Who is in a position to compare spiritual things to spiritual truths?" Are all preachers that we see and hear nowadays are qualified to compare spiritual things with spiritual truths, more so preach the gospel? Apostle Paul answers us, thus:

"And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!" (Rom. 10:15, New King James Version)

A preacher of the Gospel therefore must be sent by God. Why must he be sent by God? Apostle John states, thus:

"The one whom God has send speaks God's words, because God gives him the fullness of his Spirit. (John 3:34, Today's English Version)

Moreover, the messenger sent by God is entrusted with the ministry and message of reconciliation (cf. II Cor. 5:18-20)

Therefore, even if there are translations of the Bible that contain mistranslated verses, the commissioned preachers of God can identify them because they have been given God's spirit for them to understand His will written in the Bible (cf. I Cor. 2:12)

In the end the INC members are relying on their "commissioned preachers" to tell them what is right. And no doubt the "commissioned preachers" claim to preach correctly because their preaching is based on the Bible - which the INC members rely on a "commissioned preacher" for them to understand it since there are mistranslations. So they really don't need the Bible after all.

If the INC claims to be the true church, they can defend any Bible translation they could make. Their ministers, or at least some of them, have been known to be courageous in discussions so there should be no problem for them to defend it. But no, they won't make their own version... because they can't.

The INC never had any Bible scholars. Sure, they sometimes read the original language but that's just a few verses (controversial verses for that matter) and not the whole Bible. They pick commentaries from Evangelical and Catholic sources for reference, they never made any scholarly studies of their own on the Scriptures.

All the INC can do is to claim that their "commissioned preachers" have this sort of enlightenment from God that they can understand the Bible. A claim which other cults are making. If you are an INC member, you're probably reading the Bible from the eyes of your "commissioned ministers". Worse, you're not reading the Bible at all. Oh wait, you don't have an official Bible.

Refuting Cenon Bibe on Sola Scriptura

2011-09-11T17:44:00.007+08:00

Cenon Bibe, a Catholic apologist who runs the blog "Tumbukin Natin", had a debate with a Calvinist on Sola Scriptura. We won't go in to the details of the debate, just his negative introduction. It is written in Tagalog, but I will translate it for you in English.

His counterargument is very common to most Roman Catholics, so it will not be difficult for us to refute. We will deal with the important points of his argument. On his analysis of his opponent's basis which is 2nd Timothy 3:16-17:

MALINAW ang sinasabi sa 2Tim 3:16 na ang LAHAT ng KASULATAN ay KAPANIPAKINABANG at MAGAGAMIT sa
1. PAGTUTURO
2. PAGSANSALA
3. PATUTUWID, at
4. PAGSASANAY

+ WALANG SINASABI na “BIBLIA LANG” ang DAPAT GAMITIN o DAPAT GAWING BATAYAN sa ARAL.
[It is clear that 2Tim 3:16 states that all scriptures are profitable and useful for
1. teaching
2. rebuking
3. correcting, and
4. training
it doesn't say that the only the Bible should be used for the basis of teachings]

What's missing? His analysis of verse 17. Verse 17 continues the thought of verse 16. Verse 16 teaches us the quality of Scriptures and the result is on verse 17: "that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped unto all good works". If Paul had the same thinking with Mr. Bibe, he could have written that Scriptures can make the man of God partially equipped unto some good works. The Scriptures are inspired and profitable so that the man of God can sufficiently perform every good work.

Mr. Bibe's cited 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 to disprove Sola Scriptura. Here is his "exegesis":

At MALINAW po sa 2Thes 2:15 na DALAWA ang URI ng ARAL o TRADISYON na DAPAT PANINDIGAN at PANGHAWAKAN ng mga KRISTIYANO. At iyan nga po ang

1. Sa “SALITA ng BIBIG” o ORAL TRADITIONS, at ang
2. Sa “SULAT” o WRITTEN TRADITIONS (SCRIPTURES o BIBLIA)
[And its clear in 2Thes 2:15 that there are two kinds of teachings or tradition that Christians should defend and uphold. And these are:
1. the word of mouth or oral traditions, and the
2. the letter or written traditions (Scriptures or Bible)]

Oh boy, somebody misread something. Let's read the verse again:

“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”

Does the verse say hold on to oral traditions and written traditions? Not in a million years. The verse say hold on to the traditions that has been "passed" or "delivered" by word of mouth and by letter. What is being distinguished by the word of mouth and letter is the manner of delivery and not the traditions. It's called teaching, you can teach orally or by letter. It does not mean that there are two components of teachings.

What about Mr. Bibe citation of 1st John 2:24 and 2nd John 1:12? It appears that Mr. Bibe is using what his "comrade" Atty. Marwil Llasos refer to as "tunog" (sound) system. Just because Mr. Bibe read the word "heard" and "talk" he immediately concluded it is oral tradition. It does not follow! The apostles no doubt taught the believers "orally" through their preaching and teaching, but it doesn't mean they are delivering oral traditions which are different from written traditions.

Going back to Mr. Bibe's conclusion:

ILAN lang po yan sa mga PATUNAY na HINDI LAHAT ng ARAL ay ISINULAT ng mga APOSTOL. MARAMI pong ARAL na SINALITA o ORAL.
[That is just some of the proofs that not all teachings written by the apostles. There are teachings which are spoken or oral.]

I'd like to challenge Mr. Bibe to enumerate to us, with supporting historical evidences, all the ORAL traditions which are apostolic and which the Bible does not mention as he claims. I doubt if he can even give a few.

His last verse to disprove Sola Scriptura is 1st Timothy 3:15:

BIBLIA rin po ang NAGPAPAKITA kung SAAN MATATAGPUAN ang BUONG KATOTOHANAN na MULA sa DIYOS.

Ganito po ang sinasabi sa 1Timothy 3:15
“if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

PURIHIN si KRISTO! PURIHIN ang DIYOS!

Ayon po mismo sa BIBLIA, HINDI ang BIBLIA ang HALIGI at SANDIGAN ng KATOTOHANAN o ng PANANAMPALATAYA. Ang HALIGI at SANDIGAN ng PANANAMPALATAYA ay ang IGLESIA o ang SIMBAHAN.
[The Bible showed to us where can we find all the truths from God.

Here is what 1Timothy 3:15 says:
“if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

Praise Christ! Praise God!

According to the Bible itself, it's not the Bible that is the pillar and foundation of the truth or faith. The pillar and foundation of the faith is the church.]

It is common for Roman Catholic apologist to interpret 1st Timothy 3:15 as the church being the "source" of truth simply because they read the word foundation. The Greek word foundation here is hedraioma and it appears only in this verse. Since it only appeared once in this verse, it is not right to assume a meaning that support one's view. Strong's concordance suggests a meaning of "support". Having the word pillar in the same verse, the church is merely the upholder and supporter of the truth and not necessarily the originator.

Mr. Bibe of course made his conclusions from the verses he quoted that Sola Scriptura is unbiblical. But we have refuted here his analysis of the verses that he (mis)used. I'm sure article will reach him. He has the right to respond if he wishes to.

Is the Roman Catholic Church united?

2011-08-25T06:00:00.004+08:00

"You Evangelicals are divided! You have so many denominations: Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Full Gospel etc. Each of you have your own interpretation of the Bible that you can't agree with one another; and so you keep on dividing in to more denominations. Some of you practice tithing, while others don't. Some of you don't believe in eternal security, while others do. Did God intend the church to be divided? No! Jesus prayed for unity. It seems that prayer is not working on you and therefore you are not really the true church. We have an infallible magisterium that keeps us united in the faith, interpreting Scripture and tradition infallibly so that we won't go astray."

Have you ever encountered the above comment from Roman Catholics? Yup, it sure is difficult to answer things like that. Let's give it to them, each of us really do have contradicting beliefs such as tithing, eternal security, speaking in tongues, etc. We all claim that our teachings are Bible-based, yet we have these conflicting interpretations. We don't have an infallible body to settle the doctrinal disputes between those who receive Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

We have reasoned out that the contradicting doctrines among Evangelicals are non-essentials. Meaning, no matter what you believe it has no effect on your salvation. So if Evangelicals disagree on tithing, it doesn't matter because tithing is not a requirement for salvation. We all agree on the essential doctrines like the trinity, salvation by faith alone, sufficiency and inerrancy of Scriptures as anything contradicting these have the wrong faith. However, despite of this response the Roman Catholics are quick to dismiss it:

"The point is, you're still disunited. You even had debates with fellow Evangelicals on doctrinal disputes. Come on, Christ never wanted the church divided. Look at what we have. We have an infallible pope leading a body of infallible bishops to interpret Scripture and tradition for us and that's why we don't have conflicts. We know we are in the right due to this."

Having hearing this boasting of unity over and over again, it makes us want to find out if Roman Catholics are united or not. Are they really united?

Recently, Roman Catholics celebrated the feast of the Assumption. In this dogma, Mary was assumed in Heaven while having a physical body (just like Enoch and Elijah). Since this is a dogma, it is presumed to be infallible and Roman Catholics must believe it otherwise, they will be excommunicated. If you think they are united, think again. Ask them this, was Mary assumed to Heaven while she was alive or after her death? In the case of Christ, we must believe that He died for our sins, resurrected, and ascended to Heaven. That's the belief for the new Adam. Now, having been given the title as the new Eve, we ask every Roman Catholics if Mary really died or not.

There is no infallible pronouncement as of this writing if Mary died or not. There are Roman Catholics who believe she died, while others don't. So what do we have here? An unresolved conflict.

"It doesn't matter if one believes Mary died while another does not. We are not required to even entertain such thing. For as long as we believe her assumption, we are doing fine."

Whoa there! Is that it, an easy dismissal? One Catholic says she died while another doesn't think so and it still doesn't matter? How come you can get to give that as a reason but not so for Evangelicals? Aren't we playing a double standard here? Where is an infallible bishop when you need one?

If you think that is troublesome for Roman Catholics, you should ask them these:

1. Who did God use to write the book of Hebrews? Roman Catholics have always been challenging Sola Scriptura by asking where in the Bible that states the author of each book. Yet up to now, the Church of Rome has no official position on who wrote the book of Hebrews (same goes for the book of Esther, Job etc).

2. Was Jonah really swallowed by a great fish? According to a comment in the Jerusalem Bible:

"This late date [after the Exile] is warning enough against any interpretation of the book as historical. This is excluded by other arguments as well. There is no trace in Assyrian or biblical documents of a conversion of the king of Nineveh with all his people to the God of Israel. And, though God is indeed master of nature, the successive prodigies here narrated read like a succession of practical jokes played by God on his prophet: the sudden storm, the choice of Jonah by lot, the great fish, the plant growing in a night and withering in a hour; while the whole story is told with undisguised irony quite alien to the writing of history." (New Jerusalem Bible [Doubleday, 1985], Introduction to Jonah, page 1188-9)

3. What is the actual relationship to Jesus of the alleged brothers in Matthew 13:55? To defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, the "alleged" brothers of Jesus can either be cousins, children of Joseph from a former marriage, or some other relationship (as long as not biological siblings).

And many more. What is common among the questions? There are no infallible pronouncements from the pope to answer such questions. So when there is no infallible pronouncement and Roman Catholics are believing in things differently from one another, can we also conclude that they are not united? It seems so!

"Oh were not worried about those. Unlike you Evangelicals, we have an infallible magisterium who can settle things for us. All we have to do is to get there attention on these matters."

Really now. Our next question would be, how long? Yes, it appears that it takes a while before a settlement can be made by Rome. Proof? Let's take a look at the belief of Limbo. From the time of Augustine in the 4th century it has taken centuries before a stand can be made in 2007. So, can we conclude that the Roman Catholics between those period are not united on Limbo since there was no settlement yet?

"We are united on official teachings! You cannot expect us to defend unofficial teachings like Limbo."

Well now, aren't they being hypocritical here? Roman Catholics cannot ignore the disunity of Evangelicals in their non-essential doctrines but Evangelicals should not consider the "unofficial" doctrines as basis of Catholic disunity.

And if you think that their infallible magisterium interprets the Bible for them so that they are united in understanding, here is what will blow you away: the magisterium in Rome has not made an interpretation for all verses in the Bible ever since. So if you ask them what's the official interpretation of a certain verse, expect a theologian's interpretation than an infallible interpretation.

"Okay, but Christ prayed for unity in John 17."

Yes, He did. But the unity being spoken of there is not necessarily in doctrinal matters but the belief in Christ and love. Is it possible that even during the New Testament period there are legitimate Christians have conflicting beliefs? Read Romans 14:1-6:

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

So there are Christians who has different beliefs about food and days, yet they are still part of the church. Paul instructed them to accept each other. Of course, there are times when the apostles warn about false prophets and teachings. So a line is drawn between the doctrines affecting an Christian's salvation and those which do not affect salvation. Thus, essential and non-essential doctrines. To put in the actual scenario, an Evangelical is expected to believe that salvation is by faith alone but it is not required whether or not to believe that salvation can be lost for as long as they live by faith.

In conclusion, Roman Catholics are really not united as they claim. They say they have an infallible magisterium, but up to now not all of their beliefs and biblical interpretations have an infallible settlement.

Revisiting the "How not to defend the Immaculate Conception"

2011-08-02T18:25:00.005+08:00

Almost three years ago Atty. Marwil Llasos, a Filipino Mariologist, posted an article refuting the argument against the Immaculate Conception written by a former Roman Catholic Priest, Anthony Pezzotta. Over six month ago, I wrote an article which pays special attention to this response of Atty. Llasos:

Dr. Anthony Pezzotta accuses the Catholic Church of trying “to prove that Mary was conceived without sin by saying that only someone who was sinless could have given birth to a sinless one.”7 Once again, Pezzotta does not give evidence or proof for such claim. In vain will readers of Truth Encounter look for its author’s references and sources for the above statement. This blunder is typical of Dr. Pezzotta’s level of scholarship (if any).

I challenge Dr. Pezzotta, a scholar and expert on Catholicism, to point to official Catholic documents that say precisely that “Mary was conceived without sin because only someone who was sinless could have given birth to a sinless one.” Here we see that Pezzotta is passing off as an official argument of the Catholic Church something that is not. Such is the fallacy of assumption non probata (assuming without proving).

In the same article of mine, I cited three Roman Catholic apologetic websites who defend the Immaculate Conception by stating (in effect) that Mary had to be sinless for Christ to be sinless - the very argument which Atty. Llasos denies of being an official teaching (or reasoning). In fairness to Atty. Llasos, such argument may not be the official stand. However, it is nevertheless used by Roman Catholics. I asked on that article, what does Atty. Llasos have to say for his fellow Roman Catholics who argue that Mary should be without sin for Christ to be sinless? Will he unconditionally consider this a blunder on his fellow Roman Catholics' level of scholarship (if any)? For some reason, if Atty. Llasos even bothered to read my article, there was no response from him nor from his comrades.

At this point we would like to add another Roman Catholic apologist, who is a Filipino like Atty. Llasos, who made use of the said argument. And that Filipino apologist is none other than his best friend, Fr. Abraham Arganiosa:

THIS IS STUPID. JESUS WILL NOT INHERIT THE SINFUL NATURE BECAUSE HE IS GOD NOT BECAUSE HE DOES NOT HAVE A HUMAN FATHER. AND SINCE MARY IS BIOLOGICALLY THE MOTHER OF JESUS IF YOU WILL REASON THAT MARY HAS SINFUL NATURE THEN JESUS IS BIOLOGICALLY CONTAMINATED BY THE NATURE OF MARY BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF JESUS. THAT IS THE REASON WHY SO THAT JESUS WOULD NOT BE CONTAMINATED GOD THE FATHER DECLARED HER IN "ENMITY WITH SATAN" [Genesis 3:15] AND FILLED HER WITH DIVINE GRACE [Luke 1:28]. THAT IS THE SOLID BIBLICAL REASONS WHY JESUS WAS NOT CONTAMINATED - THE SPECIAL GRACES GIVEN BY GOD WHICH MADE MARY EXCEPTIONAL FROM ORDINARY SINCE SHE IS TO BE THE MOTHER OF THE INCARNATE GOD.

To shorten what Fr. Abe argued, Jesus is sinless because Mary was made sinless. We need to ask (again), what does Atty. Llasos have to say about Fr. Abe who argues that Mary should be without sin for Christ to be sinless? Will he unconditionally consider this a blunder on Fr. Abe's scholarship (if any)?

Of course, we may probably hear from Atty. Llasos. He may counter by saying something like, "Fr. Abe was just explaining there why Jesus would not be contaminated" or "Fr. Abe did explain that Mary was full of grace that's why she is free from sin". Such probable responses are refuted by these words:

THAT IS THE REASON WHY SO THAT JESUS WOULD NOT BE CONTAMINATED GOD THE FATHER DECLARED HER IN "ENMITY WITH SATAN" [Genesis 3:15] AND FILLED HER WITH DIVINE GRACE [Luke 1:28].

Isn't that just the same as saying that Mary needs to be sinless so as not to contaminate Christ?

I stated in my previous article that the recommended reason (by Catholic Answers) why Mary is sinless is because she was fitting to be the holy vessel to carry the incarnate God the Son. The problem with that kind of reasoning is that after the birth of Christ, it makes you wonder what further purpose is there for Mary to be sinless. God could have made her sinless for nine months only and that's it.

Going back to Atty. Llasos' challenge to Anthony Pezzotta "to point to official Catholic documents that say precisely that 'Mary was conceived without sin because only someone who was sinless could have given birth to a sinless one'", how I wish he would have guts to ask Fr. Abe as well.

Catholic Bishops and SUV's

2011-07-12T08:28:00.008+08:00

Here are a couple of articles from the Philippine Daily Inquirer concerning the recent allegation of Roman Catholic Bishops in the Philippines soliciting SUV's from former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo through the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office.

On Target by Ramon Tulfo:

Some quarters are asking if it’s a big deal that bishops received sport utility vehicles (SUVs) from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes (PCSO).

It is not only a big deal, it’s also scandalous.

The money that was used in buying the SUVs could have been spent on many ailing poor who needed medicines.

The bishops who were recipients of the largesse should have thought about the PCSO’s poor beneficiaries who were deprived of medicines because the money went to them.

Besides, why would those bishops, who are supposed to lead simple lives following the example of Jesus of Nazareth, want luxury vehicles when they can ride bicycles or motorcycles?

The answer is simple: They are pasikat or showoffs. They want to feel important, as important as legislators who display the number 8 license plates on their vehicles.

Doesn’t the Catholic Church teach its followers that pride is one of the deadly sins?

CBCP apologizes for SUV's by Jocelyn Uy

A contrite Church hierarchy on Monday apologized for its involvement in the controversy at the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) in which seven bishops received funds from the state-run charity agency for the purchase of SUV and other vehicles during the Arroyo administration.

“Our Mother Church has been deeply wounded by the controversies in the [PCSO] that have erupted in the past two weeks … As shepherds struggling to love you like Jesus the Good Shepherd, we are sorry for the pain and sadness that these events have brought upon you,” Tandag Bishop Nereo Odchimar, president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, read from a pastoral statement titled “A Time of Pain, A Time of Grace.”

At the closing of the Catholic bishops’ plenary assembly on Monday, the CBCP said inconsistencies of its actions with its pastoral teachings had brought confusion and sadness to many of its faithful, particularly the youth and the poor. (end excerpt)

My comments:

1. While I support many provisions in the RH Bill, if this alleged controversy will be used the by Aquino administration against CBCP to get back at their opposition to the bill then we are not playing fair. It's blackmail at its worst.

2. This alleged controversy is no different with ministers of other religions soliciting funds from people they consider as outsiders. A simple example are those so-called preachers who evangelize in buses and then solicit money from the passengers by handing out envelopes. It ruins the dignity of any church. If a church really needs funds the leaders should bring the concern to their congregation so that those who would like to help may do so.

3. It is commendable that CBCP apologizes for its involvement. In turn, I hope Roman Catholics would pray for their bishops on this time of trial.

4. I agree with Ramon Tulfo that the Catholic bishops (or any minister of other religions for that matter) should follow the example of humility Christ and the apostles have set.

The Bible and "God's Messengers"

2011-06-28T17:56:00.016+08:00

I was reading a very interesting article written by a member of the Iglesia ni Cristo 1914 (INC). In this article, it is argued that "it is not true that anyone can UNDERSTAND the bible".

They stated a consequence against Evangelicals which is similar to the argument thrown by Roman Catholics: "That’s why there are thousands of sects/denominations, each having different beliefs depends on how its pastor/founder interpret the bible but they do have the basic doctrine, the sola fide, and sola scriptura."

Private interpretation is also criticized, "Apostle Peter strongly pointed out that the bible was not a book open to understanding of just any knowledgeable individual. This he made certain in a letter he sent to the Christians in his time:

“knowing this first: that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in olden times by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." II pet. 1:20-21"

The article goes on to say that, "We need someone who received the Holy spirit from God whom he entrusted to preach the truth for everyone will know the message of salvation." Of course, this "someone" is ultimately the ministers of the INC and not from other religions.

Okay, some of you already know what to ask next: How do I recognize the true messengers of God among the many preachers of other religions? If you will read the comments section of the article, I asked a similar question. Read on to learn the shortcoming of the INC's article (mine in blue, the INC in brown):

Sir,

If we need a true messenger to understand the Bible, how can we tell if a person who preaches the Bible is indeed a true messenger?

Thanks.

Gerry
--------------------
readme: gerry,

your question is already answered above, ill just quote it:

How can we know?

Examine their doctrines, be open minded always because it is everyone’s duty to search for the true knowledge we should learn and will bring us to our salvation.

“For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” I Cor. 2:11-13

compare spiritual things with spiritual, is like compare doctines with the doctrines upholds by other churches, and you will make it to a point of knowing the true messengers of God.

it is but to the teachings and doctrines that they preach in the bible...

http://readmeinc.blogspot.com/2009/08/prophecy-gods-last-messenger.html
--------------------
Thank you for your response, Sir.

However, it's giving us problems here. There are so many preachers out there claiming to be God's messenger. The only way to tell which preacher is telling the truth is by the Bible. But you wrote above that "it is not true that anyone can UNDERSTAND the bible". So how do you expect me to tell which is true or not?

Roman Catholics say they are biblical
Protestants say they are biblical
ADD say they are biblical
Mormons say they are biblical
7th Day Adventist say they are biblical
INC say they are biblical
and many more..

Your article implies that there is no way for me to tell which are telling the truth because I cannot understand the Bible.

So how do I go about it?
--------------------
readme: gerry,

dont call me sir, because maybe im younger that you^^

that's my point, "IF ONLY", if only the people DOES understand the bible, why do we need thousands and thousands of religions scattered around the world?

If only we can read the bible and interpret it the way it should be, this thing would not happen,

but let us ask ourselves, why did this happen?

Satan was thrown here on earth to deceive many, it is in the bible...

Preachers have diff interests, like money, and so on...

they all claim to be true, and that's our duty, yes it is our duty to find the true one of those thousands and thousands of religion...

Ask yourself, how can you find it?
and you would answer your question...

godbless^^
--------------------
So what do you suggest I do? Do I go trial and error?
--------------------
Arjay: Arjay here! An INC member.

If you really want to find the true messengers of God, true religion, or true church, the religion should satisfy this following requirements.

(i) All of its teachings comes from the Bible.
(ii) There are no schisms in the church.
(iii) Proven by the prophesy of the Bible.
(iv) Teaches the one and only true God. (John 17:1,3)

I hope it helps :)
--------------------
I appreciate the reply, Arjay. But if you read the article above readmeinc argued that, and I quote, "it is not true that anyone can UNDERSTAND the bible", end quote.

Now you are suggesting to me that all teachings should come from the Bible. Yet it is argued above that I cannot understand the Bible. So I really can't examine the doctrines of these religions (including yours) using the Bible.

Let me ask you a question, if you cannot understand the Bible how did you arrive at the conclusion that your church is indeed true?

Thanks.
--------------------
Sidewinder: To: Gerry,

Can I give some Links to you, this one Can Help
regarding to your Question.

http://inc-pasugo.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86:only-authorized-preachers&catid=49:articles&Itemid=61

http://inc-pasugo.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=87:only-authorized-preachers-2&catid=49:articles&Itemid=61
--------------------
Thanks for the links, Sidewinder.

However, like the article here I also find Mr. Santiago's article ironic. In part 1 he argues that only divinely commissioned messengers can understand the Bible. But in part 2 he argues that the true messengers of God are biblical. There are so many religions that say they are biblical. If I don't have the ability to understand the Bible, this means I cannot be sure which among the people claiming to be God's messengers is true and biblical.

Do you get my point?
--------------------

After that I was invited by readme to their Bible study wherein I could inquire from their ministers. I stopped the discussion at that point. None of them really answered my question satisfactorily. In all fairness, the INC I spoke with in the comments section are friendly.

So from the discussion above, you can see the implication of the INC article: Given the fact that there are so many preachers claiming to be God's messenger, and given the fact that God's messengers should be biblical in their teachings, there is no way for a person to examine and determine the true messenger since the INC above argued that no one (at least not all) can understand the Bible. That being said, it is futile for one to decide which religious group he will join because it is claimed only God's messengers can understand the Bible.

I am reminded of my previous discussion with Roman Catholics on private interpretation. Just like the Roman Catholics, the INC also abhor private interpretation. But once you ask them how did they arrive at the conclusion that their church is true without using private interpretation, you will get tons of baloney answers. Roman Catholics respond that it is not private interpretation if you arrive at a conclusion similar to what their church teaches. But that's just just a self-serving argument.

It is also argued that 2nd Peter 1:20-21 forbids private interpretation of Sciptures. But the text doesn't say it that way. It just simply say that Scriptures did not originate from private interpretation of men. But when it comes to reading the Scriptures (and listening to the preaching of Scriptures) private interpretation cannot be avoided since our own brain processes what we read and hear to arrive at a decision or response.

Also like the Roman Catholics, the INC argues that private interpretation causes division among Evangelicals which are in conflict with other interpretations. It does not necessarily follow. When two parties refuse to accept each others' interpretation, it is their attitude that causes the division. Suggesting an infallible interpreter to resolve such conflict does not work because we will burden to determine the infallible interpreter (i.e. what would be the basis of reliance for a given interpreter?). It is ironic that Roman Catholics accuse Sola Scriptura as the reason why there are so many bible-alone cults today. But what they don't see is that these cults are following the "infallible interpreter" system of Rome (i.e. only the Magisterium can infallibly interpret Scripture). The evidence? Read again the INC article and recall who has the exclusive ability to understand the Bible. Observe also how the Ang Dating Daan, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, etc. follow Rome's system.

A question maybe asked, what about the Ethopian in Acts 8? How come he needed Philip to understand the scroll of Isaiah? Yes it is true that not everyone can understand Scriptures. But this doesn't mean that the understanding is limited to the ministers. It also doesn't mean that the non-ministerial church members is perpetually dependent on the minister. The Holy Spirit works on all members of the church, not just the ministers. Members who can't understand the Bible in the present can have even some informal training to be well equipped in the future without necessarily becoming pastors. Even some of those who read the Bible even for the first time can understand it.

The proof? The Bereans in Acts 17:11 examined the Scriptures to verify the message of Paul. They didn't go to their ministerial bodies to have their interpretations checked. Consider also these verses:

Your statutes are wonderful; therefore I obey them. The unfolding of your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple. Psalm 119:129-130

For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that, as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus. 2nd Corinthians 1:13-14

Conclusion:

As I have argued with Roman Catholics before, if private interpretation is forbidden then it follows that you just simply accept what your priest/pastor/minister are teaching you without even thinking about it. If your religious leaders are telling you that only they can interpret Scriptures, it means they don't want any opposition even if they are wrong. You are a zombie that keeps on saying, "yes master". It's ironic that the INC is against papal infallibility and yet they have this audacity to tell their members that only their ministers can interpret Scriptures properly.

A Cheap Argument against Sola Fide

2011-06-19T20:45:00.003+08:00

I was reading articles in some apologetic websites these past several days. I came across a really cheap argument against the Evangelical doctrine of salvation by faith alone. The argument goes: How can we say that we are saved by faith alone with no good works added when faith itself is a form of good work?

People using that argument are really childish. The apostle Paul teaches us this:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

Now comes the detractors of Sola Fide giving the above argument. I wonder what would it be like if these detractors themselves tell that to Paul: "But Paul, faith itself is a good work!" They so miss the point.

They should be familiarized about the rationale of Sola Fide: Salvation is by grace and cannot be merited by good works but faith alone. We have given Ephesians 2:8-9, here some supporting verses from Romans:

And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. Romans 11:6

However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. Romans 4:5

Salvation is God's doing and not by the efforts of man:

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. Romans 9:16

He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. Titus 3:5

Now after all these verses and a detractor would insist on his cheap argument, well, it is really childish.

Faulty Argumentations on Birth Control

2011-06-03T08:25:00.009+08:00

Let's face it, the birth control issues in the Philippines really divided the Filipinos regardless of religion. It has become a very controversial topic, most especially the discussion on the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill. While the Roman Catholic Church may have a definite stand on birth control issues, her other clergies and members have their opposition to that stand. Evangelicals likewise have each an individual opinion.

For me, I choose not to write and defend my stand. This sensitive topic will cause my brethren to stumble. But just for the curious:

1. I approve of the artificial birth controls
2. I don't agree with a few provisions of the RH Bill (for one, mandating all medical facilities to cooperate; this should be optional for medical facilities organized by religious groups as we should respect their beliefs)
3. Sex education in schools is okay but only for students graduating grade school level at the very least.

And a lot more. But like I said, I won't write my defense for these.

Then what's this article all about? Haven't I been posting articles on birth control issues before? Haven't I been asking Roman Catholics about birth control? The primary reason of me writing articles involving the Church of Rome and birth control is not about birth control itself but rather the hypocrisy of certain Roman Catholic apologists criticizing the unity of Evangelicals. The birth control and RH bill issues divide Roman Catholics in the Philippines despite of a so-called infallible magisterium. Recently, President Noynoy Aquino (son of the late President and devout Roman Catholic, Cory Aquino) was criticized by some Roman Catholic faithful because of his statement that he is willing to be excommunicated over the approval of the RH bill. So if you think the Roman Catholic Church is united because they have an "infallible" pope and magisterium to decide for her members about beliefs and biblical interpretations, think again.

Another reason is that we would like to expose how people, especially those who are against the artificial birth control methods, use faulty argumentation to mislead others. While I respect their stand, they should not use faulty argumentation to convince others. We are going to tackle two misleading arguments.

One of the faulty arguments used by people against artificial birth controls is saying that God commanded all creatures to be fruitful and multiply and children are a blessing from God. Yes, both statements are true and such people quote Genesis 1:28 and Psalm 127:3. So what's wrong with this argument? If this argument is used by people supporting only abstinence or any natural family planning methods, it will also be to their demise. Why? These natural methods also prevent children from being conceived just as the artificial methods. Even those who pledged celibacy like priests and nuns are also guilty of breaking God's command of not going forth and multiply (if that's that the right interpretation).

Another faulty argument is saying that the artificial birth control (and the RH Bill) promotes irresponsible sexual activities. By justifying the use of contraceptives such as pills and condoms, people (especially the youth) can have sex all they want without fear of disease and pregnancy (so they argued). Of course this does not necessarily follow. Freedom of speech does not necessarily promote slander. Likewise, contraceptives does not necessarily promote sex. So even though a person is against contraceptives, he can still have sex if he can't avoid the temptation.

What promotes irresponsible sex, among others, are pornography (including those nude paintings in art museums) and lack of proper education on sex and reproduction as discussed in biology, anatomy, religion, and the law. Making things worse are bad company who influence our youth to be extremely liberal in giving their bodies away for sex. Business establishments using media to advertise or make films with sexual orientation (even those subtle ones) also contributes to the temptation.

In conclusion, these faulty arguments we discussed can mislead people. For those who are for and against the use artificial birth control, I would suggest the use of objective facts and principles in convincing others about your stand.

A Roman Catholic Star Witness in support of Eternal Security

2011-05-18T16:26:00.006+08:00

I was reading this article on Fr. Abraham Arganiosa's blog. He mocks the Born Again Christians for our altar call in receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior. He also criticizes the doctrine of eternal security or once saved always saved (OSAS). The worst thing about it is in the comments section when he insulted an Evangelical defender by the code name Comb@tron.

Well, that's typical for Fr. Abe. Obviously, Fr. Abe does not know the concept of the doctrine of Eternal Security. He attacks these out of ignorance and he uses insults and ad hominems to catch the attention of the readers.

Eternal Security means the sovereign God will preserve his saved elect up to the very end. It does not mean the elect is perfect upon salvation for God continuously transforms them to be better. The elect will sin and sometimes fall, but since God is sovereign He will restore them.

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. John 6:39

Now, like Fr. Abe many Roman Catholics do not believe that. Fr. Abe went to great lengths to even to mock OSAS. Little does he know that it is of benefit to him that he should believe in OSAS. Why? Because there is one person whom Roman Catholics must apply this doctrine, otherwise a particular belief is compromised. This one person is the star witness in the Roman Catholic Church for the doctrine of Eternal Security.

And this person is no other than (drum roll)... the Roman Catholic Mary!

Take note that I wrote "Roman Catholic" Mary as opposed to the biblical Mary (they are different). How is the Roman Catholic Mary the star witness of OSAS? Read their catechism on the Immaculate Conception:

CCC #492 - The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son". The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".

We all know that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) which leads to Hell. The Roman Catholic Mary was preserved from all stains of original sin from the time of her conception. Therefore, she is always saved! Let's read further their Catechism:

CCC #493 - By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

The Roman Catholic has eternal security! Isn't that amazing? The very doctrine they refuse to believe is applied to their Mary who remained free of personal sin all her life.

Roman Catholic apologists argue in Luke 1:47 that Mary called God her Savior because she was saved by anticipation. They give an illustration like "Well, she is like a person who is about to fall off a cliff. Unlike the rest of us whom God saved while falling from a cliff before hitting the bottom, Mary was saved by God by preventing her to even reach the edge of the cliff before the fall." The point of this is that Roman Catholics acknowledges that Mary too was saved. But since she is free of personal sin, she is forever saved. Isn't that OSAS?

If the Roman Catholics do not believe in eternal security, I don't know what else you can call their unbiblical Immaculate Conception.

Refuting Isahel Alfonso on Perpetual Virginity

2011-05-17T14:38:00.010+08:00

After beating the deadlines at work, I am blogging once again. And we start off by refuting a recent article on the perpetual virginity of Mary, written by Mr. Isahel Alfonso of Catholic Faith Defender. He attempts to refute the biblical passages that totally refutes this doctrine. But are his arguments carry any weight? Let's see.

St. Jerome the greatest biblical scholar once said "ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ" Helvidius clearly exposes his ignorance of Sacred Scripture for claiming that Mary had other children aside from Jesus Christ.

Ah, the same St. Jerome who denied the canonical status of the Deuterocanonicals. Of course Mr. Alfonso will admit that St. Jerome is not infallible. Therefore, he should be willing to accept that St. Jerome can be wrong if proven so.

Little did Helvidius know that in Jewish culture they address blood born brothers, friends, relatives, countrymen and fellow member of a religious group as brother. The reason for this is that in Aramaic the language that Jesus used there is no specific term for cousins and distant relatives. The use of the term "brother and sister" is commonly used extendedly to include distant relatives and countrymen in African and Arab countries, the same thing is true in a Jewish nation (Buby 43). Even in our modern day setting, in Charismatic groups and other religious groups they address each and everyone as "brother and sister", yet they are not related by blood.

The above information is true but it is not relevant in the case of perpetual virginity. How so? Because it failed to consider two things:

1). the New Testament was written in Greek, therefore we should follow the system of Greek terminologies. The Greek words "anepsios" and "suggenis" are used for cousin and relatives respectively.

2). Context. While the term brothers and sisters can be used even for non-biological sibling, the context of the verse will tell us if it is pertaining to a spiritual brother, fellow countryman, or a close friend. We just don't simply put a meaning to it simply because it suits our taste.

The apostle James the less, Joses and Salome are identified as children of another Mary (Mk.15:40, 16:1, Mt.27:55-56). The apostle James the Great is identified as the brother of John and son of (another) Mary and Zebedee. The other James is identified as the son of Mary, wife of Alphaeus (or Cleophas). The apostle Jud (author of the epistle of Jude and brother of James the Less) is identified as Lebbaeus whose surname was Thaddeus (Mt.10:2-4) (Alfonso 19).

This is simply a complex reasoning to lure away the readers from the obvious. Many people during those times have the same names. The burden belongs to our opponents that the James and Joses of the other Mary at the cross is the same James and Joses of Matthew 13:55. Similarity of names do not necessarily mean they are the same person.

Evidently Mary has no other children aside from Jesus Christ, not a single verse in the Bible ever say that Mary gave birth to other children aside from Jesus Christ.

We've already shown this argument before as a form of false dilemma. fallacy Yes, it's true that the Bible does not mention the birth of Mary's other children. But is that the only way to prove it? Lazarus, Martha, and Mary Magdalene are believed to be siblings yet there is no mention that they are from the same parents. Are we to say that they are not biological siblings due to the lack of information concerning their parents?

This is another pitiful argument and an amateur exegesis of Sacred Scripture. Helvidius' contention is that in the New Testament the Greek word "adelphos" for brother was used to addressed the alleged siblings of Jesus Christ and not the Greek word "anepsioi" which means cousin. His arguments runs like this since they are called brother of Christ and not cousins or distant relatives, therefore they are indeed literally blood born brothers of Christ. At first glance his argument is quite convincing to those who are not familiar with the language that Jesus used. The lingua franca of the Jewish nation was Aramaic, brother in Aramaic is "Akha/ אחא" when the writers of the New Testament wrote their gospel the closest literal translation of the Aramaic word "Akha" in Greek is "Adelphos". So when the writers used the Greek word "adelphos" its implication is the inclusiveness of the Aramaic equivalent for brother. Therefore there is no problem in reconciling these biblical passages in Mary's perpetual virginity.

Oh that is a total baloney. Paul, who is a Jew, made use of anepsios in Colossians 4:10. Read Luke 21:16:

You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death.

If Luke were following Isahel's faulty reasoning, he would have stopped at brothers and sisters if the Greek term adelphos were to include relatives and friends. However, inspired by the Holy Spirit, Luke debunks the Roman Catholic speculation by including suggenis in the verse.

and the third interpretation which is correct and acceptable is the interpretation of the great biblical scholar St. Jerome wherein he explained that the brothers of the Lord are his cousins the sons and daughters of another Mary the wife of Cleopas (Alfonso 19).

Here is a thing that you must know: Rome has is no official position on the relationship with of these brothers of the Lord. The most popular argument is that they are said to be "cousins", but no pope has ever given an ex-cathedra statement of it. They can give any relationship they like as long as they are not biological brothers of the Lord (or whatever serves mother church).

The belief that Mary is a perpetual virgin is as ancient as the Catholic Church. This belief was foretold in the Old Testament (Gen.3:15, Is.7:14 and Ex.44:2) and had its fulfillment in the New Testament (Mt.1:23).

The belief that was foretold in the OT is the birth of Christ through a virgin woman, not the doctrine of perpetual virginity. Mary was a virgin before the birth of Christ. But, she didn't remain a virgin after the birth of Christ.

The heretical doctrine that Mary is not a perpetual virgin was first taught by Helvidius, by relying in his personal interpretation of the Sacred text he arrived to a conclusion the Mary was not a perpetual virgin. Helvidius heretical thesis was rejected even by the reformers but was later on revived by modern day Protestants.

Well, Tertullian who was a church father also didn't believe in the perpetual virginity. But of course, Isahel will scream that Tertullian wasn't infallible. And so is Jerome.

The burned of proof is on the shoulders of those who teach that Mary had other children. They have to demonstrate in Scripture that Mary gave birth to other children and provide the names and whereabouts of Christ siblings.

Like I said, this is a false dilemma fallacy. Little does Isahel know that he also has a burden of proving that Mary is perpetually a virgin.

A close reading of Sacred Scripture will bring out the truth that Mary is a perpetual virgin. Those who say that Mary gave birth to other children is displaying their ignorance of the Sacred text. Like my previous exchanges with this born again group I know that the points that I raised will simply be ignored. But I am writing this not just to refute their errors but also to provide defense for the faith so that my Catholic brethren can also learn the truth and defend it.

Well we now know who is displaying ignorance and it isn't us. We haven't ignored the points he raised. We don't know if Isahel will respond to this article but we'll be ready if he does.

Responding to Jubernson Alabastro's Rebuttal on Eternal Security

2011-04-28T20:41:00.004+08:00

A few days after I posted this article refuting Mr. Jub Alabastro on Eternal Security, a "rebuttal" from him came to my attention in the comments section. It is posted at least in the blogs of Mr. Isahel Alfonso (Catholic Eternal Truth) and Fr. Abe Arganiosa (The Splendor of the Church).

Concentrating just on the issues, it won't take a long article to respond to Mr. Alabastro's rebuttal.

In the argument of Judas not being saved from the beginning:

If I remember correctly, I provided two examples. Besides Judas, I also mentioned Peter. Now, applying Mr. Soliman’s own logic to the other example I gave, when our Lord said to Peter, “Get Behind Me Satan! (Mat. 16:23,) will Mr. Soliman also say, “Christ didn't say "GET BEHIND ME YOU WHO IS A FORMER SATAN," or " GET BEHIND ME YOU WHO WILL BE A SATAN," rather it's "GET BEHIND ME SATAN!" Could it be that Peter wasn't also saved to begin with?

Yup, that's the best he can do. First of all if Mr. Alabastro will use this against what I have presented, will he be willing to admit, as a believer the papacy, that Christ built his church upon Satan? I suppose he should consider what Christ meant when He rebuked Peter. Peter was being a hindrance, an adversary. Yes, Peter was wrong here but does that affect his eternity? We'll deal with this in the succeeding paragraphs.

Second, going back to John 6:70-71, I'm pretty sure that Christ said "one of you is a devil" and not "two of you are devils". The Bible says about Judas, "The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." Matthew 26:24. Nothing is said about the future of Peter.

The next section of Mr. Alabastro is quite amazing:

I believe there were errors both in the Scriptural citation and understanding of Mr.Soliman. Gerry cited Rom. 8:28-29 when what he probably meant was Rom. 8:38-39.

Rom 8:38-39 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor present things, nor future things, nor powers, (39) nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

As to his second error,

WHAT CANNOT SEPARATE US FROM THE LOVE OF GOD?

* neither death nor life,
* neither angels nor demons,
* neither the present nor the future,
* nor any powers,
* neither height nor depth,
* nor anything else in all creation,

The text does not include or even suggest “SIN” as among the things that cannot separate us from the love of God.

It just makes me wonder why Mr. Alabastro failed to consider that death, which Paul mentioned, is a result of sin. And demons cause people to sin. Yes, we do sin but will it separate us from the love of God? Here is the preceding text:

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. Romans 8:28-30

Therefore, God is in control of his elect. We may sin but God will make us realize our mistake and be restored to Him. Now that's what we call sovereign. The same applies to Peter, though he had sinned tremendously God disciplined and preserved him to the end.

Isa 59:2 but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear.

This text is different from Romans 8. In Romans 8, Paul was talking to the believers. We read earlier that it is God who preserve his elect. Isaiah was speaking about the state of those who rebel against God, which are of course unbelievers.

Lastly, Mr. Alabastro misses the point on freewill:

Simple. The passage does not speak of security for eternity, but rather the call of the OLD (Rom. 9:1-15) and NEW (Rom. 9:24-25) TESTAMENT people of God. In fact, Verse 32 later revealed the Jews’ fall from God’s call. The above passage you cited explains that the privilege of being called into God’s people originated from God’s own effort and initiative or mercy and therefore not of human origin, just as He is the source of Scripture (2Pet. 1:20.)

It is often argued in Romans 8:28-29 that although nothing can really separate us from the love of God, man can choose by his freewill to be separated. That argument is refuted in Romans 9:16. And how come it does not speak for eternity when it is written in the succeeding chapters:

As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. Romans 11:28-29

When it is irrevocable by God it cannot be changed as God would secure the eternity of his elect.

Refuting Jub Alabastro on Eternal Security

2011-04-24T19:58:00.005+08:00

Mr. Jubernson Alabastro, a Catholic Faith Defender, wrote an apologetic article with a theme in line with the Holy Week. For us Evangelical Calvinists, he dealt with the doctrine of Eternal Security:

Though Christ died for all for the redemption of our sins (2Cor. 5:14-15) Christ does not force His grace, His salvation upon us. That is why verse 28 of the above passage says “for this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.” We must accept His grace by faith that it may be applied to us (Eph. 2:8,) and by the same grace cooperating with our will, work out our salvation (Phil. 2:12) to preserve or recover it when lost (1Cor.9:27.)

The stories of Judas’ and St. Peter’s betrayals are two examples that though one has faith in Christ, it is not a security for eternity. That grace can be lost by our betrayal and denial of Christ through sin. We can, however, choose to repent like St. Peter and recover the grace lost, or despair like Judas and remain in the state of sin and guilt for all eternity.

It just make me wonder how could he miss these verses:

Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.) John 6:70-71

Christ didn't say "One of you is a former devil," or "One of you will be a devil," rather it's "One of you is a devil!" Could it be that Judas wasn't saved to begin with?

As to losing salvation:

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:28-29

Now if Mr. Alabastro will say "freewill" or man's choosing to break away from the love of God will lose his salvation, he has to contend with this:

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. Romans 9:16

God is sovereign and he will secure the salvation of his elect.

Arrogance in a Homily

2011-04-21T11:56:00.005+08:00

Read here.

Excerpt:

The remarks made by Fr. Jose Vernon “JV” Ilano while he was celebrating Mass last week were recorded by a churchgoer on a mobile phone. The recording found its way to the local ABS-CBN Baguio television network.

Ilano spoke out against the RH proponents during a noon Mass he celebrated on April 10 at the Baguio Cathedral. He mentioned former Akbayan party-list lawmaker Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel—who was neither in the church nor in Baguio at the time—as among the measure’s supporters.

ABS-CBN in a report on its website quoted the priest as saying in a mix of Filipino and English: “If there is anyone in the Mass here who are pro-RH bill…please, go out. It’s useless.”

“What is this Mass for if you are pro-RH bill? What is going to Church for if you’re pro-RH bill?” Ilano was also quoted as saying.

It was not known if any of the churchgoers actually left the cathedral.

My comment:

Grating that the RH Bill is totally immoral, don't you think the mass would be a good opportunity to convince your members about it by letting them be there so that they can listen to you?

Atty. Llasos debunks Fr. Abe Arganiosa

2011-04-09T20:19:00.006+08:00

Atty. Marwil Llasos was a speaker in a recent Marian Recollection. He discussed, among others, the Roman Catholic doctrines about Mary.

This statement Atty. Llasos made is really commendable:

I discussed the Marian dogmas. I noted that non-Catholics don’t have any issue with Mary. They have no problem with Mary per se. Their issue is with authority. For instance, Protestants who believe in sola scriptura reject Marian dogmas because according to them they are nowhere taught in the Bible. On the other hand, Orthodox Christians reject the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary into Heaven because these were unilaterally proclaimed dogmas by the Pope and not by an ecumenical council. So, the issue really is authority.

It is very kind of Atty. Llasos to say non-Catholics (like us Evangelicals), have no problem with Mary per se. He has taken in to consideration of our stand about Mary herself.

The best thing about it, is that it disregards the position of his comrade at arms, Fr. Abe Arganiosa:

‘official’ for all Born Again? NO, NO, NO… Mr. Mizzi has no authority to speak for all Born Again and in fact there is reason for us to believe that he is saying that simply to deceive us Catholics, just to make us believe that they accept the Blessed Mother of Jesus but in reality the Born Again HATE and ABHORE Mary the Mother of Jesus.

We really don't hate and abhore Mary. And we thank Atty. Llasos for inadvertently exonerating us.

Prof. Gitamondoc's Attempt to avoid Circular Argument

2011-04-08T11:09:00.013+08:00

Here is a very long discussion on sola scriptura between an Evangelical named Benjie and a Roman Catholic named Prof. Ramon Gitamondoc. According to the title of the article, Prof. Gitamondoc is the National President of the Catholic Faith Defenders.

We won't discuss here the lengthy discussion as some of the issues have already been addressed in the previous articles on sola scriptura. If there is a section in the linked discussion that you, my dear readers, would like to have clarity or need refuting please post a comment here or send me an email. What I would like to discuss here is how Prof. Gitamondoc attempt to avoid the famous circular argument fallacy that goes by, "The Bible is true because the church says so, and the church is true because the Bible says so."

For a brief introduction, Roman Catholics assert that sola scriptura is unworkable since the Bible does not have a list of inspired books and we are dependent on an infallible church (e.g. Church of Rome) to know what those books are. For that matter they further ask how do we know that our intepretations of Scripture are correct since we are not infallible? And as we have already noted, this is a circular argument as one can rightfully ask the question: how do we know the church has this authority and infallibility to determine the inspired books? Lo and behold, most Roman Catholics respond to that question by quoting Scriptures; the very same Scriptures that they claim that their church infallibly determined. Round and around we go!

Now in the case of Prof. Gitamondoc, he is aware of such circular reasoning. Here is a portion of awareness which he attempted to avoid it:

How do you know what the New Testament is? How do you know that the Bible in all its parts comes from God? You will not know this by the Bible alone. You cannot answer the question by appeal to a verse that claims inspiration. Authenticating the Bible by the Bible is a circular argument. On the other hand the Catholic argument goes like this: 1) First, we do not presume that the NT writings are inspired but that nevertheless they are reliable historical record, 2) By reading the NT writings we will be informed about Jesus, what he did and what he taught, 3) That in the NT Jesus claims to be God and has proven his claim by the miracles which he wrought and finally by his resurrection, 4) Since Jesus is God then He is able to fulfill what he promise, 5) That based on NT records one of the things that Jesus did while he was on earth was that He founded a Church (Mat 16:18-19) whom he commissioned to baptize and teach all nations (Mat 28:19-20), 6) That based on NT record Jesus promised that his Church will never fall into error (John 14:16, 16:13, 1 Tim 3:15) and therefore has the attribute of infallibility. Here comes the final step in our reasoning. 7) The Church founded by Christ declared that the NT writings are not only reliable historical documents but conveys the very word of God and therefore is inspired. Since the Church is infallible then we can accept her pronouncement as true. This is not a circular reasoning but a spiral reasoning. In this way inspiration is not only “felt” in a subjective way but is demonstrated. The authority of the Church does not come from the Bible (for again that would be circular reasoning i.e., proving the Church by the Bible and the Bible by the Church) but comes directly from Christ who is true God.

The above paragraph is similar to what Patrick Madrid, a Roman Catholic apologist, argued during their debate with an Evangelical apologist, James White in 1993. This reasoning came out after Evangelicals noticed the circular reasoning of Roman Catholics appealing to the church to prove the Scriptures and appealing to the Scriptures to prove the church. Let's deal firth with last sentence:

The authority of the Church does not come from the Bible (for again that would be circular reasoning i.e., proving the Church by the Bible and the Bible by the Church) but comes directly from Christ who is true God.

It's not really a matter of where the authority come from, the Bible and the church came from God. However, the Roman Catholic argument on the authority of the church has always been appealed from Scriptures. Yet they argue that to know the true Scriptures, one has to appeal to an authoritative infallible church.

The attempt to avoid circular reasoning begins with this statement:

1) First, we do not presume that the NT writings are inspired but that nevertheless they are reliable historical record

While this seem objective at first, this will become arbitrary which we will show later.

2) By reading the NT writings we will be informed about Jesus, what he did and what he taught,

So far so good. Some non-church history books have information about our Lord Jesus Christ.

3) That in the NT Jesus claims to be God and has proven his claim by the miracles which he wrought and finally by his resurrection, 4) Since Jesus is God then He is able to fulfill what he promise, 5) That based on NT records one of the things that Jesus did while he was on earth was that He founded a Church (Mat 16:18-19) whom he commissioned to baptize and teach all nations (Mat 28:19-20), 6) That based on NT record Jesus promised that his Church will never fall into error (John 14:16, 16:13, 1 Tim 3:15) and therefore has the attribute of infallibility. Here comes the final step in our reasoning. 7) The Church founded by Christ declared that the NT writings are not only reliable historical documents but conveys the very word of God and therefore is inspired.

Unfortunately, it now becomes arbitrary. Specially on the 6th statement, it becomes a matter of interpretation. Protestants and Roman Catholics have always been debating church infallibility and arguing if John 14:16, 16:13 and 1st Timothy 3:15 support it. But in the above, it is presented as if the verses already proves infallibility. Likewise in the 3rd statement, though we believe that Jesus is God we have been arguing with cults (who believe otherwise) if the verses we cite really prove Christ's deity. But presenting it as if it were a true premise is begging the question. Even before we get to the 7th statement, the Bible has already become an inspired book of authority than a record of history.

The truth of the matter is, the infallibility of the church has always been appealed to Scriptures as an inspired authoritative book. Roman Catholics, no matter how seasoned in apologetics, always resort to the circular argument fallacy, "the Bible is true because the church says so, and the church is true because the Bible says so."

Hypocritical Arguments on Matthew 16:18-19

2011-04-05T08:39:00.003+08:00

Roman Catholics use Matthew 16:18 and 19 to prove the church was built upon Peter and thereby establishing the office of the papacy:

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

We have already done an analysis of the above verses in a previous article. What we will discuss here is the hypocrisy of the arguments used by Roman Catholics in defending their (mis)interpretation of the above passage.

First, despite the fact that the manuscript of the book of Matthew was in Greek, Roman Catholics argue that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and could have stated that, "You are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my church." Unfortunately, up to now Roman Catholics do not have any evidence for an Aramaic original. The hypocrisy comes in Luke 1:28 when they prefer the Greek rendering "kecharitomene". They argue that it is in the perfect tense of a participle which started in the past and continues up to the present; so that Mary was "full of grace" aka, immaculate conception (though modern scholarship translate it as highly favored) .

Imagine, Roman Catholics exert so much effort to determine (or rather speculate) the Aramaic original for Matthew 16:18-19 but would not do the same procedure in Luke 1:28. Yes, the author Luke was Greek but the angel and Mary could have also spoken in Aramaic prior to the enscripturation of the event. So why not exert extra effort to determine the Aramaic original of Luke 1:28 to strongly affirm Mary is really sinless?

Another hypocritical argument is when Roman Catholics cricitize sola scriptura or scripture alone. When Evangelicals refer to 2nd Timothy 3:16-17, Roman Catholics are quick to point that it does not say scripture alone as there is no word alone or only. The same argument is applied when Evangelicals defend sola fide or faith alone using Ephesians 2:8-9. Roman Catholics argue that they don't see in the verse the that sinners are saved by faith alone. Despite the fact that the Bible does not point to us any authoritative source that is God-inspired other than Scriptures and no other means of being saved than faith alone, Roman Catholics demand an actual reading to include the word alone or only in the verses used by Evangelicals to prove sola scriptura and sola fide.

So where does the hypocrisy comes in? Well, Roman Catholics defend the papacy by arguing that in Matthew 16:18-19 that the keys were given to Peter alone. However, Christ did not say, "To you alone, I will give the keys...". We don't see the words alone and only that is attached to Peter in the passage. But Roman Catholics will be quick to respond, "but the Bible does not point us to any other person who were handed the keys." Well now, isn't that the same reasoning Evangelicals use to defend sola scriptura and sola fide which you are simply dismissing unless we show you that the words only or alone? Therefore, we could also dismiss their argument that there is no one else who were handed the keys.

The reality is, the keys were also entrusted to other apostles. In Matthew 18:18 the other apostles were also given the ability to bind and loose. Although no keys were mentioned there, it is implied (and common sense will tell us) that the other apostles also have the keys so that they can bind and loose.

It's not surprising that one could bend the rules to justify a doctrine. As the saying goes, whatever serves mother church.

The Jews misunderstood Christ - a Dialogue

2011-03-15T08:14:00.007+08:00

In the book of John there are certain scenarios where the Jews tried to capture or kill our Lord Jesus Christ. This reaction from the Jews were from disbelief on the claims and teachings of Christ. As believers of Christ, we of course do the opposite of the unbelieving Jews.

Among the claims of Christ which the unbelieving Jews opposed is His claim of deity and equality with God the Father. We cite verses in the book of John wherein the Jews reacted negatively, and even violently, whenever Christ makes such claim. However, cults who do not believe in the deity of Christ interpret such reaction from Jews to be just a misunderstanding. These cult argue that Christ never actually made a claim of deity or equality with the Father but the Jews simply misunderstood Him. They even comment further that those religions who believe the Christ is God are on the side of the unbelieving Jews for thinking the same thing.

A dialogue would help us illustrate this situation. I recall a dialogue I had with a member of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) a long time ago. The INC does not believe that Jesus Christ:

- is equal with the Father
- pre-existed during the Old Testament period
- is God.

Here is the discussion:

Gerry: In John 5:18 we see the unbelieving Jews tried to kill Christ because He called God his Father and thus making him equal with God.

INC: Oh like the Jews you misunderstood that passage. If you read the next verse Christ even said he cannot do anything by Himself. Therefore Christ is not really making himself equal with the Father.

Gerry: Yes he did say that but if you read further on the same verse we will find that whatever the Father does, the Son also does. That looks like equality to me. Anyway, in John 8:58 the verse proves that Christ already existed even during the Old Testament times as He was before Abraham. And the Jews tried to kill Him again.

INC: You misunderstood again like the Jews. He existed before Abraham because He was a plan in God's mind. That's how we interpret the Word in John 1:1, remember? If you were to read the entire Old Testament, all we see are prophecies about Christ. Christ wasn't active during the Old Testament.

Gerry: But in John 17:5 Jesus asked the Father to give Him the glory He had before the world was. Well to move on, the Jews were about to stone Christ to death in John 10:33 because He claimed to be God.

INC: Are you on the side of the Jews, Gerry? We don't read anything in the chapter about Christ claiming something like, "I am God." In fact in verse 34 He says others are called 'gods' even though they are not really God.

Gerry: So you're saying that these unbelieving Jews just misunderstood Christ and that Christ never actually made such claims to deity?

INC: That's what I have been saying to you from the very beginning. It makes me want to conclude that you are on the side of the Jews because their accusations are so far from what Christ actually said. These Jews have the habit of misrepresenting Christ.

Gerry: But what about in John 19:7? The Jews wanted Christ dead because He claimed to be the Son of God. Am I to believe that the Jews misunderstood Christ and He never claimed to be the Son of God?

INC: Huh? Well that's... ah... err... uhm...

The INC in this dialogue is of course biased to their doctrine that Christ is only a man. The INC argues here that the Jews just misunderstood Christ on verses like John 5:18, 8:58, and 10:33. But when faced with John 19:7 their theory of misunderstanding Jews falls flat to the ground because the INC believes Christ is the Son of God. Meaning, they'll be forced to admit that the Jews really understood Christ in John 19:7 and thus becoming inconsistent. Some of the other INC members I discussed with treat this as an isolated case. But then again, their inconsistency is screaming from their biases. I never really believe that the cults adapted the Protestant system of Sola Scriptura because they are still governed by their traditions and interpretation of their leaders, much like the Church of Rome.

Discussing with an extremely church-loyal Roman Catholic

2011-03-10T08:13:00.006+08:00

Several weeks ago, I had a discussion with a Roman Catholic by the codename Milesawayman on Sola Scriptura (read the comments section here). This article is an evaluation of how Milesawayman detracts the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. How does he do that? Well, by showing his extreme loyalty to the church of Rome.

You know, an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The Church (the Apostles and their disciples) wrote the New Testament and the successors of the Apostles, the bishops of the Church, decided on the canon. If Scripture (the effect) is infallible, the Church (its cause) must also be infallible. Therefore, her (church) interpretation of her own writings is infallible.

And why do we have the book of Revelations today in our bible? Despite of the fact that it was disputed? The answer is simply because the Catholic Church says so.

For those who already have experience discussing Sola Scriptura with Roman Catholics, the above argument is quite common. They believe that the church is infallible and the church tells them what is scripture. As opposed to Sola Scriptura, this is what Evangelicals consider as Sola Ecclessia or the church alone is the authority. Many Roman Catholics will immediately deny that they observe Sola Ecclessia but their actions show the opposite; most especially when they say the catch phrase, "the church says so".

They will argue that their system of authority is a tripod (Bible, Tradition, and Magisterium) but in reality is a unicycle (Magisterium only). While they claim that the Magisterium is subservient to Scripture and Tradition, it is so ironic that their Magisterium gets to define what is Scripture and Tradition.

Moving on, when I asked Milesawayman how did he know that the church is infallible, he answered:

Because the New Testament says so, and the Catholic Church teaches that the NT is the Word of God, so I believe it. St. Paul wrote that the Church is "the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth" 1 Tm 3:15. You don't believe that, even though you claim to be a "Bible-believer," but I do. St. Paul also said that the Church is the Bride of Christ and the very Body of Christ. I believe the NT. But you, sadly, do not. Christ said He would be with the Church ALWAYS, TO THE END OF THE WORLD (Mt 28:20), and that He would send the Spirit to be with the Church ALWAYS, to guide her to all truth ALWAYS (Jn 14:16-18, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-15, Acts 1:1, 15:28, and more).

Earlier we quoted Milesawayman saying that they have the book of Revelation in the Bible because the church says so. Now from the above Milesawayman is telling us that the church is infallible because the Bible says so. Folks, I have been writing this in my previous articles (see a sample here) time and time again, telling that such argument is circular. And sadly, many Roman Catholics like Milesawayman fail to see this circularity.

And I know the Church is infallible because of the principle of causality: I've already written this on my previous post but you didn't seem to understand it. An effect cannot be greater than its cause. If the Scriptures (the effect) are infallible, the Catholic Church (the cause) must also be infallible. Get it? Either the Scriptures are not infallible and the Church is not infallible -- or -- the Church and her Scriptures are both infallible. That means she is preserved from teaching error in either doctrine or morals.

The above argument commits the non-sequitir fallacy (or it does not follow). But due to Milesawayman's loyalty to the church, he argues this on the guise that it is a principle of cause and effect. It makes me wonder if he were to argue the Bible's infallibility to skeptics, would he actually use that argument?

When asked what is his basis of saying the Church of Rome is the true church among the other churches, he responds:

Yes, I have identified the True Church. And I don't need to be infallible to recognize her. The Catholic Church is 2,000 years old and can trace her history back in an unbroken continuum to Jesus and the Apostles. She is the Church written about in the NT.

Christ founded only one Church -- the Catholic Church. "Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Church at Smyrna, A.D. 107. Ignatius' teacher and mentor, the Apostle John, died c. 100. This was written only 7 years after the death of the last Apostle.

And another:

What other Church was around at the time of Christ? Only the Catholic Church is 2,000 years old. There were no Protestants until the 16th century.

Christ fixed the premise. The Orthodox Churches were once part of the undivided Catholic Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world. They have a validly ordained clergy, are in Apostolic Succession, and have valid Sacraments (they call them Mysteries). The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox to be sister Churches and works toward reconciliation with them so the Church may again be one. Protestant churches, sadly, are in heresy, but their current members didn't participate in the 16th century rebellion so are not considered formal heretics.

When I was reading the above arguments I found to be both funny and annoying. Funny in a sense that we are being shown a lack of objectivity and annoying in a sense that the person is too stubborn to notice that he lacks objectivity.

Yes, Christ indeed found only one church over 2,000 years ago. Unfortunately, there are churches who are claiming to be the successor of that one true church. All we are asking is for an objective basis of saying the Church of Rome is indeed that one true church. But how does Milesawayman answer? He simply describes the church the way he believes it to be and connects it to the Church of Rome. It is another way of saying, "Well, the Church of Rome says she is the one founded by Christ and I believed her so all other churches must be false."

In the present period where there are so many Christian churches claiming to be true, it is objective enough to test each one. But here, Milesawayman just picked the claimes of the Church of Rome as the standard.

Here is the funniest and most annoying of Milesawayman's argument when asked if he analyzed the teachings of Rome:

The teaching of the Church is the teaching of the Apostles. The doctrines the Apostles taught the Church are the ones they learned from Christ who ordered them to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you ALWAYS, TO THE END OF THE WORLD" Mt 28:20 KJV. So Christ is still present in His Church. Do the teachings of Christ need to be analyzed?

If you think that there is objectivity in the above then consider yourself to be gullible. In Milesawayman's mind, the Church of Rome is the true church and that is it. He takes away the Church of Rome from among the churches to be examined and use her as her own basis of judgment. No matter what objective measures you suggest to him the battle has ended even before it has begun.

For those of you who will refer to Milesawayman's comment,

I scrutinized the history of Christianity and found the Catholic Church.

to say he was objective, ask him further how did he scrutinize. Based on our discussion, you will find one important quality missing: objectivity.

In conclusion, let's quote Milesawayman about the making of Scriptures:

The Catholic Church did not come out of the Bible like Protestant organizations do; rather, the Bible came out of the Catholic Church. The Church is the mother of the Bible.

If she is the mother of the Bible it makes me wonder why the Bible was ever written. Roman Catholics could have just relied on their systematic and organized Catechisms of the Catholic Church as their rule of faith since this is the expressed teachings of Rome. Making things worse is that they teach that only the Magisterium can rightfully interpret Scripture and Tradition. So why bother providing Roman Catholics with Bibles? Furthermore, we are faced with a circular argument that the Church of Rome derives her authority from the Bible which Milesawayman claimed to be a product of the church.

With all these dilemmas, no Roman Catholic can honestly say that they were objective in studying their church. They simply accepted Rome's teachings with no analysis and no questions asked.

Still More of Kapatas on Eliphaz

2011-03-07T16:18:00.006+08:00

This article was buried among Atty. Llasos' other posts filled with pictures, I never saw it immediately but then again, I was also busy lately at work. The title of that article sure is catchy to the gullible. Kapatas' words are in brown with violet as highlight.

I don’t see anything wrong with this. It is perfectly natural to clarify oneself when someone is misinterpreting you. What is wrong with you is that you are expecting that I should have included my clarificatory statements early on. But the problem is that my statements were directed to the ADD people and not to you. That’s why when you appeared out of nowhere and started misinterpreting my statements, of course I have to set things straight and clarify why Eliphaz though unrighteous previously, was not really an evil person. The key here is by considering the later events which include Eliphaz being forgiven by God.

What Kapatas doesn't realize is that his principles to defend his stand are all made up after being exposed. Yes, he was talking to the ADD there but it seems he forgot the principle of consistency when he was at it. Let's keep things in perspective. Why does the Ang Dating Daan members want Eliphaz to be unrigtheous? Simple, to prove that Job 22:15 is wrong:

Kung kakampi ka kay Eliphaz na Temanita, magiging kalaban ka na rin ng Dios. Nagkaroon ng “assessment” ang Dios kung sino ang nagsasalita ng matuwid. Sa assessment ng Dios, ang nagsasalita nang matuwid ay si Job. Kung gusto mong kumampi kay Eliphaz na Temanita sa pakikipagtalo niya sa matuwid na tao na si Job, kalayaan mo yan dahil may kalayaan kang kumampi sa kalaban ng Dios.
[Translation: If you will side with Eliphaz the Temanite, you will be an enemy of God. God made an assessment of who was speaking rigtheously. In God's assessment, Job was speaking righteously. If you want to side with Eliphaz the Temanite in his debate with Job, who is righteous, that's your freedom because you have freedom to side with God's enemy.]

Hindi puwedeng maging batayan na hindi namatay agad si Eliphaz na Temanita at pinarusahan ng Dios kaya tama ang mga sinabi niya sa Job 22:15 sapagkat may mga masama na humahaba ang buhay sa kasamaan AYON SA BIBLIYA.
[It is not an acceptable basis that Eliphaz didn't die immediately and was punished by God so that what he said in Job 22:15 is right because there are evil people who live longer because of evil.]

This prompted Kapatas' to defend the moral standing of Eliphaz:

Nagkamali si Eliphaz yes, pero hindi ibig sabihin eh talagang masama syang tao.
[Eliphaz was wrong, yes, but that doesn't mean that he is really an evil person.]

At pang huli, hindi pinarusahan ng Diyos si Eliphaz. Walang nasusulat na pinarusahan siya. Eh sabi ng bibliya ang masama ay walang pagsalang parurusahan.
[And lastly, God didn't punish Eliphaz. It's not written that he was punished. The Bible says that the wicked will not go unpunished.]

The ADD has only one objective in saying Eliphaz is evil: to prove Job 22:15 is wrong. Now ask yourself this question, why would Kapatas be defending the moral standing of Eliphaz against the ADD if Kapatas believes that Eliphaz was "initially unrighteous at sometime"? It is sure pointless, unless Kapatas wants to defend that Job 22:15 is correct by saying Eliphaz is not unrigtheous. He could have ignored the ADD argument about Eliphaz and just focused on the truthfullness of Job 22:15. He could have also said something to the ADD, "Yeah he is somehow wicked but that doesn't mean Job 22:15 is wrong." But Kapatas never did that and had to to defend Eliphaz to prove that Job 22:15 is a true statement.

It is very obvious that Atty. Marwil and I are talking about Eliphaz on two different periods of time: Atty. Marwil on the yet to be forgiven Eliphaz, which is definitely unrighteous (Job 5:1), me on the already forgiven Eliphaz. (Job 42:8-10)

So what’s your take on this Rodimus? You’re not even touching this. How come you’re silent on this?

I showed to you that there is no contradiction between me and Atty. Llasos because we are talking about Eliphaz on two different periods of time. Just admit that you failed to consider the time element that’s why you arrived into an erroneous conclusion that the good lawyer and I were contradicting each other. You’re not just reading well.

Oh yes I was reading. I was reading well enough to include why you're defending Eliphaz against the ADD to prove that Job 22:15 is true.

Eliphaz sinned and was forgiven. King David sinned and was forgiven. That’s why even though they were unrighteous at some point, they were not really evil. Particularly if you will consider the later events that have transpired which involve God forgiving their sins. It is in this line of thinking that I drew the statement in question.

And we keep asking what's the line that divides unrighteous and evil?

Who said that Eliphaz was unrighteous at the outset? Eliphaz became unrighteous when, during his conversation with Job, he failed to say right things about God. That’s according to God Himself. Do you doubt God’s testimony?

Like I said, I have an understanding of Job 42:7 that it different than yours. Your problem is you were defending the character of Eliphaz against the ADD who are discrediting his statement in Job 22:15 by asserting he is unrighteous. If you have known, before being exposed, that he "became unrighteous" there's no point of you defending Eliphaz.

Moving on, this was his response to the question on what line divides evil and unrighteous.

Evil and unrighteous are usually being used interchangeably. But there is world of difference between initially unrighteous/unrighteous at some time and really evil/really unrighteous.

But the problem is, both you and Atty. Llasos never stated in your articles that Eliphaz was "initially unrighteous". It was plain unrighteous and evil.

When I asserted that he is further betrayed by this statement:

May masama ba na obedient sa utos ng Diyos? Sumunod si Eliphaz sa utos sa kanya ng Diyos so hindi talaga siya masama. Nakagpagsalita siya ng hindi matuwid patungkol sa Diyos pero hindi talaga siya masama. Patunay nga na nung inutusan siya, sumunod siya, kasama yung dalawa pang kaibigan niya.
[Translation: Is there an evil person who is obedient to God's order? Eliphaz followed God's order so he is really not evil. He just said something not right about God but he is really not evil. This was proven when he was ordered, he followed, along with his two friends.]

He responded:

How come? I said those statements in consideration of the fact that Eliphaz though initially unrighteous [he failed to say right things about God], responded positively to God’s command to make an offering as a recompense for his transgression. That’s why at the beginning I said: Is there an evil person who is obedient to God's order? My statement in question takes into account Eliphaz’s later act of compliance to God’s command and God’s forgiveness. For this, Eliphaz is not really evil. But this does not mean that he is righteous when he failed to say right things about God during his conversation with Job. He is unrighteous, initially. But when he was called and he responded and was forgiven thru the prayers of Job, he was purified. For this, you cannot say that he is really evil.

Eliphaz was initially unrighteous when he failed to say right things about God during his conversation with Job. But when God commanded Eliphaz to make an offering as a recompense for his sin [i.e. failing to say right things about God], and he complied and was later forgiven [Job 42:8-10], it is only right to say that Eliphaz is not really evil.

The problem here is you didn't disclose that Eliphaz was "initially unrighteous" for not saying the right things about God. As I have mentioned, that rule didn't appear until I exposed your contradiction. You hide behind the reason you were talking to the ADD, but you most certainly didn't have that principle before.

And speaking of talking to the ADD, keep in mind that the ADD wants Eliphaz unrighteous so that his statement in Job 22:15 would be wrong. For what reason would Kapatas be arguing that Eliphaz isn't really evil? Obviously, to prove Job 22:15 is correct.

Kapatas keeps on forcing the issue that I made an analysis of Job 22:15:

Oh yes you made an interpretation out of my statements which you’ve taken out of context. Question: Who made the interpretation that Job 22:15 is wrong? Who made the analysis? Di ba ikaw [Wasn't it you]?

Let me respond with a question: Since you admitted that I made an analysis of YOUR statement, would I make an analysis of your statement if you didn't make a statement?

The answer is obviously no, therefore I never really made an analysis, especially my own conclusion that Job 22:15 is wrong. If you find my analysis unfavorable, it's because you made an unfavorable statement. You put garbage in, you get garbage out.

On sola scriptura:

I haven’t claimed that I’m better in Sola Scriptura than you. Why should I do that when I believe it’s a heretical, man made teaching invented by Martin Luther? It’s nice to be poor in anything evil.

Oh thanks for admitting. Now the people will know you that when you discuss the topic with them you really don't have idea what the topic is. Thus, you misrepresent all the time.

Ha ha ha… It only shows how shallow and dinky your reading comprehension is. It is very obvious that I’m not referring to the “act of analysis” per se but rather to your own “particular analysis” wherein you’ve concluded that Job 22:15 is wrong when in fact the bible doesn’t make affirmation that said verse is indeed wrong. Isn’t that a violation of sola scriptura? Do you get it now?

Yeah I do get that you really don't have an idea what sola scriptura is. The violation of sola scriptura is when other sources are considered equal to the Bible's authority, not when a person makes a right or wrong analysis.

Don’t you get it? When God said that Eliphaz has failed to say right things about Him [Job 42:7], it only shows that: (1) There are errors in what Eliphaz had said about God in his conversation with Job. (2)But it also means that NOT ALL of Eliphaz’s statements about God are wrong. That’s why when you asked me whether Job 5:13 is wrong or right, it doesn’t affect my position in any way. God didn’t make an affirmation that all of Eliphaz’s statements concerning Him were wrong. So it means that there are also correct statements of Eliphaz concerning God. But if ever there will be wrong in the statements of Eliphaz, it can be found primarily in what he said about God. It is already a given that there are errors in what Eliphaz had said about God during his conversation with Job. [Job 42:7] That’s why I still maintain what I had said earlier that it is your fallible interpretation of Job 42:7 that badly needs reassessment.

Yeah I got those. But you also have to consider this: You never disclosed that until you were exposed. There is only one reason why you defended Eliphaz as not being evil, and that is to refute the ADD in their argument that Eliphaz is wrong in Job 22:15 because he is wicked.

Now, to conclude that Job 22:15 is wrong is quite shocking for a sola scriptura believer like yourself. There is no verse in the bible that states that Job 22:15 is wrong and yet based from your analysis said verse is wrong. If it isn’t “going beyond what was written” I don’t know what is. Clearly, you violated your own teaching.

Ah forcing the issue again. Please read the similar response above.

During the time when Eliphaz failed to say right things about God, was he righteous or not?

I already have answered this question. In fact you have an answer for it:

Nakagpagsalita siya ng hindi matuwid patungkol sa Diyos pero hindi talaga siya masama.
[He just said something not right about God but he is really not evil.]

There you have it.

Debate on Purgatory - Negative Response to Affirmative Questions

2011-02-25T08:15:00.006+08:00

Question # 1: What is your basis, aside from your say-so, for claiming that “the Jews whom Judas Maccabeus is praying for is [sic] guilty of idolatry?

It's in 2nd Maccabees 12 :40: But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had been slain.

If I am not mistaken, idolatry is a mortal sin even by your church's standards. Since it is a mortal sin, I find it ironic for Judas Maccabeus to pray for the dead. Therefore, 2nd Maccabeus 12 doesn't help you prove Purgatory due to this inconsistency.

Question # 2: About 1 Cor 3:10-15 you made the claim below: ///There is no purging going on but testing. The works of a man is being tested by fire and not the man himself. If the work withstands the fire, the man gets a reward. But if it does not, the work is burned but the man is still saved. We don't see any cleansing of the man. We also don't see any refining towards the man. Whether your works remain or burn, you're still saved./// Were it true that the passage says nothing about the purification of individuals, and that all it means is that works are tested, why does NOT Scripture make this distinction?

First and foremost, you have to consider the immediate context. In the entire chapter 3 Paul was referring to the works of the believers, not the sinners.

For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building. 1st Corinthians 3:9

The preceding verses speaks about their services or works:

What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. 1 Corinthians 3:5-6

That being said, the purpose of the fire in this context becomes clearer: it is for testing. That's very clear in verse 13.

Question # 3: Were it true what you said about the canonicity of 2 Maccabees being in question because:

///Also, the inspiration of the books of Maccabees is doubtful in this verse: The writer does not know if his book is well written or poorly done. He also recommends drinking water mixed with wine to aid in writing. This has no inspiration of the Holy Spirit///

do we, then, throw out of the window all of St. Paul’s letters for the same reason?

Clarificatory points to explain the question:

St. Paul forgot whom he baptized in 1 Cor 1;15.

In 1 Corinthians 7:40 St. Paul wasn't sure that his teaching was inspired or not.
In 1 Cor 7:10 St. Paul makes it clear that certain teachings he's passing along are "not I, but the Lord" speaking (1 Cor. 7:10), whereas in other cases, "I, not the Lord" am speaking (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12). If there’s anything that ahould tell us a Bible passage is NOT inspired, this is it, yet why is it that nobody argues that St. Paul's writings should be excluded from Scripture?

As to Paul forgetting whom he baptized, it really doesn't affect the inspiration of Scripture. Does it serve a purpose even if Paul remembered all people he baptized? The context of 1st Corinthians 1:10-17 is about unity, its not about writing Scriptures.

As to 1st Corinthians 7:10, Paul was expounding what the Lord Jesus Christ taught during His ministry on Earth (Matthew 5:32). On the other hand, 1st Corinthians 7:12 was not among the the direct instructions from the Lord Jesus Christ, it's an added instruction after His resurrection.

As to 1st Corinthians 7:40, I don't see a problem here as it does not involve Scriptures. We don't see any signs of doubt.

Question # 4: Were it true what you’re saying about Jesus simply saying in Mt 12:32 that there is no forgiveness when you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, what, then, might the “age to come” Jesus is saying here?

Clarificatory point to explain the question:

Mt. 12:32 has Jesus clearly saying that speaking against the Holy will not be forgiven, not in this age or the age to come. Were you correct in saying that all Jesus meant here was that speaking against the Holy Spirit will NEVER be forgiven, why didn’t he simply say “And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Period”? If this sin cannot be forgiven after death, it follows that there ARE others which CAN be.

You would have to read how the other gospels wrote it:

"But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin." Mark 3:29

And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Luke 12:10

There is your "period" in Luke 12:10. So when Matthew says "age to come" it refers to time. And those who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit is guilty of an eternal sin. No matter what the blasphemer does, this sin will never be forgiven.

Question # 5: What is your basis, aside from your say-so, that the thief on the cross went directly to heaven without passing by Purgatory first?

Clarificatory points to explain the question:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/12/thief-on-cross-are-sacraments.html

Paradise in this verse (Lk 23:43) about the thief on the cross (if interpreted literally) is not even referring to heaven, and indeed could not, since Jesus was not yet in heaven on that day ("today . . ."). He was crucified on Friday and didn't rise from the dead until Sunday. In fact, He didn't ascend to heaven until forty days after that (Acts 1:3,9-11; cf. Jn 20:17)!

First, Jesus said to the believing thief "today" you will be in paradise with me. He did not say "after forty days". "Today" can be any time during the same day and not necessarily at that moment.

What is paradise? The apostle Paul and John give us an answer:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows—was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. 2nd Corinthians 12:2-4

I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. Revelations 2:7

So paradise is Heaven and not Sheol as your reference put it.

Exposing Steve Ray's Ark of the Covenant Argument

2011-02-24T14:29:00.008+08:00

Steve Ray (a Protestant turned Roman Catholic) wrote an argument on illustrating their veneration to Mary in this article from his official website. He made a parallel between the Ark of the Covenant and Mary, mother of Jesus. Click on the link to see the pictures of comparison.

For those who don't know about Mary and the Ark of the Covenant parallel argument, Roman Catholics believe that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant since she bore Christ. The ark in the Old Testament has God's presence. This parallelism is used, among others, to justify the Immaculate Conception. Since the ark in the Old Testament has to be built with pure or refined materials, Mary has to be free from sin to be a worthy vessel for Christ.

But for the above mentioned article, it seeks to clarify (and justify) that they don't worship Mary while at the same time maintaining their parallelism between Mary and the Ark. Here is Ray's argument:

First, the glory of God is revealed “above” both arks (the Gold Box and Mary).

In the first, the glory is revealed as the Shekinah Glory Cloud; in the second, the glory of God is revealed in his Son Jesus Christ, God Incarnate.

Do we worship the Ark? No, of course not! Jews didn’t worship the Old Ark, nor do Catholics worship the New Ark. Jews did not worship the box and Catholics do not worship Mary. Jews worshiped what was ABOVE the box — which was the presence of God; Catholics worship what is above the Ark, that which is sitting in Mary’s lap. Both Jews and Catholics venerate and appreciate the ark, but the worship is reserved for what it contains and reveals

My initial response is that Steve Ray is misleading us here with the word worship in order to be consistent with the Mary-Ark parallel. It is true that the Jews don't worship the Ark's structure, but how about doing some other acts of reverence? Let's substitute the word worship with the word "pray" and repeat Ray's parallel. Do the Jews pray to the Ark? No, they pray to God. Do the Catholics pray to Mary? Yes, they definitely do! Thus, the parallel made by Ray falls to the ground.

Of course every Roman Catholic would argue that they don't worship Mary but they only venerate her. Veneration is to give honor and respect. While it is true that people honor and respect one another, veneration doesn't include people kneeling and praying before each other.

Be careful of mixing terminologies.

More of Kapatas on Eliphaz

2011-02-23T08:40:00.004+08:00

Mr. Franz Luigi Lugena (aka Kapatas and Parabanog) wrote a response to my article once again.

Before we proceed, let me expose the strategy of Kapatas: misrepresent and force the issue. Kapatas works his way based on how he understands his opponent's position even though it is not so. You will see this later on.

This was his response when I evaluated his answer to my question if Eliphaz was unrighteous when speaking to Job:

Of course I have to clarify because you are misinterpreting my statements. When someone has taken your words out of context and pitted it against other people’s statement to make it appear that there is a contradiction when in reality there is none, it is only right to set things straight and clarify matters. Charity dictates that it should be so for the benefit of the people that can be deceived by your serpentine arguments.

When I said: “Nagkamali si Eliphaz yes, pero hindi ibig sabihin eh talagang masama syang tao,” I’m not even talking to you at that time but rather to the ADD people. I don’t even have an inkling of idea that you will be taking my statement out of context and pit it against the statements of Bro. Mars to make it appear that we are contradicting each other. So it is only natural that I have to clarify my statements. Nilalabo mo eh. Alangan namang hayaan ko.

He continues to distinguish what he said about Eliphaz with that of Atty. Llasos:

It is very obvious that Atty. Marwil and I are talking about Eliphaz on two different periods of time: Atty. Marwil on the yet to be forgiven Eliphaz, which is definitely unrighteous (Job 5:1), me on the already forgiven Eliphaz. (Job 42:8-10)

But Kapatas's illustration on King David betrays him:

Si Haring David ay nagkasala ng pangangalunya pero hindi talaga sya masamang tao.
[David sinned by committing adultery but he is really not an evil person.]

We all know David was on God's side to begin with that's why He made him King. For Kapatas to use King David for an illustration, he must be willing to admit that Eliphaz was righteous to begin with. Moreoever, Kapatas never answered what line divides evil with unrighteous. And lastly, Kapatas is further betrayed by his own statement when he was still arguing with an ADD member:

May masama ba na obedient sa utos ng Diyos? Sumunod si Eliphaz sa utos sa kanya ng Diyos so hindi talaga siya masama. Nakagpagsalita siya ng hindi matuwid patungkol sa Diyos pero hindi talaga siya masama. Patunay nga na nung inutusan siya, sumunod siya, kasama yung dalawa pang kaibigan niya.
[Translation: Is there an evil person who is obedient to God's order? Eliphaz followed God's order so he is really not evil. He just said something not right about God but he is really not evil. This was proven when he was ordered, he followed, along with his two friends.]

Considering the above and his illustration of King Daivd do you think Kapatas' considered Eliphaz unrighteous during the time when he was speaking to Job? No, these above says it all.

When I analyzed the argument of Kapatas on Job 22:15, he concluded that I made a conclusion that Eliphaz was wrong about it. This folks is where Kapatas misrepresents his opponents and forces the issue.

Your so-called “analysis” is basically your own interpretation which you have concocted after taking my statements out of context. Furthermore, you can’t use your “analysis” against me because it is contrary to your sola scriptura doctrine. The bible doesn’t make an affirmation that all statements of Eliphaz, aside from what he had said pertaining to God, are incorrect as well. For Job 22:15 to be incorrect, you must first show us verses stating as such. But for you to arrive to a conclusion that Job 22:15 is wrong for the simple reason that Eliphaz is unrighteous at that time, speaks volume about your desperation to get even. You are willing to go on greater lengths to discredit your opponent going as far as violating your core SS credo “do not go beyond what was written.” Well, I tell you Mr. Soliman aka Rodimus, you will not get away from this unscathed.

Two things:

1. I haven't made my own exegesis or interpretation of Job 22:15 to say Eliphaz was wrong. Besides, I answered your question that Eliphaz was right on Job 22:15. The conclusion I arrived was based on your erroneous and contradicting arguments. So please, don't force the issue which makes it appear that I made my own analysis of Job 22:15 to say Eliphaz is wrong.

2. I know Sola Scriptura better than you. It is you who don't know about it very well and when you argue Evangelicals about it, you always base it on your limited knowledge. And oh, analysis is violating a sola scriptura doctrine? You are refuted by the Bible:

How wonderful to be wise, to analyze and interpret things. Wisdom lights up a person’s face, softening its harshness. Ecclesiastes 8:1 NLT

The Bible commanded us to test every spirit (1st John 4:1) and even the Bereans of Acts 17:11 searched the Scripture to verify the words of Paul. So how can you do those without analyzing? Please, don't discuss your opponent's doctrine if you don't know it completely.

Lastly, this was Kapatas' reaction when I argued that he and Atty. Llasos need to reassess their interpretation of Job 42:7:

God himself said that Eliphaz has failed to say right things about Him. So if ever there will be wrong in the statements of Eliphaz, it can be found primarily from the things that he had said pertaining to God. Now, God has made Himself perfectly clear when he said that Eliphaz has failed to say right things about Him. He didn’t say that “practically ALL of Eliphaz’s statements about Him are wrong.” There is a world of difference between the two. How come you don’t that? I think it is you who badly needs to reassess your fallible private interpretation on Job 42:7.

What has this accomplished? Kapatas made Eliphaz a flexible person. Considering every explanation by Kapatas about Eliphaz being unrighteous when he spoke the wrong things about God, is he telling us here that Eliphaz was righteous when he spoke the right things about God (though not all were right or wrong)? Take note that's from Kapatas' point of view, not mine.

The Woman of Revelations 12 - responding to Atty. Llasos on the NT Canon

2011-02-21T08:38:00.004+08:00

I missed the point on the New Testament canon? Thus saith Atty. Llasos in this article. Overall, the article only made a lot misdirections and lame excuses for not providing any official interpretation during the first 300 years of the church that the woman of Revelations 12 is Mary.

This is a red-herring. I never said or ever claimed that no single individual at that time believed that the Book of Revelations was inspired. And Mr. Gerry Soliman is very much aware of that because he candidly admitted: “I'm sure he doesn't mean that.” If that is so, why raise the issue in the first place? Gerry Soliman doesn’t make any sense here!

Or maybe Atty. Llasos is just avoiding the argument. If you thinks that there are people who believe in the inspiration of the book of Revelations before the "final settlement" of the canon in the 4th century, then please show us someone authoritative from that time who interpreted the woman of Revelations 12 as Mary.

He continued, “Whatever happened to the so-called infallible church?” Excuse me, what has infallibility of the Church got to do with this? The problem with Mr. Soliman is that he is throwing “infallibility” here and there without really understanding what we actually mean by it. To prove that Mr. Soliman is in the dark when it comes to the meaning of “infallibility,” here is his own question: “Is there no infallible bishop who is able to recognize the writings of the apostle John after 70AD?”

Mr. Gerry Soliman is barking at the wrong tree. He is shadow-boxing with an invisible opponent. As is his wont, Gerry Soliman is debunking something that we don’t teach. Where in Catholic teaching does it say that an individual bishop, save the Bishop of Rome, is infallible? We don’t teach that an individual bishop is infallible. So, Mr. Soliman’s question is senseless.

Maybe Atty. Llasos has forgotten how Roman Catholics criticize Protestants on private interpretation since this causes disunity. I mean, Roman Catholics boast that they have an infallible magisterium to interpret the Scriptures for them. How does it apply here? Well, here is Atty. Llasos' chance to show this claim that an infallible magisterium, as well as the papacy, is operative even before the 4th century. Okay so where is the infallible interpretation of Revelations 12?

Oh yes, Atty. Llasos may run again to the reason that there was no controversy during that time and therefore it isn't necessary. Again we would have to ask, do we need a controversy to initiate an official interpretation? How about those who just want to inquire the meaning of Scripture? Well, we are faced with excuses so far.

But, were there bishops who recognized the writings of the apostle John after 70 A.D.? If Gerry made his homework thoroughly, he would have not asked that. With a little research, he would have easily ascertained that there were bishops who recognized the writings of John, especially the Book of Revelation, after 70 A.D. They were Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria (b. 296) and Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (b. 130). Aside from Bishops, there were others who recognized the Book of Revelation.

There you go! You have identified bishops who recognize the inspiration of the book of Revelations. So Atty. Llasos would now have no difficulty of providing us an official interpretation of Revelations 12. Then again... he hasn't done that.

Going back to the church fathers:

Even if the canon was being debated, it certainly didn’t mean that no Christian, like Hyppolytus, Methodius and Victorinus would not recognize the Book of Revelation as among the inspired writings. By the very nature of a debate, there are at least two sides in a controversy. And Hyppolytus, Methodius and Victorinus just happened to be on the side of the inclusion of the Book of Revelations and made an identification of the woman as the Church. As I explained in my previous article on the Church Fathers, the identification of the woman with the Church by some Church Fathers did not altogether exclude other Church Fathers from seeing a Marian referent in that woman insofar as the Fathers saw Mary in the Church and in the Church Mary. The Catholic Church holds this ecclesiological and ecclesiotypical Mariology then as now.

It would sure be nice for Atty. Llasos to provide us with concrete evidence that there are bishops or even church fathers during the first 300 years of the church who actually see the woman of Revelations 12 as Mary. Here, Atty. Llasos is giving us assumptions. Yes, there are certain beliefs about Mary during the first 300 years of the church but does it mean that there was really a unanimous consent that the woman of Revelations 12 is, among others, Mary? Evidences are needed here.

It would also be nice to hear from Atty. Llasos to admit that there was really no official interpretation nor a unanimous consent during the first 300 years of the church that the woman of Revelations 12 is Mary.

The Woman of Revelations 12 - responding to Atty. Llasos on the Church Fathers

2011-02-20T18:57:00.007+08:00

I faltered on church fathers? This is the title of Atty. Llasos' article in response to my argument that there is no church father during first 300 years of Christianity who has identified the woman of Revelations 12 as Mary. Let's see who really faltered.

Why is Mr. Soliman asking for an official and infallible interpretation of the “woman clothed with the sun” in Revelations 12? Only he can tell. Suffice it to state that there was no necessity to do so as no controversy over that interpretation cropped up at that time.

We already responded that the reason were asking for an official interpretation is for them to prove that it is apostolic. Hiding behind the reason that it is not necessary because there was no controversy is just making a lame excuse in spite of the fact that there could be nothing to agree or disagree about. Unless of course Atty. Llasos will admit that there is no Christian during the first 300 years who identifies Mary being the woman of Revelations 12 (yes, I am aware that Atty. Llasos has given his excuse about the "final settlement" of the canon in the 4th century but we'll discuss this separately).

As we previously noted, Atty. Llasos cited Quodvultdeus and Oecumenius of the 5th and 6th century to prove his stand. I argued that these do not represent the unanimous consent of the church fathers. In response, Atty. Llasos stated (with insult in tow):

As a Certified Public Accountant and a Certified Internal Auditor, I would expect Mr. Soliman to be good in numbers. But his innumeracy shows. He just doesn’t know how to count correctly! If he has read my references carefully and counted the patristic quotes properly, he would have easily known that I was not dealing with “a single quote from a Church Father”!

Was it just a single quote I gave? My references mentioned three (3), namely (1) Epiphanius, (2) Oecumenius, and (3) Quodvultdeus. What happened to Mr. Soliman’s arithmetic? Single quote, Mr. Soliman?

Okay so let's deal with Epiphanius. Here is what Atty. Llasos quoted from Ephianius:

Early on, St. Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403) may be the first to give a Marian interpretation to the scriptural text of Revelation 12. He wrote:

“But elsewhere, in the Apocalypse of John, we read that the dragon hurled himself at the woman who had given birth to a male child; but the wings of an eagle were given to the woman, and she flew into the desert, where the dragon could not reach her” (Rev. 12:13-14). This could have happened in Mary’s case” [Haer., 78, 11, PG 42, 716 B-C; cited in Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1991) p. 126].

I really don't know if Atty. Llasos' source is that reliable as his quotation is limited. Here is what maybe Atty. Llasos doesn't know:

Scripture does not tell us whether Mary died or whether she did not die. Scripture is silent about this because of the surpassing miracle of her departure, lest minds of men be overcome by the marvel... Some indeed, understand the prophecy of Simeon (Lk. 2, 35) as meaning that she was to be slain with the sword. On the other hand, she may have been exempt from death, for that which John tells us in the Apocalypse may have been fulfilled in her: 'The dragon hastened to the woman who had brought forth the man-child, and there were given to her the winds of an eagle, and was born into the desert lest the dragon seize her' (Ap. 12, 14). For my part I will not say whether she remained immortal or whether she died. I refrain because Scripture which transcends the grasp of the human mind, has left the matter in the dark, for the honor of her body. [Epiphanius, Panarion 78, 11, 3-4; as quoted by Dr. Eric Svendsen in his book, Who is my Mother? pages 226-227]

Bottomline, Epiphanius is not certain that the woman of Revelations 12 is Mary. So Atty. Llasos is left with two.

I really appreciate that Atty. Llasos gave me a mini-biography of Quodvultdeus and Oecumenius, but that is drawing attention away from the issue.

Notice how Gerry Soliman conveniently downgraded Quodvultdeus and Oecumenius. These two men are no ordinary men. They are Church Fathers! Precisely the patristic sources that Gerry Soliman is now interested in and looking for! Do they represent the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers? Why not?

Thus saith Atty. Llasos. He didn't even mount a defense why these men represent the unanimous consent of the church fathers. The most he can do is make this assumption:

The first to the eighth century of the Church is the patristic era or the Age of the Fathers of the Church. Is there a unanimous view as regards a Marian interpretation of the “woman clothed with the sun” of Revelations 12 during that period? As there is no dissenting view, my answer is most certainly yes.

What's missing? Evidence, of course. There is no dissenting view? Okay, but where is Atty. Llasos evidence of a unanimous agreement? Is there something to agree or disagree about in the first place? The church fathers might as well believe in the existence of the Boogeyman or the Abominable Snowman as there is also no dissenting view either.

I already cited Quodvultdeus and Oecumenius, Church Fathers from the fifth to the sixth century whose existence fell under the patristic era (first to eighth century). Since Quodvultdeus was a disciple of St. Augustine of Hippo (354 to 430 AD), it can be safely assumed that Quodvultdeus learned his teachings from his master in basically the same way as Mark learned from Peter and Luke and Timothy from Paul.

It's not only assumption that prevails here but logic, faulty logic that is. Given that the two are in the patristic era does it necessarily follow all other church fathers believe the same? Okay so Quodvultdeus is a student of Augustine, does it also follow that Augustine believes the same? We are inclined to ask Atty. Llasos for concrete evidence.

When I quoted that there is at least one writer, Hippolytus, during the second century who identified the woman as the church, here is what Atty. Llasos has to comment:

Yes it occurred to me. And it likewise occurred to me that Mr. Soliman’s research is inadequate and incomplete. To help him, I will add two more fathers in addition to Hippolytus (c. 170 – c. 236 AD) who identified the woman as the Church: (1) Methodius (d. 311 AD) and (2) Victorinus (d. 303 or 304 AD) [see: Robert A. Sungenis, The Apocalypse of St. John (Goleta, CA: Queenship Publication, 2007) p. 238-239].

It's really amazing that Atty. Llasos' apologetics include the business of insulting. Yes, I am aware that Methodius and Victorinus also identified it as the church but I said there is at least one writer who identified the woman as the church. I never said Hippolytus is the only one.

And oh, didn't Atty. Llasos mentioned that the book of Revelations is not yet accepted in the canon in the early centuries of the church? How come these three which Atty. Llasos mentioned made a citation from the book of Revelations? Therefore, Atty. Llasos has no more excuse from showing early church fathers who believes that the book of Revelations is inspired and who identifies the woman as Mary.

Anyway, to continue:

Would the fact that these Church Fathers identify the Church as the woman in Revelations 12 mean that they deny or oppose a Marian interpretation in the passage? No, as there is no indication in their writings that their identification of the Church as the woman is exclusive – to the exclusion of other interpretations. To argue otherwise is to commit the fallacy of false dichotomy which Gerry Soliman defines in his blog as “restricting the opponent to a few alternatives when there are more alternatives.” Hence, to identify the Church does not necessarily mean that it Mary is altogether excluded. The Fathers of the Church didn’t see it that way.

Again, what is missing? Evidence. If the early church fathers did believe that the woman of Revelations 12, among others, is Mary, where is Atty. Llasos' "scholarly" evidences. Atty. Llasos spent the remainder of his article quoting a sample of church fathers' belief about Mary. But none of them identifies, explicitly nor implicitly, the woman of Revelations 12 as Mary.

So who faltered on church fathers? I guess it is the one who does not have sufficient evidences. Let's give Atty. Llasos the "punchline": There is really no church father during the first 300 years of the church who identified the woman in Revelations 12 as Mary. The most that Roman Catholic apologists can do for this dilemma is to say that this belief "developed" over time and the "ancient" church has authority to define this belief.

The Woman of Revelations 12 - responding to Atty. Llasos on the first 300 years

2011-02-20T15:45:00.004+08:00

This is a continuation of the discussion on the woman of Revelations 12. As you know, Atty. Llasos wrote his response to my arguments against identifying the woman as Mary. This article responds to Atty. Llasos' article over here.

As I have argued before, identifying the woman of Revelations 12 as Mary is not an apostolic teaching. There is no official interpretation during the first 300 years of the arguably infallible church that the woman is Mary.

Atty. Llasos argues:

First, as I also pointed out before, Mr. Soliman suffers from inherent mental inconsistency here. Mr. Soliman does not believe that the Roman Catholic Church existed for the first 300 years. It would be hypocritical for him to demand an “official interpretation” from a church he thinks did not exist at that time.

Well we all know that Roman Catholics are also guilty of this kind of double standard. For instance, our doctrine of Scripture alone. They assert that this only started during the 16th century. Their apologists demand us to show proof that this doctrine existed before the 16th century Reformation. Here you have Atty. Llasos protesting that this is not a valid demand on the grounds that we believe they existed after the first 300 years of Christianity.

We are tempted to ask, who has the double standard here?

Second, there was no need for an “official interpretation” that the woman in Revelations 12 is Mary during the first 300 years. It was not an issue that needed to be officially settled. I argued:

“Assuming arguendo that the Catholic Church did not have an official and infallible interpretation during the first 300 years of Christianity that the “woman” of Revelation 12 is Mary, so what? There was no need to officially and infallibly define it because there was no necessity for an interpretation as there was no controversy over that.”

For Mr. Soliman to ask for an official interpretation, he must show the necessity for it and the controversy that demanded it at that time. There were in fact controversies that necessitated an official interpretation from the Church. For instance, the Divinity of Christ was officially and dogmatically settled, in a much later date than Mr. Soliman demanded – in 325 A.D. in the Council of Nicaea. All the other Christological controversies were officially, formally, dogmatically and infallibly settled in Church Councils in much, much later dates. Gerry Soliman is guilty of double standard here. He demands of an official interpretation of Mary as the woman of Revelation 12 which he does not demand of others.

In response, we have to ask:

1. In the first place, is there something to agree or disagree on Revelations 12? Has it been taught during the first 300 years of the church that the woman is Mary and were there people agreeing or disagreeing with it? Let's face it, there is nothing to agree or disagree about if something doesn't exist yet.

2. Do we need a controversy for the so-called infallible church to make an interpretation? "I'm sorry I don't know what the gospel of Paul to the Galatians is telling us because there is not enough controversy for our magisterium to make an official interpretation." Is that how it works?

Third, why the first 300 years? That is a purely arbitrary end point. Mr. Soliman does not explain why he chose the first 300 years as the cut-off period. He failed to present any manual in patrology that requires patristic sources to be confined only in the first three centuries of the Christian era.

So let's explain for the benefit of Atty. Llasos. Roman Catholics are boasting that they have a 2,000 year pedigree. This means that their beliefs should be historical, held from the beginning. Unlike sola scriptura which they argue started only in the 16th century, Roman Catholics claim that their doctrines are in accordance with the early church fathers. Since many Protestant believe that the Church of Rome is not apostolic, here is one of their chances to prove their claim. So let's have the pre-Nicene interpretation and citations. Then again, do they really have something to show?

These being said, I do have a valid claim to demand for an official interpretation and even patristic citations during the first 300 years.

Other detailed arguments concerning the Bible, church fathers, and so-called Evangelical sources will be discussed in succeeding articles.

More Private Interpretation on Eliphaz

2011-02-19T14:24:00.003+08:00

Mr. Franz "Kapatas" Lugena responded to my previous article on Eliphaz. Conscience compels me commend him, he has guts. However, like his mentors, he spent quite a portion of his article discrediting his opponents before giving the answer. As a response to this, I will be professional and get to the point.

Let me set things straight: My statement: “Nagkamali si Eliphaz yes, pero hindi ibig sabihin eh talagang masama syang tao,” refers to the reality that Eliphaz, though sinning against God was later forgiven. Taking this into account, you cannot say that Eliphaz is really an evil person. But this doesn’t mean that “Eliphaz remains righteous after sinning” either. The fact that he was forgiven by God shows that Eliphaz had sinned previously and therefore unrighteous. But he didn’t remain in that state because he was forgiven later as the scripture shows.

Unfortunately, from the article where we got that, Kapatas never made such clarification whether direct or implied. He made the above qualification only after my article exposed his contradiction with Atty. Marwil Llasos. And what can you make from the above explanation? Nothing but more confusions. Think about it, what line divides evil with unrighteous?

After explaining his position on Job 22:15, Kapatas made this assertion against me:

Clearly, Eliphaz statements in Job 5:1 is wrong. He himself was forgiven precisely because of the prayers of Job, who is himself a saint. The question as to the correctness of Eliphaz’s statements in Job 22:15 is another matter. Job 22:15 is not about God but rather about “ang dating daan” and therefore not included in the wrong things that Eliphaz had said in his conversation with Job. For it to be wrong, Rodimus must first show us verses stating as such. For Rodimus to conclude that Job 22:15 is wrong without biblical verses will be suicide on his part, him being a sola scriptura believer.

Huh? I don't seem to have made my own exegesis on Job 22:15. I was basing it from Kapatas' point of view when arguing against an Ang Dating Daan member. It's typical for Kapatas to misrepresent his opponents and work his way from that misrepresentation. Here is what I said:

Just for a brief background, in order to discredit the Ang Dating Daan cult of Mr. Eliseo Soriano (ADD, the old path) Mr. Lugena cites Job 22:15 where wicked men have walked the old path. Since the name of Mr. Soriano's cult is ADD or the old path, the argument concludes that the ADD cult is for wicked men. However, the ADD members reason out that in Job 42:7 Eliphaz was God's enemy and he was rebuked for not speaking the right things about God. So for Mr. Lugena to defend his stand on Job 22:15, he would at least contest that it wasn't about the old path that God was rebuking Eliphaz and Eliphaz was not really an evil man (which Mr. Lugena did).

So if Mr. Lugena were to agree with the explanation of Atty. Llasos (that Eliphaz was previously unrighteous in Job 5:1) it would not help the case of Mr. Lugena since now it can be interpreted that Eliphaz was wrong in Job 22:15. Furthermore, Mr. Lugena already stated that Eliphaz was not really an evil person.

From there, did I make an exegesis of Job 22:15? Of course not. I was only making an analysis on the condition that Kapatas agrees with Atty. Llasos.

Let's now discuss the answer of Kapatas to my question, Was Eliphaz really unrighteous when he was talking to Job?

As regards to Mr. Soliman’s question: Was Eliphaz really unrighteous when he was talking to Job? My answer is this: Eliphaz was unrighteous when he failed to say right things about God in his conversation with Job. This is verified by God himself in Job 42:7. But Eliphaz didn’t remain in unrighteous state for he was forgiven later. Taking this into account, Eliphaz is not really an evil man.

The response barely answers the question. In fact, it is avoiding it. What about the instances where Eliphaz spoke the right things on other matters though not about God, was Eliphaz righteous in those instances? Could it be that Job 42:7 is just a matter Eliphaz making a mistake? Sorry, try again.

We also have to analyze if Kapatas and Atty. Llasos understood Job 42:7 correctly. For example in Job 5:13, Eliphaz stated this about God: He catches the wise in their craftiness. Is this wrong? If not, was God wrong on Job 42:7 wherein he told Eliphaz that he has not spoke the right things about God? Of course not. Then maybe both Kapatas and Atty. Llasos need to reassess their private interpretation of Job 42:7.

Kapatas has a couple of questions for me. Let's now answer them:

1. After failing to say right things about God, was Eliphaz righteous or not?

I have a different understanding of Job 42:7. As I gave Job 5:13 as example, this is a right statement about God. When you are brought by God to ask for forgiveness and you complied, you are obviously one of the righteous (Hebrews 12:4-12).

2. Is the statement of Eliphaz in Job 22:15, right or wrong?

It is right. So?

Debate on Purgatory - Five Questions for Affirmative

2011-02-19T07:06:00.002+08:00

Here are my five questions that I would like to ask my opponent:

1. You cited 1st Corinthians 3:12 to 15 to prove Purgatory, I would like to know what is the "reward" being spoke of here and why the other person whose works were burned does not get it despite of, as you claimed, the "fire" here "purges" that person.

2. In your rebuttal you asserted that we have to suffer temporal punning and said, God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments, did not the "temporal punishment" of David by losing his child occurred while he was still alive on Earth and not on the supposedly existing Purgatory?

3. In your rebuttal you said, BUT, we can reject his offered love, and THIS is what will separate us from him. I would like to ask you for your understanding of Romans 9:16 where in it says: It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. Isn't it in fact that salvation is only dependent on God's mercy and not our own will?

4. In the story of the rich man and Lazarus you said, The parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31) indicates that there were two parts of hell. Both Lazarus and the rich man died and went to hell, but Lazarus was comforted in Abraham’s bosom while the rich man was in a place of torment. Granting without conceding that this analysis is correct, where do you put Purgatory here?

5. Did Moses ever prescribe in his laws praying for those who are dead?

Mediatrix of Disgrace?

2011-02-16T08:14:00.004+08:00

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.

How not to represent Evangelicals using Tim Perry

2011-02-14T07:21:00.014+08:00

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.

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.

Debate on Purgatory - Negative Rebuttal

2011-02-12T14:57:00.003+08:00

Unfortunately, the opening statement of my opponent has quite gone astray. I don't know if my opponent is arguing about Purgatory or against the doctrine of eternal security.

Let’s start with the basic premise, Rev 21:27. Not everyone gets to see heaven while alive, but St. John did, and in describing his vision of heaven, John tells us one thing: "nothing unclean shall enter it (Rev. 21:27).”

By “nothing unclean” is meant that ONLY one who’s righteous may enter heaven. And, by “righteous” is meant one has been made righteous (Lv 19:2; 1 Pet 1:15-16), not merely counted righteous as Protestants believe.

There is no problem there. Nothing unclean will enter Heaven. Those who die as unbelievers will go to hell. But if you die as a believer, you're Heaven bound. No problem there.

The implication is that if you end up giving in to sin, your name will be blotted out of the book of life and you will be denied before God and the angels, something Jesus elsewhere emphasizes (Matt. 10:33, Luke 12:9).

What does this has to do with Purgatory? Okay, granting for a moment that I am an Arminian I have no problem that can salvation be lost. If I die separated from Christ, I go to hell. So what's the relevance of this to Purgatory? Nothing.

If you read the remainder of my opponent's opening, you won't be able to decide if the person who dies will go hell or Purgatory. Anyway, we begin with our rebuttal of his interpretation of Bible verses that claims to support Purgatory.

Moreover, Jesus implies that our sins can be forgiven in the next world:

Mt 12:32 : “And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

Unfortunately many Roman Catholics misinterpret this verse. Jesus is simply saying that there is no forgiveness when you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, ever. They often equate the "age to come" as another realm or lifetime. But if you read the parallel in Mark 3:29 it says but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin. It has nothing to do with Purgatory.

And Scripture describes a Jewish practice of praying for the dead:

2 Mc 12:42-46 : “Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.”

First of all, Moses never instituted a practice of praying for the dead. If this was an important practice, we would definitely see it in his books. Second, Protestants don't agree with the canonicity of the book of Maccabees. Then again, we won't take that easy way out. The book of Maccabees will not help my opponent. Why is that? Read 2nd Maccabees 12:40:

But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had been slain.

The Jews whom Judas Maccabeus is praying for is guilty of idolatry. Even for Roman Catholics, idolatry is a mortal sin which spells Hell for those who died guilty of it. So we have a confusing application of praying for the dead here.

Also, the inspiration of the books of Maccabees is doubtful in this verse:

If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do. Just as it is harmful to drink wine alone or water alone, whereas mixing wine with water makes a more pleasant drink that increases delight, so a skillfully composed story delights the ears of those who read the work. Let this, then, be the end.

The writer does not know if his book is well written or poorly done. He also recommends drinking water mixed with wine to aid in writing. This has no inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Lastly, my opponent quotes their most favorite verse to prove Purgatory which is 1st Corinthians 3:10-15. My opponent commented:

Moreover, the fire that St Paul speaks about in 1 Cor 3:10-15 PURGES. The passage clearly speaks about purifying a person by removing his sins and imperfections.

Purgation of this type is precisely a negative work of getting rid of contamination, just as in metal-working. If the impurities are gotten rid of the final product is more pure.

The passage teaches purgatory. It refers to a "fire" that is refining and "revealing", that will be a "test" for every man's "work" (that's temporal punishment of suffering indeed), a situation where a man will "suffer loss" and yet still be saved. How much clearer does it have to be? Now, of course we won't find a fully-developed medieval conception of purgatory, but it is foolish to expect that anyway, just as it would be to expect to find full Chalcedonian Christology and trinitarianism in all its glorious nuanced complexity. That is true of all doctrines, so why should purgatory be an exception?

If you were to read the passage again, there is no purging going on but testing. The works of a man is being tested by fire and not the man himself. If the work withstands the fire, the man gets a reward. But if it does not, the work is burned but the man is still saved. We don't see any cleansing of the man. We also don't see any refining towards the man. Whether your works remain or burn, you're still saved.

The footnote of the New American Bible tells this about the verse:

The text of 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.

Overall, my opponent has provided no biblical evidence to prove the existence of Purgatory.

How not to defend your stand on Eliphaz

2011-02-07T20:07:00.007+08:00

I read this article last week, which is written mostly in Tagalog. It's a response by Atty. Marwil Llasos on his contradiction with Mr. Franz Lugena (aka Kapatas and Parabanog) on whether Eliphaz is good or bad. Before we start, I would like to apologize to my readers who can't read Tagalog as we will not translate the entire article of Atty. Llasos because it would be quite long. Doing so will also take the readers out of focus on the main issue. I don't know if he did it on purpose or he just felt like doing it. We will only translate the important points.

Atty. Llasos spent around one third of his response saying bad things about me. He also took the time to acknowledge Mr. Lugena for his successful defense at the forum of the Bereans. That will certainly get his fans (and the immature) cheering. Well that's how he do apologetics, we will not stoop low to that level and we will just focus on the relevant issue.

Atty. Llasos defense is summarized in these two paragraphs:

Samakatuwid, magkaibang yugto ng buhay ni Eliphaz ang pinapatungkulan namin ni Kapatid na Franz. Ang Eliphaz na di matuwid na aking binabanggit ay ang Eliphaz sa Job 5:1 na kumukutya kay Job na isang taong matuwid: “Tumawag ka ngayon; may sasagot ba sa iyo? At sa kanino sa mga banal babalik ka?” (Job 5:1).
[Therefore, Bro. Franz and I are referring to different chapters of Eliphaz's life. The unrighteous Eliphaz which I was mentioning was in Job 5:1 who was criticizing Job, a righteous man: Call now, will anyone answer you? And who among the saints will you turn to?]

Sa kabilang dako, ayun naman kay Kapatid na Franz, ang Eliphaz na pinatutungkulan niya ay ang Eliphaz na napatawad na sa kanyang mga kasalanan sa bisa at tulong din naman ng panalangin ni Job (Job. 42:10). DALAWANG MAGKAIBANG YUGTO sa buhay ni Eliphaz ang pinatutungkulan namin ni Kapatid na Franz kung kaya’t paano kami magkakasalungatan? Si Eliphaz ay isang tao na sa una’y masama ngunit pinatawad ang mga kasalanan ng mahabagin at makapangyarihang Dios.
[On the otherhand, according to Bro. Franz, the Eliphaz he was referring to is the one forgiven from his sins by the help of Job's prayers (Job 42:10). Bro. Franz and I are talking about two different chapters in the life of Eliphaz, so how did we contradict each other? Eliphaz was an unrighteous man but he was forgiven from his sin by the merciful and powerful God.]

From the above, Atty. Llasos asserts that he and Mr. Lugena were talking about two different chapters in the life of Eliphaz. Atty. Llasos was pertaining to the life of Eliphaz where he was still unrighteous while Mr. Lugena was pertaining to a forgiven Eliphaz. Unfortunately, Atty. Llasos is betrayed by this argument of Kapatas:

Nagkamali si Eliphaz yes, pero hindi ibig sabihin eh talagang masama syang tao. Si Haring David ay nagkasala ng pangangalunya pero hindi talaga sya masamang tao. Kaya wag husgahan ang tao sa isang nagawang kamalian. Para namang ang babanal nyo.
[Eliphaz was wrong, yes, but that doesn't mean that he is really an evil person. King David sinned by committing adultery but he is really not an evil person. So don't judge a person who made a mistake, as if you're holy.]

Mr. Lugena gave a similar instance in the person of King David. To begin with, David found favor with God and made him king. But David committed adultery. David repented and he was forgiven. If Mr. Lugena related the person of David to the person of Eliphaz, it only means that for Mr. Lugena Eliphaz was a good man who committed sin.

Just for a brief background, in order to discredit the Ang Dating Daan cult of Mr. Eliseo Soriano (ADD, the old path) Mr. Lugena cites Job 22:15 where wicked men have walked the old path. Since the name of Mr. Soriano's cult is ADD or the old path, the argument concludes that the ADD cult is for wicked men. However, the ADD members reason out that in Job 42:7 Eliphaz was God's enemy and he was rebuked for not speaking the right things about God. So for Mr. Lugena to defend his stand on Job 22:15, he would at least contest that it wasn't about the old path that God was rebuking Eliphaz and Eliphaz was not really an evil man (which Mr. Lugena did).

So if Mr. Lugena were to agree with the explanation of Atty. Llasos (that Eliphaz was previously unrighteous in Job 5:1) it would not help the case of Mr. Lugena since now it can be interpreted that Eliphaz was wrong in Job 22:15. Furthermore, Mr. Lugena already stated that Eliphaz was not really an evil person.

In my opinion, the reason why Atty. Llasos spent a third of his article discrediting me is to lure away the readers on the other statements given by Mr. Lugena. After all, why would the subjective people analyze any further when someone already declared how terrible his opponent?

Of course, Atty. Llasos will read this article and insist in his position. But here is a question that we could ask Mr. Lugena: Was Eliphaz really unrighteous when he was talking to Job? I hope Mr. Lugena, whom Atty. Llasos so proudly boasts to have beaten the Evangelical defenders at the Bereans forum, will have the guts to answer the question.

However, the main point of my previous article is about Rome's hypocrisy on private interpretation. Here we have two apologists who criticize Evangelicals for private interpretation and yet they are free to make an interpretation even if their infallible magisterium has not released an official intepretation on all verses of the Bible - to the point of contradicting themselves.

Debate on Purgatory - Negative Opening

2011-02-05T06:41:00.006+08:00

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has these details on Purgatory:

1030 - All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 - The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.

We find an entry from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Purgatory:

Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory supposes the fact that some die with smaller faults for which there was no true repentance, and also the fact that the temporal penalty due to sin is it times not wholly paid in this life.

From these Catholic sources, it is very clear that when a believer dies he or she does not automatically go to Heaven to be with God. But due to some smaller unrepented sins, the believer goes to a final purification before entering Heaven.

As a Protestant who upholds the truth of Scripture, it is my task to prove that Jesus Christ has sufficiently paid for our sins and that the believer in Christ has been purified so that he or she will be worthy to enter Heaven upon his or her physical death. The believer will no longer go another state of purification when he dies because Christ has done it with his sacrifice and death.

The apostle Paul writes:

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written:

“For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:28-39

Paul here is talking to believers who are obviously still alive on Earth. He isn't talking to those who have already died. I would like everyone to take notice of the words justified and glorified in verse 30. It is the Lord who does these actions, and when the Lord does these things you can be sure that they will come to pass. That's why in verses 31-35 Paul was confident that nothing will separate the believers from the love of Christ. Paul further asserts in verses 36 to 39 that the believers are more than conquerors and nothing would ever separate them from the love of God.

Imagine now for a moment that there is a purgatory. Paul said that nothing can separate us from the love of God because God himself is the one who justifies and glorifies during the lifetime of the believers. Paul even asserted the Christ intercedes for all believers. And yet the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory would temporarily separate us from God.

The blood of Christ already provides purification during the believer's life on Earth:

Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Hebrews 10:19-22

The author of Hebrews mentioned here the word confidence. It means the author is encouraging us not to doubt as we approach God. Why is that? Because Christ already provided our purification.

Paul again gives us an assurance:

Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1st Corinthians 6:9-11

Again, Paul here is talking to believers who are still alive. He stated consistently that the believers already washed, sanctified, and justified. Does this leave room for Purgatory? No!

Some of you now are asking, "But Christians still commit sin! Therefore we cannot be sure that were completely clean when we die." Folks, God knows that. The apostle John has this to say:

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 1st John 1:8

John knows the limitations of the believers, they still commit sin. However, John also knows that the believers who sinned can still have purification during their lifetime. In the next verse he writes:

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

We can see the faithfulness of God in the believers. Despite of the believers' limitations, God will forgive them of their sins. No person is instantaneously perfect when he or she becomes a Christian. But in the process of maturing, God always take the active role of changing His children. One of which is found in Hebrews:

Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. Hebrews 12:7-11

From the above verse we read the God disciplines his children to become better Christians. God is in charge of one's spiritual growth.

What are the other verses that deny the existence of Purgatory? I will list some:

1. One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” Luke 23:39-43

The thief in the cross, who showed faith during the last minutes of life, was saved by Christ. Christ told him, "Today, you will be with me in paradise." Christ didn't say, "You will be in purgatory first and then you will be with me in paradise." Christ didn't also say, "After considerable time in Purgatory..." Christ said, today.

2. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment. Hebrews 9:27

This need not any further explanation. When a person dies, he is judged by God. No more room for Purgatory here.

3. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us. Luke 16:26

This is the story of the rich man and Lazarus. After their death Lazarus was with Abraham while the rich man was suffering in hell. Christ here teaches that there are only two destinations of man's soul when they die. Christ didn't give room for a state of Purgatory. In fact, the verse specifically states that no one can cross between two realms.

Finally, I would like to say that neither the prophets nor the apostles who died ever taught a state of purification after death.

Therefore, from the above series of verses that we have just read, I confidently say that the Roman Catholic Purgatory is not necessary. Purgatory betrays one's belief that Christ's blood cleanses us from all sins. Purgatory denies God's active role in transforming all believers to become better Christians.

Thank you.

Questions from Readers on Sola Scriptura

2011-02-01T22:28:00.004+08:00

A brother in Christ sought my assistance regarding some arguments of Roman Catholics against Sola Scriptura. Here are the arguments thrown by his Roman Catholic opponents (in blue) as well as my answers:

1. "There was no book called "the Bible" until the very end of the fourth century and beginning of the fifth. The Church was the only teacher after the Apostles died. And still is. Jesus Christ founded His Church to speak and to teach in His place when He returned to the Father. The New Testament (NT) is not a systematic instruction book in Christianity. It is the written record of the spiritual life and experience of the Church during the first 50 years or so after her founding at Pentecost, a record which she herself wrote, canonized, and named the New Testament. The Church was founded c. A.D. 33. The first 'book' written of what became the NT was Thessalonians, c. 51. The last was the Gospel of John (c. 100). The Church was then about 67 years old. The contents were selected, named the OT and NT, and canonized in A.D. 382, confirmed in 393, 397, and 419. The Church named her entire collection of sacred Scripture tá Biblia, the "Little Books," the Bible."

The first thing you must remember that the Scriptures are God-breathed. Even if there was no canon or a list of Scriptures, we have inspired Scriptures. In fact, we cannot have a canon without inspired Scriptures because the canon is all about what has been inspired. It's ironic that Rome claims infallibility and yet it took her over 300 hundred years (as they claim) before making a list of inspired Scriptures. Their canon is dependent on men, not God.

Another important thing you must remember is that God is the author of the canon, not men. The revelation of which book should compose the Bible rest on his purposes.

Now concerning the claim that the church was the "only" teacher, it makes me wonder why the church even bothered to write the Bible. Rome claims apostolic succession and that the church is the depository of all teaching. The Bible to them can be implicit or explicit in teaching that's why they need their church. If that's the case, why not just make a book where everything is explicit and easily understood like the Catechism? Then again, what's the use of it when you have the church?

On the other hand, Paul tells us the importance of Scripture: For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope. Romans 15:4

2. In fact, you and millions of Protestants can't even agree on a definition of SOLA SCRIPTURA but then it literally means "Scripture Alone" and is one of the "pillars" of Protestantism according to its founder, Martin Luther. Maybe YOU didn't say it, but the founder and 'Father of Protestantism' did. Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory. It says we should believe only Scripture, but Scripture never says this. If we believe only what Scripture teaches, we will not believe Sola Scriptura, because Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura.

And what do they mean by various definition of sola scriptura? Sola Scriptura means that the Bible alone is the infallible rule of faith and morals. In order for it to be refuted they should give you another set of infallible rule of faith and morals which is as equal as the Bible. And they should enumerate the contents those other rules of faith and moral. They won't give you a satisfactory answer.

The statement, "Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura" is an argument they need to prove, just as you need to prove the contrary. They are simply saying it without proving it.

3. Your problem is that Sola Scriptura separates the Church from her Scripture. The Church as writer, canonizer, and interpreter of Scripture is the author and guardian and teacher of Scripture.

The problem with the first sentence is that they didn't tell how sola scriptura would separate the church from Scripture. It's a misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura. The church needs the Scripture as her guide. For Rome to define the Scriptures is to imply that she is superior over it, despite the claim that she is subservient to it. Think about it, how can Rome be logically subservient to the things she can define?

4. Sola Scriptura is not historical. The first generations of Christians did not have the New Testament -- they had only the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world, to teach them. When she was nearly 400 years old, the Catholic Church selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them, and named them the New Testament. At the same time, she canonized the 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. Her entire collection of Sacred Scripture, which she alone identified as “Scripture,” she named ‘the Bible.’ It was then the end of the 4th century.

Here are some patristic writings which prove sola scriptura is historical:

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466AD): "Do not, I beg you, bring in human reason. I shall yield to Scripture alone"

Basil of Caesarea (329-379AD): "Believe in those things that are written. What is not written inquire not into."

Athanasius (297-373AD): "And we have proof of this, not from external sources, but from Scriptures."

And in their claim that the church did all these things to the Bible, ask them the White Question: How did the Jews who were born 50 years before Christ know that the books of Isaiah and Chronicles were Scripture? Do notice that the so-called infallible Church of Rome wasn't around 50 years before Christ, so how would the Jews know infallibly? Your opponents will assume that the priests and sanhedrin were infallible, but that's their burden to prove. No Roman Catholic has ever answered the White Question intelligently.

5. Your problem is that you believe that a book called the Bible contains God’s complete revelation to mankind even though the book does not make that claim. The Bible is the Catholic Church’s own book. It was purloined by Protestants. There is no recording of the Apostles speaking, which is what you are demanding. However, there is overwhelming evidence in the beliefs of the early Christians who were taught by the Apostles’ own lips and not by an interpretation of written words. They could ask, what do you mean by that? Catholics can ask God's appointed authority -- the Church. Sola Scriptura Christians can ask their pastors and get his opinion, or they can ask themselves through PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of the scriptures. Well, Opinion is not fact. Mas pinaniniwalaan nyo kasi ang SARILING nyong INTERPRETATION at PANG-UNAWA kaysa sa SIMBAHAN na mismong NAG-CANONIZED at NAG-COMPILED ng BIBLIYA. [You believe more in your private interpretation and understanding than the church who canonized and compiled the Bible].

Ask them these questions:

1. What are those godly revelations significant to the learning of men which the Bible does not state? They won't give you a satisfying answer here.
2. Has Rome ever released an official or ex-cathedra infallible intepretation of all verses in the Bible? She has not, so Roman Catholics are in no position to criticize us for our interpretations.
3. How sure are you that Rome is the infallible church? They will rely on their private and fallible judgement (which they abhor) to prove it or they could just accept what Rome teaches without ever thinking.

And speaking of canonizing the Bible, many of the Roman Catholics in the Philippines do not know about the Esdras1 problem. Esdras1 is an apocryphal book in the Septuagint that was included in the 4th century canon of Hippo and Carthage. Esdras2 of the Septuagint contains both the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. However, in the Council of Trent 1546, Esdras 1 of the Septuagint was not canonized. Trent followed the Vulgate where Esdras1 is Ezra and Esdras2 is Nehemiah. Esdras1 of the Septuagint is Esdras3 in the Vulgate which wasn't canonized. So between the 4th and 16th century, they differ by one book which is the Septuagint Esdras1. Therefore, they didn't have a final list until 1546 in Trent.

Debate Announcement

2011-02-01T17:50:00.003+08:00

I will once again have an interblog debate, this time it is about the doctrine of Purgatory. My opponent is Mr. Abraham Llera, who is obviously a Roman Catholic. You can learn more about him in his blog here.

Here is the debate format:

Be it resovled, the doctrine of Purgatory is biblical.

Affirmative: Abraham Llera - Roman Catholic
Negative: Gerry Soliman - Protestant

Affirmative Opening Statement - due Feb 5
Negative Opening Statement - due Feb 5
Affirmative Rebuttal to Negative Opening - due Feb 12
Negative Rebuttal to Affirmative Opening - due Feb 12
5 Questions from Affirmative to Negative - due Feb 19
5 Questions from Negative to Affirmative - due Feb 19
Respnse of Affirmative - due Feb 26
Response of Negative - due Feb 26
Affirmative Conclusion - due March 5
Negative Conclusion - due March 5

Please pray that we will learn a lot from this debate and may the truth be upheld.

Response to the Appeal of Atty. Llasos

2011-01-26T13:35:00.017+08:00

I would like to thank Mr. Isahel Alfonso for his blog which posts articles written by his allies. I have been linking his blog to my articles for quite some time now.

Atty. Marwil Llasos wrote an article which requests me to face the issue posed by him concerning the contradiction between him and his colleague, Fr. Abraham Arganiosa (see here). He challenged me to face the real issue of whether or not they contradicted because he asserted that I sidetracked away from the real issue in my last article. Here is the point of summary of his recent article:

Gerry, Gerry, you knew all along that I was referring to birth pains in Revelation 12:2. Yet, why did you say that I contradicted Fr. Arganiosa’s statement (the one that you quoted) which was responding to a different question on the identity of the “woman clothed with the sun”? (cf. Rev. 12:1). Despite that knowledge that I was referring to birth pains in Rev. 12:2, why did you, Gerry, made an article on how, as you yourself said I “contradicted with a fellow apologist, Fr. Abe Arganiosa whether the woman is literal or symbolical.” I would like to hear from you about this.

He insists that they didn't contradict because Fr. Abe was referring to the woman in Revelations 12:1 while Atty. Llasos was referring to birth pains in Revelations 12:2, but my article which I pointed out their contradiction was about the literal or symbolical identification of the woman clothed with the sun.

Here is my response: You cannot disassociate the woman clothed with the sun in the identification of the birth pains.

Try doing it. Let's see if you can identify the woman using 12:1 alone. Let's also see if you can identify what is the birth pains using 12:2 alone. As far as I know, there is an important rule when it comes to understanding the Scriptures: context, context, and more context.

That being said, it's a lame excuse to say Atty. Llasos was just referring to birth pains. Any objective reader would have to consider the context of the issue. When Fr. Abe and I briefly had a discussion about birth pains in Atty. Llasos' blog, the identity of the woman was obviously discussed as well. As a matter of fact, the article written by Atty. Llasos in his response to me discussed first who is the woman before discussing birth pains. So if he is just discussing birth pains, I wonder if he avoided discussing who or what had these birth pains?

Let's recall what I said which Atty. Llasos based his statement "we don't interpret it literally":

Your question is not just a matter of who or what is the woman in Revelations 12, but also whether this could be understood literally or not. I think you favor more the literal understanding which points you to the blessed Mary (correct me if I am wrong). On the otherhand, I don't interpret it literally thus, I can't give you a name.

Since I believe this chapter is symbolical, I identify the woman as the people of God.

I was talking there about the woman and stating that the chapter is symbolical. It is understood that we considered the surrounding verses of the birth pains in Revelations 12. Fr. Abe also made an identification of who is woman before proceeding to birth pains. So when Atty. Llasos quoted from me, I don't interpret it literally, he connected it to discussing birth pains:

To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally. In his comment in my blog article, Mr. Soliman said, “I don't interpret it literally …” to which I replied that “there are points of agreement already between his position and ours.”

Thus, the association of the the woman clothed with the sun can't be avoided.

Atty. Llasos is hiding behind the reason that he is just interpreting the birth pains in 12:2. In his interpretation he identified birth pains as the suffering of the woman as she witness her Son nailed to the cross. Let me ask him in return, would you be able to make that interpretation without identifying the woman? I would really, really love to know that.

Therefore, both of Atty. Llasos and Fr. Abe contradicted each other. To repeat:

Fr. Abe: IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES
Yes, there is the word birth pain or birth pang in both texts but the pain of the Woman Clothed with the Sun is due to the Birth of the Messiah

Atty. Llasos: we don’t interpret it literally
The pain the woman is suffering here is not indicating she was suffering pain in birth, but the suffering at seeing her Son’s agonizing pain and suffering on Calvary.

Seeing the bigger picture, how you interpret birth pains affects the interpretation for the woman clothed with the sun. As I have said, you can't disassociate one from the other since they belong in the context.

Granting without conceding that he only focused in his discussion of birth pains, is he telling us that certain verses of the chapter should be interpreted literally while others figuratively? Should we interpret 12:2 as symbolical while 12:1 is literal? Is the woman literal while the birth pains are symbolical? Is that how it goes?

Atty. Llasos, you need to look at the bigger picture. That sums up what I have to say.

Before we end, I would like to respond to Atty. Llasos' comment on my assertion of contradition against Mr. Carlos Palad on the canon of Scripture. It's not going to be long. Please refer to the definition of terms below which were taken from Merriam Webster online:

Definite - free of all ambiguity, uncertainty, or obscurity
Final - not to be altered or undone
Open - containing none of its endpoints
Remain - to continue unchanged
Settle - to establish or secure permanently

I am expecting that he (and probably Fr. Abe) will write bad things about me personally (as they always do) and even ridicule what I have written here in his (or their) subsequent articles. Nevertheless, I take full responsibility of what I have written so far.

POST SCRIPT:

After posting this article, Atty. Llasos wrote a response in his blog. Although I appreciate the response, I resolve not to answer it anymore because we'll just keep on insisting on what we have asserted so far. I will leave it to the readers to decide.

The Woman of Revelations 12 - responding to Atty. Marwil Llasos

2011-01-23T12:38:00.014+08:00

More than a year ago I read an article written by Atty. Marwil Llasos which identifies the Woman of Revelations 12 as Mary. I asked him if the birth pains in verse two would in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception since God punished Eve with increased birth pains due to sin. For those who don't know the issue yet, Revelations 12 is quoted by Roman Catholic apologists to support, among others, the Marian doctrines of her Assumption and Coronation. The problem with the chapter is on verse two where the woman is found to be in labor pains while giving birth to a child. So if Roman Catholics interpret the woman as Mary, would it be at the expense of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Almost a year after that, Atty. Llasos responded to my question with an article (see here).

Before we go on with our response I would like to thank Atty. Llasos for his time and attention to my query. I would also like to apologize for not thanking him sooner and providing an immediate response.

I was only able to make short articles on how he contradicted with a fellow apologist, Fr. Abe Arganiosa whether the woman is literal or symbolical. A few months after that, Atty. Llasos responded to me including an accusation of intellectual dishonesty. For this article, we will divide my response into sections.

A. Birth Pains

To summarize Atty. Llasos response, the birth pains in verse two is not literal. Rather, it's Mary's suffering as she witnessed her Son suffering on Calvary:

Indeed, Revelation 12:2 does not show that the woman is experiencing physical labor pains, and if the author of the Apocalypse had wanted to say so, he would have certainly used such language. Instead, here it seems that the Seer of Patmos is speaking of a double birth. The pain the woman is suffering here is not indicating she was suffering pain in birth, but the suffering at seeing her Son’s agonizing pain and suffering on Calvary.

As I have argued before, there is no official interpretation during the first 300 years of Christianity that the woman of Revelations 12 is Mary. Neither were there church fathers during that time ever interpret the woman in Revelations 12 as Mary. Atty. Llasos hides behind the reason that, and we quote, the Book of Revelation has not yet been accepted into the canon in the early centuries of the Church (we'll get back to this statement later).

The interpretation is so far-fetched. For those who depict that the other verses surrounding it pertains to the birth of Christ (specially 12:5), they will find it hard to explain why the interpretations switch back and forth from the birth of Christ, to His suffering, and back to His birth again. What's the obvious reason? To avoid compromising the Immaculate Conception.

Roman Catholics often times relate their interpretation of Revelations 12 with their interpretation of other verses. For example, in 12:1 the term woman (who is Mary for them) has something to do with the term woman in Genesis 3:15 thereby affirming that Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy fulfilled in Mary. Another they relate 12:17 with John 19:26-27 to affirm Mary's spiritual motherhood. These are questionable interpretations connected to more questionable interpretations.

Furthermore, if they can interpret the woman in Revelations 12 as an individual woman, how come we don't see any effort to allude an individual woman for Revelations 17? It can't be done, or they just don't want to?

This is what happens when Roman Catholic traditions influence biblical interpretations. The woman of Revelations 12 has been interpreted historically as people of God. It is only when one is influenced by Roman tradition that an allusion to Mary becomes the product.

B. Oecumenius and Quodvultdeus

For someone who states "Father knows best" in some of his articles to note that Church Fathers believe the Marian doctrines and for someone who believes that, "a single quote from a Church Father is never sufficient or decisive in itself", Atty. Llasos obviously had a hard time proving that the Woman of Revelations 12 as Mary is known to the early Church Fathers.

The most that he can do is to quote Oecumenius and Quodvultdeus of the 5th to 6th century to prove that it is "well attested in the patristic tradition of the Church". It makes me ask: Do these two men represent the unanimous consent of the church fathers? Let's not forget the principle that Atty. Llasos quoted from his comrade, Mr. Carlos Antonio Palad:

Thus, the reason why the Fathers are always read not in isolation, but always in the context of the testimony of all the other Church Fathers. Where sufficient Church Fathers from the very first century of the Church down to the sunset of the Patristic age (c. 8th century) testify to the truthfulness of a certain teaching, then we may be certain that it is the authentic tradition handed down from the Apostles. To repeat: a single quote from a Church Father is never sufficient or decisive in itself, but an unbroken chain of testimonies from one Father to the next is not to be contradicted.

So where are the unanimous quotations from the 1st to 4th (if you prefer up to 8th) century church fathers, Atty. Llasos?

C. The Canon not finally settled before the 4th Century

Due to lack of evidence during the first 300 years of the church, Atty. Llasos made this amazing excuse:

Assuming arguendo that the Catholic Church did not have an official and infallible interpretation during the first 300 years of Christianity that the “woman” of Revelation 12 is Mary, so what? There was no need to officially and infallibly define it because there was no necessity for an interpretation as there was no controversy over that. And more importantly, there was no Christian canon of Scripture yet at that time! It is crazy for Gerry Soliman to demand for an official or infallible interpretation of the “woman” in Revelation 12 when the very canonicity of the Book of Revelation itself was being disputed!

This point of Mr. Soliman is a non-issue. As already stated, the Book of Revelation has not yet been accepted into the canon in the early centuries of the Church. How could there possibly be an interpretation of the woman in Revelation 12 as Mary when the very inclusion of the Book of Revelation into the canon was itself being debated!

Granting that there was no final canon before the 4th century, is Atty. Llasos telling here no one believes that the Book of Revelations were inspired? I'm sure he doesn't mean that. Whatever happened to the so-called infallible church? Is there no infallible bishop who is able to recognize the writings of the apostle John after 70AD?

Has it occur to Atty. Llasos that there is at least one writer during the 2nd and 3rd century, Hippolytus, who identified the woman as the church:

“Now, concerning the tribulation of the persecution which is to fall upon the Church from the adversary, John also speaks thus: “And I saw a great and wondrous sign in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun ...By the woman then clothed with the sun, he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father’s word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the “moon under her feet” he referred to her being adorned” (Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist).

So if the canon is being debated, why are there people like Hippolytus who gave an identification of the woman?

D. Tim Perry and the World Evangelical Fellowship

Lately, Atty. Llasos has been quoting the works of Tim Perry (Mary for Evangelicals) to prove that there are Evangelicals who agrees with his view. Atty. Llasos states:

I could hear Gerry Soliman’s rebuttal: “But Tim Perry is ecumenical!” So what? He reads the same Bible as you do but how come he arrived at a different conclusion? That should give you more head ache.

Atty. Llasos might as well pit me against the Iglesia ni Cristo or some other cults who use the 66 book Bible. I could pit Atty. Llasos against Traditional Catholics but that wouldn't be honest. Here, Atty. Llasos commits the fallacy of treating Dr. Perry as someone who represents all Evangelicals, worse an authority for all Evangelicals.

He also quotes the writings of the members of the World Evangelical Fellowship (WEF) and some other Evangelicals who are in opposition to what I believe. Unfortunately, I can't verify as of the moment the writings of such Evangelicals as I don't have copies of it. It is possible that they were taken out of context, though I have yet to read their writings. But one thing is for sure, they don't represent all Evangelicals.

E. Intellectual Dishonesty

Most of the articles written by Atty. Llasos in response to me have ad hominem attacks. To the gullible, ad hominem attacks are enough to prove the opposition wrong.

Atty. Llasos and others accuse me of intellectual dishonesty for my article, Mary as the Woman Clothed with the Sun of Revelations 12: Symbolical or Literal? He explains:

It is obvious from the context that I was explaining “birth pains” and not the identity of the apocalyptic “woman.”

He asserts that Fr. Abe is talking about the identity of the woman. In response, refer to the comments section here.

Fr. Abe posed a challenge:

It seems that Mr. Soliman is objecting to Atty. LLasos' position that the Woman in Rev. 12 is Mary, the Mother of Jesus. If that is the case will he please be so kind to give us the IDENTITY of THE WOMAN CLOTHED WITH THE SUN.

I am eager to see if HIS WOMAN suffered birth pangs while giving birth to the Male-Child 'destined' to rule all nations with a scepter of iron.

He challenged me to identify the woman who suffered birth pains. A short discussion occurred after that. Now look at the exegesis of Fr. Abe:

Second, in verse 18 [second line] your woman gave birth to THE WIND AND NOT TO THE MALE-CHILD DESTINED TO RULE THE WORLD WITH A SCEPTER OF IRON. He, he, he... While the Woman of Rev. 12 gave birth to a MALE CHILD... A HOLY CHILD WHO BELONGS TO GOD AND IS THE KING OF ALL.

The birth of your woman is an ILLUSION whether literal or symbolical. On the other hand, the birth delivered by The Woman Clothed with the Sun reflects the Messianic Hope brought forth by the Birth of JESUS. Definitely, that Male Child is the same with this one:

Isaiah 9:6 (New International Version)
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Is there any other Male-Child destined to rule the world with the sceptre of iron? Isn’t that Is. 9:6 is more appropriate for the child in Rev. 12:5 and both speaks of the Mother and Child announced by the Angel Gabriel?

This confirmed that Fr. Abe interprets the section of Revelations 12 as the birth of Christ. Now pay close attention to this statement of Fr. Abe:

So, it appears to me that your woman in Isaiah 26:16-18 doesn’t jibe with the Woman of Rev. 12. It doesn’t fit at all. Yes, there is the word birth pain or birth pang in both texts but the pain of the Woman Clothed with the Sun is due to the Birth of the Messiah while the birth pain of your woman is caused by sinfulness.

In the response of Atty. Mars to my query, the birth pain symbolizes the suffering of Mary as she witnessed her Son crucified on the cross. Let's quote that again:

The pain the woman is suffering here is not indicating she was suffering pain in birth, but the suffering at seeing her Son’s agonizing pain and suffering on Calvary.

But what we have read from Fr. Abe, it is a literal birth pain of Mary while giving birth to Jesus.

So when Fr. Abe said, "IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS," doesn't this mean the literal interpretation of the woman clothed with the sun includes the birth pains she experienced? One more time:

Fr. Abe: IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES
Yes, there is the word birth pain or birth pang in both texts but the pain of the Woman Clothed with the Sun is due to the Birth of the Messiah

Atty. Llasos: we don’t interpret it literally
The pain the woman is suffering here is not indicating she was suffering pain in birth, but the suffering at seeing her Son’s agonizing pain and suffering on Calvary.

Let the readers decide.

F. Unanswered Contradictions

We await on Atty. Llasos' response over the following contradictions:

1. Is Eliphaz good or bad? - versus Kapatas
2. Jesus, primary mediator or only mediator? - versus Fr. Abe Arganiosa
3. Bible version hopping - versus himself

When was the Canon of Scriptures finally settled?

2011-01-21T10:40:00.009+08:00

In his response to my article about the woman in Revelations 12, Atty. Marwil Llasos wrote his response in a recent article. I will write a counterargument over the weekend but I'd like to show you some funny stuffs again with regards to their thoughts about the Scriptures. So when was the canon of Scriptures finally settled? Let the infallible church of Rome tell you.

According to Atty. Llasos:

In his obscene haste to discredit the Roman Catholic Church, Mr. Gerry Soliman conveniently forgot that the canon of Scripture, both the Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., under the authority of Pope Damasus I and was reaffirmed on numerous occasions such as the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in 405 A.D. in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse.

I recall a response from his comrade, Mr. Carlos Palad:

Like I said, it was the Council of Trent that gave dogmatic force to the Catholic Canon of Scripture. As any informed Catholic knows, this is the equivalent of stating – as the good ol’ New Catholic Encyclopedia, which I devoured during my college days, does – that it was Trent that gave final form, or “definitively settled”, the Catholic Canon of Scripture. Prior to Trent , Local Councils and Popes had identified and taught the Canon of Scripture, but not with dogmatic force, and not with anathemas or excommunications. Therefore, the Canon technically remained open, but historically and in fact – and this should give Mr. Soliman pause -- between Carthage III and Trent, between which there is a distance of more than 1,100 years, there is no difference regarding the Canon.

The above is what Mr. Palad answered when the Catholic Encyclopedia gave this statement:

"According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent ...The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; Canon, Biblical, p. 29; Bible, III (Canon), p.390).”

So what we have here is an obvious contradiction. For Atty. Llasos he stated that the canon was "finally settled" in 382AD while his comrade Mr. Palad agrees that the final form was made at Trent of the 16th century. Gentlemen, what's it gonna be?

I could speculate at least one way how Atty. Llasos would respond:

"It's very clear that Bro. Caloy is speaking about having no anathema in the 4th century for those who disagree with the canon back then. Both 4th and 16th century canon have the same books and therefore it was final back then."

I think the phrase, the Canon technically remained open, from Mr. Palad is far different than the phrase, finally settled, from Atty. Llasos. If it was technically remained open, then common sense will tell you that it is not finally settled.

What about the so-called similarity of the books between 4th and 16th century canons? My friends, the 4th century canon was based on the Septuagint, Trent has a different basis (Jerome's Vulgate). Between these centuries there is one book present in the Septuagint that was included in the 4th century, Esdras 1. Esdras 1 of the Septuagint is Esdras 3 in Trent. Esdras 1 of the 4th century canon was not recognized in Trent; another way of saying it Esdras 3 of Trent was not recognized in Trent. So between these two periods, they differ by one book. Evangelical apologists David King and William Webster have pointed that out but no Roman Catholic apologist has ever answered that with finality up to this time.

Isahel Alfonso versus Fr. Abraham Arganiosa on the Sufficiency of the Scriptures

2011-01-17T21:39:00.009+08:00

It's really amazing what ignorance of a topic can do to apologists.

You may have read how Roman Catholics attempt to refute the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. We Evangelicals believe that the Bible alone is sufficient to function as the infallible rule of faith and morals for the church. But when Roman Catholics really do not know the doctrine that they are trying to refute... well, we can get some funny stuffs out of it:

Isahel Alfonso, Catholic Faith Defender:

Useful is not the same with sufficient for instance food is useful for our existence but it is not sufficient because we also need air and water. Scripture is useful but not sufficient because we also need an infallible interpreter the church.

Fr. Abraham Arganiosa, CRS:

The Church teaches that the Bible is SUFFICIENT but IT IS NOT THE 'ONLY' SUFFICIENT. Duon mali ang Sola Scriptura... tinuturo nila na Biblia lang ang sufficient. Bible-Alone... WALA YAN SA BIBLIA. (comments section)
[Translation of second and third sentences: There is where Sola Scriptura is wrong... they teach that the Bible alone is sufficient. Bible-Alone... that's not in the Bible.]

Then again, it makes me think that both of them know what is Sola Scriptura but both of them don't know about the Scriptures. Look at it this way guys, at least you both don't like Sola Scriptura. So feel free to refute it... at the expense of your comrades' position, that is.

Like I said, it's really amazing.

Debunking a (Mis)interpretation of Job 5:1

2011-01-14T07:00:00.003+08:00

In my previous article, "Is Eliphaz good or bad?", we have quoted Atty. Marwil Llasos his statement asserting that Eliphaz is an unrighteous person. We will now quote the whole paragraph of that statement, not to comment about Eliphaz, but to debunk his argument of praying to saints. Here is the whole paragraph:

Praying to a saint or an angel is not madness. It is piety in accordance with Scripture. A servant of God, Job practiced what we Catholics call the “invocation of saints.” Invocation means to “call.” We call on the angels and saints – and so did the righteous Job. Job’s unrighteous friend Eliphaz taunted him for calling on the saints, saying: “Call now, if there be any that will answer thee; and to which of the saints wilt thou turn?” (Job 5:1). Unlike his friend, Job was a righteous and honest man who shunned evil (Job 1:1) yet, he was humble enough to call on the saints (in some translations, “holy ones”). Who are these “holy ones” that Job called for help? Zechariah 14:5 of the Amplified Bible identifies the holy ones as the “saints and angels” of God; “And God shall come and all the holy ones [saints and angels] with Him” (Zech. 14:5, Amp.). True enough, “born again” Christians are like Eliphaz the Temanite who taunt Catholics, who like Job, call on the angels and saints.

I also noted previously that Atty. Llasos identified Eliphaz as a Born Again Christian for not praying to saints. According to the above argument, Job who is righteous, was criticized by Eliphaz for calling on the saints and angels, which are called holy ones.

Let's begin the wake up call for Atty. Llasos from this daydreaming. First, bear in mind that the religious practice we are refuting, which the Roman Catholics are defending, is praying to people who are considered saints and are not alive on Earth. Roman Catholics sometimes expound the word pray to mean ask or request which people do everyday with other people. The argument then goes like this, "Well, praying to saints is just like talking to a friend. You anti-Catholics also talk to your friends everyday." When this happens, you can say something like, "Well, talking to a friend who is alive is not the same a talking to someone who is dead which is what you're doing."

Second,the term "saint" can also pertain to the righteous people who are still alive on Earth. However, just because we read from the Bible the word saint, it does not necessarily follow it's the same definition as with how Roman Catholics would impose it (a righteous person who is already dead).

Third, while we acknowledge instances in the Bible where people actually talked to angels, it is not the same thing as with Roman Catholics do when they "pray" to dead saints. In the Bible angels appear before people whenever God want to deliver a message. Both the human and the angel talk and listen audibly. But in the Bible, there is no instance wherein a righteous person on Earth attempts to call upon an angel or saint in Heaven and pray to that angel; let alone a dead saint.

Let's now deal with the proof text cited by Atty. Llasos which is in Job 5:1. This is a reverse application wherein an alleged bad guy (Eliphaz) condemns a practice of a good guy (Job). Since we don't side with the bad guy, it follows that whatever the bad guy in the Bible hates, the good guy should love. We have already tackled above how Roman Catholics confuse their opponents with the words pray and saints. Like I said, the term "saints" or "holy ones" could also pertain to the righteous people who are alive on Earth." Therefore, Atty. Llasos' private interpretation of Job 5:1 (there is no official/ex-cathedra interpretation of Job 5:1) is so misleading.

Here's another thing you should consider, read 1st Samuel 28:3 to 19. The prophet Samuel was already dead. The Philistines are about to do battle against the Israelites. King Saul, who was once righteous, prayed to God for help. But God did not answer Saul, neither by dreams nor prophets. So what did Saul do? He consulted a medium who can contact the dead because he wants to talk to Samuel. It's ironic that Saul once cut off every medium and spiritist from the land but now he consulted one.

Read verse 15: “I am in great distress,” Saul said. “The Philistines are fighting against me, and God has departed from me. He no longer answers me, either by prophets or by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what to do.”

From the text what does this tell us? The Jews don't pray to their dead prophets or holy ones like how the Roman Catholics pray to dead saints. In order for them to communicate with the spirit of the dead, the Jews would have to resort to doing a forbidden practice of medium. The righteous Jews pray only to God. If the Jews would like to seek help from saints or holy ones, such people pertain to those who are alive on Earth.

Some may respond, "Well, Saul became unrighteous that's why God is ignoring him. His unrighteousness led him to become desperate and went to a medium." This is wishful thinking. The mere fact he resorted to mediums only shows that there is no acceptable communication with the dead. If you are praying to a human saint that is no longer alive on Earth, that's makes you a medium.

Roman Catholics are desperate to justify their practice by arguing that the Bible does not say we should pray to God only. But the Bible does not cite any acceptable instances that the people who are alive on Earth are praying to dead saints. Some are also desperate to cite the transfiguration of Christ (Matthew 17:1-11) wherein Christ talked with Moses and Elijah as proof that praying to dead saints is justifiable. But a smarter person would know that this is far away from praying as one will wonder why Christ would seek the intercession of Moses and Elijah when he outranks both of them.

When the apostles asked Jesus to teach them how to pray, He told them this:

But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. Matthew 6:6-7

Christ did not mention praying to saints and angels, no one ever did.

This isn't Idolatry?

2011-01-11T08:48:00.010+08:00

Every January 9 of each year Roman Catholics in the Philippines celebrate what is called as the Feast of the Black Nazarene. The Black Nazarene is a statue which supposedly representing a suffering Jesus Christ who is carrying the cross. Unlike most statues of a suffering Christ which is white, beige, or light brown, the Christ here is colored black.

As part of the celebration, a procession is held by parading the statue in streets nearby the church in Quiapo, Manila where the statue is stationed. During the procession, devout Filipinos attempt to touch the statue or wipe it with a cloth hoping to receive forgiveness or healing. Here is what the procession looks like each year:

And every year there are reports of hundreds of people getting injured, and at least one death is reported. People barging in, pushing one another, stepping on each other, and falling from the statue. Thank God no one died this 2011 celebration.

At this point many of you expect me to quote verses like Exodus 20:4-6 or Isaiah 42:17. Yes, I am aware that the Roman Catholic Bishops in the Philippines reminded every devotee not to worship the statue itself. I am also aware that there are devotees who are saying, "I'm not worshiping the statue but I'm worshiping the one being represented by the statue." Some may even likened the Black Nazarene as the bronze serpent in Numbers 21:4-9. I could go on discussing the flaws of their arguments., but let's try a different approach.

Look again at the picture of the procession and read some reports of the injuries noted. Call the action whatever you want but there is one word you can't deny labeling it: disorderly. Each and every year the statue is treated like the pool in John 5:1-8. Here is a fact that many Roman Catholics do not realize: Christ can heal and forgive you without necessarily using a graven image. You can ask him directly, all you need to do is to believe.

Some of you may justify your actions of struggling to approach the Black Nazarene saying it's an act of faith similar to the woman with an issue of blood (Luke 8:40-44). In response I ask: Why that statue alone? Aren't there more graven images that was given a blessing? Are you saying that there are images of Christ that are more special than the other images of him even though they all supposedly represent Christ? Why not make another Black Nazarene or make replicas of it and give it special properties like the original?

If you treat one image more special than other, then that's idolatry.

My friends, Jesus is alive and He can hear you. Go to Him in prayer without necessarily bowing before a graven image of Him. Believe and receive your forgiveness and healing.

An unavoidable Circular Argument

2011-01-07T19:01:00.014+08:00

Roman Catholics have long argued that we cannot know the truthfulness and reliability of the Scriptures without an aid of the authority given to the church (specifically, an infallible church). But when you ask what's the basis of this authority of the church, every Roman Catholic would point you to their favorite verses in the Bible such as Matthew 16:18-19 and 1st Timothy 3:15. For short, the Bible is true because the church says so, and the church has authority to do this because the Bible says so. This, my friends, is called a circular argument fallacy. Two separate objects are dependent on each other in order to be true, one is the basis of the other and vice versa. Sometimes more than two elements are dependent on each other.

One of the resource person of Defensores Fidei Foundation (a Roman Catholic apologetics group in the Philippines), Carlos Antonio Palad, denies such logical fallacy:

You did not even show where the circularity lies. I must seriously ask you: do you know what a circular argument looks like? Here’s one.

If we Catholics argue to the effect that “the Catholic Church is the true Church because the Bible shows us to be the true Church, and there is a Bible because the Church said so” then you can rightly accuse us of circularity. But we do not argue this way, and indeed your enumeration of our arguments do not even touch this.

We base our belief in the truth of the Catholic Church not primarily upon Scripture – for Scripture itself needs to stand upon the truth of the Church – but upon history.

We're not going to discuss Mr. Palad's assertion on history. But we're going to challenge his statement, "But we do not argue this way." Of course his use of the pronoun "we" does not mean all Roman Catholics. I acknowledge that there are some that needs seasoning in apologetics. So I presume that the "we" used by Mr. Palad could, at a minimum, refer to apologists with a caliber similar to his.

Now, kindly read the the comments section of this article posted in Fr. Abe Arganiosa's blog (read here). Let's review how Fr. Abe and his comrades' answered:

An anonymous poster asked:

how can we be sure na hindi POLLUTED yung sacred tradition?
[Translation: how can we be sure that sacred tradition wasn't polluted?]

what is the check and balance?

Fr. Abe responds:

HINDI POLLUTED ANG SACRED-ORAL TRADITION KASI HINDI POLLUTED ANG BIBLE. ANG BIBLE AY BUNGA NG INSPIRASYON NG HOLY SPIRIT THROUGH ORAL TRADITION. SI JESUS AY HINDI NAGSULAT KUNDI NANGARAL AT MARAMING TAON ANG LUMIPAS BAGO NAGSULAT ANG MGA APOSTOL. ORAL TRADITION MUNA BAGO ANG ENSCRIPTED TRADITION WHICH IS THE BIBLE.
[The sacred oral tradition isn't polluted because the Bible isn't polluted. The Bible is the result of inspiration of the Holy Spirit through oral tradition. Jesus did not write but preached and many years had passed before the apostles began writing. Oral tradition came first before enscripted tradition which is the Bible.]

ANG BIBLE AY GALING SA ORAL TRADITION KAYA KUNG MALI ANG PINANGGALINGAN, MALI RIN ANG BUNGA.
[The Bible came from oral tradition, thus if the source is erroneous, the result is also erroneous].

To simplify it, the Bible is true because the source, which is oral traditions, is true. Some of you may ask the similar question, what's the check and balance of the sacred tradition? Fr. Abe responds:

THE CHECK AND BALANCE IS THE CHURCH WHICH IS THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH. THE CHURCH IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. THE WORD OF GOD FLOWS NATURALLY AND PURELY AND GENUINELY OUT OF THE BODY OF CHRIST.

WALANG ALTERATIONS KASI ANG LAHAT NG ARAL NG SANTA IGLESIA AY BIBLICAL AT APOSTOLIC.
[There are no alterations because all doctrines of the holy church are biblical and apostolic.]

There's the magic word, the church. Do notice that the words pillar and ground are mentioned. The words appear in 1st Timothy 3:15 which is from the Bible. At this point some of you may seeing the circularity of the argument: Bible-> oral tradition-> church, and then returns to the Bible. But let's extend our investigation.

The anonymous poster made further inquiries:

i agree na noon oral muna yung aral..den isinulat..tama po..den the bible was the result..
[I agree that the teachings were oral at first.. then it was written.. right.. then the bible was the result]

how about yung wala sa bible? how can we be sure na hindi napollute yung hindi naisulat?
[How about those which are not in the Bible? How can we be sure that those which were not written were not polluted?]

sa pagkakaalam ko may mga panahon magulo ang Iglesia..may mga panahon pa ng Anti Pope..etc..
[As I know, there are troubled times in the church.. there are times of anti-popes.. etc..]

paano po tayo makakasiguro na yung oral tradition was 100% preserved???
[how can we be sure that the oral tradition was 100% preserved?]

A couple of anonymous comrades of Fr. Abe answered:

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:18-19

Hindi pa ba ito sapat na assurance from God
[Is this not enough assurance from God?]

Hindi mo ba talaga ma gets anonymous?
bago pa lumabas ang Biblia NAUNA na ang ORAL TRADITION PATI ANG CATHOLIC CHURCH
ISAKSAK MO YAN SA LOGIC MO
[Don't you really get it anonymous? Before the Bible came out it was preceded by oral tradition and also the Catholic Chuch. Get that in to your logic.]

Fr. Abe endorsed the answers and added:

SINAGOT KA NA NG MGA KASAMAHAN. (The allies have answered you) HE, HE, HE... JESUS PROMISED THAT THE CHURCH WILL NOT BE OBERCAME BY THE POWERS OF HELL. EVEN DURING THE TIME OF JESUS THERE WERE PROBLEMS BUT THE TRUTH OF FAITH WAS PROTECTED FROM HERESY. THE SAME DURING THE TIME OF THE APOSTLES. BOTH THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE WERE PROTECTED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT ON MATTERS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE TRUTH. THE WORD OF GOD AND THE BODY OF CHRIST CANNOT BE POLLUTED BY EVIL.

So what we have here is a quotation from Matthew 16:19, which is also from the Bible, to support the church's infallibility. The circle is complete: the Bible is error free because of pollution-free oral traditions. Oral traditions are pollution-free because the church says so. The church is protected from heresy because the Bible says so.

And how did Mr. Carlos Antonio Palad deny the circular argument: "But we do not argue this way." Yeah right, whatever! Your comrade at arms, Fr. Abe Arganiosa, obviously forgot you said that.

Oh, and one more thing. In a comment from an earlier article, an anonymous Catholic asserted this:

The Church is like a big set. Inside it there is a subset that includes Sacred Tradition. Within the subset,are two smaller subsets,called oral sacred tradition and written tradition which is the Bible.

Do note that comments are moderated by Fr. Abe. Fr. Abe has to read the comment before posting it in the blog. Eventhough the one who wrote the comment is anonymous, it should be kept in mind that Fr. Abe has reviewed this comment and he should take responsibility of what has been written in his blog.

So for the above statement the church is the big set while the Bible is only a subset. The above statement in red is really the actual position on what is the final authority for the Roman Catholics: Sola Ecclessia (the church alone).

Is Eliphaz good or bad?

2011-01-07T08:34:00.005+08:00

As we start the year 2011, let's expose the hypocrisy of some of the Filipino Roman Catholic apologists concerning private interpretation. As we all know, Roman Catholics criticize us Protestants for not having an infallible magisterium to settle differences in interpretations of the Bible. They point out that private interpretations result to disunity.

Let's get down to business. Concerning Eliphaz, one of Job's friends who visited during the latter's suffering, is he good or bad?

According to Atty. Marwil Llasos:

Job’s unrighteous friend Eliphaz taunted him for calling on the saints, saying: “Call now, if there be any that will answer thee; and to which of the saints wilt thou turn?” (Job 5:1). Unlike his friend, Job was a righteous and honest man who shunned evil (Job 1:1) yet, he was humble enough to call on the saints (in some translations, “holy ones”). Who are these “holy ones” that Job called for help? Zechariah 14:5 of the Amplified Bible identifies the holy ones as the “saints and angels” of God; “And God shall come and all the holy ones [saints and angels] with Him” (Zech. 14:5, Amp.). True enough, “born again” Christians are like Eliphaz the Temanite who taunt Catholics, who like Job, call on the angels and saints.]

So for Atty. Llasos, Eliphaz is unrighteous. Eliphaz is not like his friend Job who is righteous and shuns evil. And Atty. Llasos even identifies Eliphaz with Born Again Christians.

However, for Mr. Franz Luigi Lugena (aka Kapatas and Parabanog), an apprentice of Fr. Abe Arganiosa:

Nagkamali si Eliphaz yes, pero hindi ibig sabihin eh talagang masama syang tao. Si Haring David ay nagkasala ng pangangalunya pero hindi talaga sya masamang tao. Kaya wag husgahan ang tao sa isang nagawang kamalian. Para namang ang babanal nyo.

Kung babasahin mo teksto, hindi nga pinarusahan ng Diyos si Eliphaz eh. Inutusan si Eliphaz na maghandog ng hain sa kanya nang hindi sya maparusahan. So nandun ang pagtatawad ng Diyos kay Eliphaz mula sa handog na inialay. Kung totoong masamang tao Eliphaz hindi sana sya oobligahin ng Diyos na maghandog ng alay na susunugin dahil karumaldumal sa Diyos ang hain ng masamang tao. Right then and there, pinatay sya ng Diyos. Kaso hindi eh.

[Translation: Eliphaz was wrong, yes, but that doesn't mean that he is really an evil person. King David sinned by committing adultery but he is really not an evil person. So don't judge a person who made a mistake, as if you're holy.

If you read the text, God did not punish Eliphaz. He ordered Eliphaz to offer a sacrifice to Him so that he won't be punished. So there was God's forgiveness to Eliphaz upon his offering. If Eliphaz was really evil, he would not be obligated to offer something because an offering of an evil person is not acceptable to God. He could have been killed by God right there and then, but this didn't happen.]

Oooh, so Eliphaz is not an evil person according to Mr. Lugena. So, let's leave the two of them to settle their differences.

By the way, don't bother consulting your infallible magisterium, they never made an official interpretation of all the verses in the book of Job. Yes, they can make an interpretation for you but how long will that take? Will they even bother? And what about the Roman Catholics who were born centuries before you who never heard of an official interpretation on the book of Job?

Pope Honorius: A Permanent Stain in Papal Infallibility

2010-12-27T19:16:00.006+08:00

Pope Honorius who reigned as pope from 625 to 638 AD was condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo in the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681 AD) for promoting monotheletism. In monothelitism, it is taught that Christ has only a divine will contrary to the orthodox position that He has two (human and divine wills).

Although there are Roman Catholic apologists who acknowledge this condemnation, they assert that Pope Honorius was not condemned in his official capacity as pope. In order to "preserve" their beloved doctrine of papal infallibility, Roman Catholics give either one of these two escape hatches:

1. He only neglected to fight against monothelitism
2. His teaching of monothelitism did not conform in the conditions of an ex-cathedra declaration and thus he was acting as a private theologian

With regards to number one, this is easily refutable when your read the pronouncement made in the Sixth Ecumenical Council where Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic and not an incompetent pope.

With respect to number two, the conditions for an ex-cathedra statement was not made until 1870. None of the popes 1,200 years before that know about those conditions, let alone papal infallibility. Read the following excerpts of some of the sessions during the Sixth Ecumenical Council:

Session XIII: The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God-preserved city, and were like-minded with them; and that of Theodore, sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whome the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God-preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine.

Session XVI: To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrusm the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! to Paul, the heretic, anathema!...

Note the terms used for Honorius: Heretic and Pope of Old Rome. The doctrines Honorius followed were considered, and we quote, "hurtful to the soul". So it isn't true that Honorius was condemned for negligence or acting as a private theologian. He was condemned in his official capacity as pope. Again, the conditions for an ex-cathedra declarations and the dogma of papal infallibility were unknown during those time.

Reference: Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of our Faith, Volume 2 by William Webster

Thank you, Uncle Noli

2010-12-22T08:44:00.009+08:00

I would like to thank my uncle, Manuel "Noli" Soliman for taking the trouble to purchase for me in the USA the three volume set of Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of our Fai t h. These were written and edited by David King and William Webster. These books are highly recommended by popular Evangelical Apologists in defending the Reformation's doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Volume 1 discusses the scriptural basis of Sola Scriptura. Volume 2 provides the historical defense of the doctrine. Volume 3 contains patristic citations from Church Fathers affirming the principle of Sola Scriptura. Basically, the books give us a scholarly approach in defending the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and provide responses to the arguments thrown by its detractors, especially Roman Catholic apologists like Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis.

Normally, if there is an interesting book I would make a special order in Powerbooks. But the above books are no longer in the inventory of Powerbooks' suppliers for years. After I saved enough funds, I asked my uncle to buy it for me in the USA. I just got the above books yesterday, after four months of waiting. It looks like that I will have more things to do this Holiday Season.

Christmas Bonus

2010-12-16T18:22:00.005+08:00

Republic Act 6686; Section 1:

Section 1. All officials and employees of the National Government who have rendered at least four months of service from January 1 to October 31 of each year and who are employed in the government service as of October 31 of the same year shall each receive a Christmas bonus equivalent to one month basic salary and additional cash gift of One thousand pesos (P1,000).

Presidential Decree No. 851:

WHEREAS, the Christmas season is an opportune time for society to show its concern for the plight of the working masses so they may properly celebrate Christmas and New Year.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby decree as follows:

Section 1. All employers are hereby required to pay all their employees receiving a basic salary of not more than P1,000 a month, regardless of the nature of their employment, a 13th-month pay not later than December 24 of every year.

************

It makes me wonder if the members of religions who do not celebrate Christmas (arguing that it is pagan) are rejecting these benefits. Yes, I am aware that they will only switch terminologies saying that it is 13th month pay and not Christmas bonus. But look at the context of the provision, the basis is Christmas.

Comments on Atty. Marwil Llasos' Lecture about Sects

2010-12-11T23:05:00.012+08:00

Atty. Marwil Llasos, a resource person of Defensores Fidei Foundation, gave a lecture about sects. The one posted in his article is probably just an outline. Of course, this lecture serves no other purpose than to exalt his church, the Church of Rome, by discrediting other religions. Although that's understandable, I just couldn't resist giving my comments on Atty. Llasos lecture because there are things which he doesn't seem to realize. We're not going to deal with all of his lecture, though.

We begin with his definition of sect:

The religious groups we call sects originated from Protestantism. They have carried out their Protestant idea of the personal and free interpretation of the Bible to the limit; therefore their Biblical subjectivism has led them apart from traditional Protestantism. It has led them as well to continuous divisions and subdivisions among themselves: new sects are born according to different interpretations of the Bible.

Ah, a classic Roman definition. Any group that opposes the interpretation of Rome's magisterium is called a sect. Being the ever-loyal Catholic that he is, Atty. Llasos blames the private interpretation of Protestantism as a result of these sects.

It makes we wonder how religions such as the Eastern Orthodox and the Mormons be the result of different interpretations of the Bible since these group's authority are beyond the Bible. It also makes me wonder how Traditional Catholics, Sedevacantists, Catholics for a Choice, and the Philippine version of the Church of Rome known as the Aglipays be the result of Protestantism. Does Atty. Llasos consider these Catholic spin-offs as sects resulting from Protestantism?

What's even ironic is that Atty. Llasos stated that sects carried out the Protestant idea of personal interpretation of Scripture. Hasn't it occurred to Atty. Llasos that the sects follow Rome's system of infallible interpreter? The members of the Jehovah's Witnesses have Watchtower to interpret the Bible for them. The members of the Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path, aka Members Church of God International) are dependent on the interpretation of their founder, Eliseo Soriano. The same can be said for the members of the Iglesia ni Cristo who are always obliged to follow their ministers' interpretation. Finally, the Kingdom of Jesus Christ whose members acknowledge the rank of their leader, Apollo Quiboloy, as Son of God.

So if these sects originated from Protestantism, how come they are following the infallible magisterium system of Rome? Therefore, these sects are children of Rome.

In the next part of his lecture, Atty. Llasos discusses how to recognize a sect.

Founded within the last 100 or 150 years by persons who claimed to have been “enlightened” or “inspired.”

In fairness he is right on this part. But it is so comforting to know that Protestantism is out of this category since it was not founded 150 years ago.

By Church standards, sects are rather small groups or congregations.

The true church founded by Christ started small and then grew. If the world were to continue several thousands of years more, some of these sects will definitely grow.

They impose on people and very demanding; their leaders have much influence and authority.

Look who's talking. As if the Church of Rome is not notorious for declaring "anathema" to those who oppose her with matching excommunication for those rebellious members. And doesn't the Pope also have influence and authority?

Each sect is convinced that it, and only it, possesses the truth about religion and salvation. Other religions are complete falsehood.

As if the Church of Rome is not notorious for saying, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus or outside the Church there is no salvation. Look how Pope Boniface VIII put it in his Bull Unam Sanctam in the year 1302:

"We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

By the last part in violet, no doubt that the church being talked about here, which anyone outside cannot be granted salvation, is the Church of Rome.

They are anti-ecumenical and particularly anti-Catholic.

Unfortunately, they are also Anti-Protestant as well. Wait a second, to the the eyes of the Mormons we are anti-Mormons. To the eyes of the Muslim we are anti-Islam. I guess the feeling is mutual.

Sects reject the Church, its sacraments and liturgy, all Christian tradition, Mary, the saints, the Pope, bishops and priests. They accept only the Bible which they freely interpret (“biblical fundamentalism”).

And we have already pointed out how these sect eventually adapt the infallible interpreter system of Rome. So, again, these sects are Rome's children at the end of the day.

Highly proselytist and intolerant.

As if the Church of Rome is not working double time to call back those who left her by discrediting other religions. Look how she boasts when a Protestant converts to her.

Their faith and religiosity are simplistic and very emotional.

And the Church of Rome is not? In the Philippines look how her members celebrate the feast of the Black Nazarene.They hold a parade of a black-colored statue of Christ. There have been reports of injuries and even deaths of Catholics who wants to get a glimpse or even a touch of the image by barging in to the crowd. So who is emotional?

They usually believe in the imminent second coming of Christ.

I don't see why is this cause for an alarm. Even the Church of Rome believes in the second coming and it is bound to happen as prophesied in Scriptures. Atty. Llasos is probably referring to those preachers who are fond of shouting, "Repent for the end is near!" just to get members by scaring them.

Anyway, what we have here is a normal attitude towards opposing religions. To the Roman Catholic Church other religions are heretics just as the Roman Catholic Church is a heretic to other religions.

How do I define a sect? Well one of my definitions of a sect is a group whose members' spiritual standing is dependent on people and things instead of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yes, I am aware that God uses people and things to bless us but the members of sects focus more on people and things instead of Christ. And yes, the members of other religions do claim they focus on Christ but their actions are quite the opposite. So if your religious group for most of the time is boasting how good the church, magisterium or church administration, saints, popes, sent ones or sugo, angels etc. are, then you better think twice of staying there because the true church gives you the living Jesus through the Bible.