tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4613760448879905760..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Snappy answersRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21795388595498395412009-08-27T23:30:29.830-04:002009-08-27T23:30:29.830-04:00Women’s nike tn Shox Rivalry est le modèle féminin...Women’s <a href="http://www.nike-max-tn.com" rel="nofollow">nike tn</a> Shox Rivalry est le modèle féminin le plus tendance de baskets pour le sport. <a href="http://www.nike-max-tn.com" rel="nofollow">tn chaussures</a>Concernant la semelle :<a href="http://www.mensclothingstore.us/" rel="nofollow">spyder jackets</a>Cheap Brand Jeans Shop - True Religion Jeans <a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">cheap nike shox</a> & Puma Shoes Online- tn nike,<a href="http://www.jeansfr.com" rel="nofollow">Diesel Jeans</a> le caoutchouc extérieur, l’EVA intermédiaire <a href="http://www.jeansfr.com" rel="nofollow">Levis Jeans</a>et le textile intérieur s’associent pour attribuer à la.<a href="http://www.Ed-hardy-shirts.com" rel="nofollow">ed hardy shirts</a> pretty fitCharleston<a href="http://www.mensclothingstore.us/" rel="nofollow">cheap columbia jackets</a>. turned a pair of double plays to do the trick.Lacoste Polo Shirts, <a href="http://www.pumafr.com" rel="nofollow">puma basket</a>, Burberry Polo Shirts.wholesale Lacoste polo shirts and <a href="http://www.clothingol.com" rel="nofollow"> cheap polo shirts</a>with great price.Thank you so much!!<a href="http://www.mensclothingus.com" rel="nofollow">cheap polo shirts</a> men'ssweate,<a href="http://www.gillette-razor.com" rel="nofollow">gillette mach3 razor blades</a>for men.As for <a href="http://www.clothingjeans.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Cheap Evisu Jeans</a><a href="http://www.clothingjeans.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Cheap Armani Jeans</a><a href="http://www.polo-shirts.us" rel="nofollow">polo shirts</a><a href="http://www.eshooes.com" rel="nofollow">Puma shoes</a>doAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49456484827503095732007-07-28T10:38:00.000-04:002007-07-28T10:38:00.000-04:00Consider the possibility that Pope John Paul II wa...Consider the possibility that Pope John Paul II was in error in his death penalty position and that the Church neglected 2000 years of rational, biblical, theological and traditonal foundations when it adopted its new position (since 1997).<BR/><BR/>---------------------<BR/><BR/>Pope John Paul II: His death penalty errors<BR/>by Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters<BR/>(contact info, below)<BR/>October 1997, with subsequent updates thru 5/07<BR/> <BR/>SEE ADDITIONAL REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS DOCUMENT<BR/><BR/>The new Roman Catholic position on the death penalty, introduced in 1997, is based upon the thoughts of Pope John Paul II, whose position conflicts with reason, as well as biblical, theological and traditional Catholic teachings spanning nearly 2000 years.<BR/> <BR/>Pope John Paul II's death penalty writings in Evangelium Vitae were flawed and their adoption into the Catechism was improper.<BR/><BR/>In 1997, the Roman Catholic Church decided to amend the 1992 Universal Catechism to reflect Pope John Paul II's comments within his 1995 encyclical, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae). Therein, the Pope finds that the only time executions can be justified is when they are required "to defend society" and that "as a result of steady improvements . . . in the penal system that such cases are very rare if not practically non existent." <BR/> <BR/>This is, simply, not true. Murderers, tragically, harm and murder, again, way too often.<BR/> <BR/>Three issues, inexplicably, escaped the Pope's consideration. <BR/> <BR/>First, in the Pope's context, "to defend society" means that the execution of the murderer must save future lives or, otherwise, prevent future harm. <BR/> <BR/>When looking at the history of criminal justice practices in probations, paroles and incarcerations, we observe countless examples of when judgements and procedures failed and, because of that, murderers harmed and/or murdered, again. History details that murderers murder and otherwise harm again, time and time again -- in prison, after escape, after improper release, and, of course, after we fail to capture or incarcerate them. <BR/> <BR/>Reason dictates that living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and/or murder again than are executed murderers. <BR/> <BR/>Therefore, the Pope could err, by calling for a reduction or end to execution, and thus sacrifice more innocents, or he could "err" on the side of protecting more innocents by calling for an expansion of executions.<BR/> <BR/>History, reason and the facts support an increase in executions based upon a defending society foundation. <BR/> <BR/>Secondly, if social science concludes that executions provide enhanced deterrence for murders, then the Pope's position should call for increased executions. <BR/> <BR/>If we decide that the deterrent effect of executions does not exist and we, therefore, choose not to execute, and we are wrong, this will sacrifice more innocent lives and also give those murderers the opportunity to harm and murder again. <BR/> <BR/>If we choose to execute, believing in the deterrent effect, and we are wrong, we are executing our worst human rights violators and preventing such murderers from ever harming or murdering again - again, saving more innocent lives.<BR/> <BR/>No responsible social scientist has or will say that the death penalty deters no one. Quite a few studies, including 10 recent ones, find that executions do deter. <BR/> <BR/>As all prospects for negative consequence deter some, it is a mystery why the Pope chose the option which spares murderers and sacrifices more innocent lives. <BR/> <BR/>If the Pope's defending society position has merit, then, again, the Church must actively support executions, as it offers an enhanced defense of society and greater protection for innocent life.<BR/> <BR/>Thirdly, we know that some criminals don't murder because of their fear of execution. This is known as the individual deterrent effect. Unquestionably, the incapacitation effect (execution) and the individual deterrent effect both exist and they both defend society by protecting innocent life and offer enhanced protections over imprisonment. Furthermore, individual deterrence assures us that general deterrence must exist, because individual deterrence could not exist without it. <BR/><BR/>Executions save more innocent lives. <BR/> <BR/>Therefore, the Pope's defending society standard should be a call for increasing executions. Instead, the Pope and other Church leadership has chosen a position that spares the lives of known murderers, resulting in more innocents put at risk and more innocents harmed and murdered -- a position which, quite clearly, contradicts the Pope's, and other's, conclusions.<BR/> <BR/>Contrary to the Church's belief, that the Pope's opinion represents a tougher stance against the death penalty, the opposite is true. When properly evaluated, the defending society position supports more executions.<BR/> <BR/>Had these issues been properly assessed, the Catechism would never have been amended -- unless the Church endorses a position knowing that it would spare the lives of guilty murderers, at the cost of sacrificing more innocent victims. <BR/> <BR/>When the choice is between<BR/><BR/>1) sparing murderers, resulting in more harmed and murdered innocents, who suffer through endless moments of incredible horror, with no additional time to prepare for their salvation, or <BR/>2) executing murderers, who are given many years on death row to prepare for their salvation, and saving more innocents from being murdered,<BR/><BR/>the Pope and the Catholic Church have an obligation to spare the innocent, as Church tradition, the Doctors of the Church and many Saints have concluded. (see reference, below)<BR/> <BR/>Pope John Paul II's death penalty stance was his own, personal prudential judgement and does not bind any other Catholic to share his position. Any Catholic can choose to support more executions, based upon their own prudential judgement, and remain a Catholic in good standing.<BR/> <BR/>Furthermore, prudential judgement requires a foundation of reasoned and thorough review. The Pope either improperly evaluated the risk to innocents or he did not evaluate it at all. <BR/> <BR/>A defending society position supports more executions, not less. Therefore, his prudential judgement was in error on this important fact.<BR/> <BR/>Furthermore, defending society is an outcome of the death penalty, but is secondary to the foundation of justice and biblical instruction.<BR/> <BR/>Even though Romans and additional writings do reveal a "defending society" consideration, such references pale in comparison to the mandate that execution is the proper punishment for murder, regardless of any consideration "to defend society." Both the Noahic covenant, in Genesis 9:6 ("Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed."), and the Mosaic covenant, throughout the Pentateuch (Ex.: "He that smiteth a man so that he may die, shall be surely put to death." Exodus 21:12), provide execution as the punishment for unjustifiable/intentional homicide, otherwise known as murder. <BR/> <BR/>These texts, and others, offer specific rebuttal to the Pope's position that if "bloodless means" for punishment are available then such should be used, to the exclusion of execution. Pope John Paul II's prudential judgement does not trump biblical instruction.<BR/> <BR/>Most telling is the fact that Roman Catholic tradition instructs four elements to be considered with criminal sanction. <BR/>1. Defense of society against the criminal. <BR/>2. Rehabilitation of the criminal (including spiritual rehabilitation). <BR/>3. Retribution, which is the reparation of the disorder caused by the criminal's transgression. <BR/>4. Deterrence<BR/> <BR/>It is a mystery why and how the Pope could have excluded three of these important elements and wrongly evaluated the fourth. In doing so, though, we can confirm that his review was incomplete and improper. <BR/> <BR/>At least two Saints, Paul and Dismas, faced execution and stated that it was appropriate. They were both executed.<BR/> <BR/>The Holy Ghost decided that death was the proper punishment for two devoted, early Christians, Ananias and his wife, Saphira, for the crime/sin of lying. Neither was given a moment to consider their earthly punishment or to ask for forgiveness. The Holy Ghost struck them dead.<BR/> <BR/>For those who erroneously contend that Jesus abandoned the Law of the Hebrew Testament, He states that He has come not "to abolish the law and the prophets . . . but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17-22. While there is honest debate regarding the interpretation of Mosaic Law within a Christian context, there seems little dispute that the Noahic Covenant is still in effect and that Genesis 9:6 deals directly with the sanctity of life issue in its support of execution. <BR/><BR/>(read "A Seamless Garment In a Sinful World" by John R. Connery, S. J., America, 7/14/84, p 5-8).<BR/> <BR/>"In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die (Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10, referring to Ex 21:17; cf. Lev 20:9). (Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, 10/7/2000)<BR/> <BR/>Saint Pius V reaffirms this mandate, in the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566), stating that executions are acts of "paramount obedience to this [Fifth] Commandment." ("Thou shalt not murder," sometimes improperly translated as "kill" instead of "murder"). And, not only do the teachings of Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine concur, but both saints also find that such punishment actually reflects charity and mercy by preventing the wrongdoer from sinning further. The Saints position is that execution offers undeniable defense of society as well as defense of the wrongdoer.<BR/> <BR/>Such prevention also expresses the fact that execution is an enhanced defense of society, over and above all other punishments.<BR/> <BR/>The relevant question is "What biblical and theological teachings, developed from 1566 through 1997, provide that the standard for executions should evolve from 'paramount obedience' to God's eternal law to a civil standard reflecting 'steady improvements' . . . in the penal system?". Such teachings hadn't changed. The Pope's position is social and contrary to biblical, theological and traditional teachings.<BR/> <BR/>If Saint Pius V was correct, that executions represent "paramount obedience to the [Fifth] Commandments, then is it not disobedient to reduce or stop executions?<BR/> <BR/>The Church's position on the use of the death penalty has been consistent from 300 AD through 1995 AD. The Church has always supported the use of executions, based upon biblical and theological principles.<BR/> <BR/>Until 1995, says John Grabowski, associate professor of Moral Theology at Catholic University, " . . . Church teachings were supportive of the death penalty. You can find example after example of Pope's, of theologians and others, who have supported the right of the state to inflict capital punishment for certain crimes and certain cases." Grabowski continues: "What he (the Pope now) says, in fact, in his encyclical, is that given the fact that we now have the ability, you know, technology and facilities to lock up someone up for the rest of their lives so they pose no future threat to society -- given that question has been answered or removed, there is no longer justification for the death penalty." (All Things Considered, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, 9/9/97.)<BR/> <BR/>The Pope's position is now based upon the state of the corrections system -- a position neither biblical nor theological in nature. Furthermore, it is a position which conflicts with the history of prisons. Long term incarceration of lawbreakers in Europe began in the 1500s. Of course, long term incarceration of slaves had begun thousands of years before -- meaning that all were aware that criminal wrongdoers could also be subject to bondage, if necessary - something that all historians and biblical scholars -- now and then -- were and are well aware of. <BR/> <BR/>Since it's inception, the Church has issued numerous pronouncements, encyclicals and previous Universal Catechisms. Had any biblical or theological principle called for a replacement of the death penalty by life imprisonment, it would have been revealed long before 1995. <BR/> <BR/>There is, finally, a disturbing reality regarding the Pope's new standard. The Pope's defending society standard requires that the moral concept of justice becomes irrelevant. The Pope's standard finds that capital punishment can be used only as a vehicle to prevent future crimes. Therefore, using the Pope's standard, the moral/biblical rational -- that capital punishment is the just or required punishment for murder -- is no longer relevant to the sin/crime of murder. <BR/> <BR/>If defending society is the new standard, the Pope has decided that the biblical standards of atonement, expiation, justice and required punishments have all, necessarily, been discarded, with regard to execution. <BR/> <BR/>The Pope's new position establishes that capital punishment no longer has any connection to the harm done or to the imbalance to be addressed. Yet, such connection had always been, until now, the Church's historical, biblically based perspective on this sanction. Under a defending society standard, the injury suffered by the murder victim is no longer relevant to their punishment. Executions can be justified solely upon that punishments ability to prevent future harm by the murderer. <BR/><BR/>Therefore, when considering executions in regard to capital murder cases, a defending society standard renders justice irrelevant. Yet, execution defends society to a degree unapproachable by any other punishment and, therefore, should have been fully supported by the Pope.<BR/> <BR/>"Some enlightened people would like to banish all conception of retribution or desert from our theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself. They do not see that by doing so they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it?" (quote attributed to the distinguished Christian writer C. S. Lewis)<BR/> <BR/>Again, with regard to the Pope's prudential judgement, his neglect of justice was most imprudent. <BR/> <BR/>Some Catholic scholars, properly, have questioned the appropriateness of including prudential judgement within a Catechism. Personal opinion does not belong within a Catechism and, likely, will never be allowed, again. I do not believe it had ever been allowed before.<BR/> <BR/>In fact, neither the Church nor the Pope would accept a defending society standard for use of the death penalty, unless the Church and the Pope believed that such punishment was just and deserved, as well. The Church has never questioned the authority of the government to execute in "cases of extreme gravity," nor does it do so with these recent changes. <BR/> <BR/>Certainly, the Church and the Pope John Paul II believe that the prevention of any and all violent crimes fulfills a defending society position. There is no doubt that executions defend society at a level higher than incarceration. Why has the Pope and many within Church leadership chosen a path that spares murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives, when they could have chosen a stronger defense of society which spares more innocents?<BR/> <BR/>Properly, the Pope did not challenge the Catholic biblical and theological support for capital punishment. The Pope has voiced his own, personal belief as to the appropriate application of that penalty. <BR/> <BR/>So why has the Pope come out against executions, when his own position -- a defense of society -- which, both rationally and factually, has a foundation supportive of more executions?<BR/> <BR/>It is unfortunate that the Pope, along with some other leaders in the Church, have decided to, improperly, use a defending society position to speak against the death penalty.<BR/> <BR/>The Pope's position against the death penalty condemns more innocents and neglects justice.<BR/> <BR/><BR/>ADDITIONAL REFERENCES<BR/><BR/>These references provide a thorough rebuke of the current Roman Catholic Church teachings against the death penalty and, particularly, deconstruct the many improper pronouncements made by the US Bishops.<BR/> <BR/> <BR/>(1)"The Death Penalty", Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, by Romano Amerio, <BR/> <BR/>in a blog (replace dot) domid.blogspot(DOT)com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html<BR/>titled "Amerio on capital punishment "Friday, May 25, 2007 <BR/> <BR/>NOTE: Thoughtful deconstruction of current Roman Catholic teaching on capital punishment by a faithful Catholic Vatican insider.<BR/><BR/><BR/>(2) "Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty", at <BR/>homicidesurvivors(DOT)com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx<BR/> <BR/><BR/>(3) "Capital Punishment: A Catholic Perspective" at<BR/>www(DOT)sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/capital_punishment.htm<BR/> <BR/><BR/>(4) "The Purpose of Punishment (in the Catholic tradition)", by R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L., CHRISTIFIDELIS, Vol.21,No.4, sept 14, 2003<BR/>www(dot)st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?document=2003/21-4<BR/> <BR/><BR/>(5) "MOST CATHOLICS OPPOSE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?", KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers, March 2, 2004<BR/>www(dot)catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp<BR/> <BR/><BR/>(6) "THOUGHTS ON THE BISHOPS' MEETING: NOWADAYS, VOTERS IGNORE BISHOPS" , KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers,, Nov. 22, 2005<BR/>www(dot)catholic.com/newsletters/kke_051122.asp<BR/> <BR/><BR/>(7) Forgotten Truths: "Is The Church Against Abortion and The Death Penalty", by Luiz Sergio Solimeo, Crusade Magazine, p14-16, May/June 2007<BR/>www(dot)tfp.org/crusade/crusade_mag_vol_87.pdf <BR/><BR/><BR/>(8) "God’s Justice and Ours" by Antonin Scalia, First Things, 5/2002<BR/>www(dot)firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2022<BR/><BR/><BR/>(9) "The Death Penalty", by Solange Strong Hertz at<BR/>ourworld(DOT)compuserve.com/HOMEPAGES/REMNANT/death2.htm<BR/><BR/><BR/>(10) "Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says", Dr. Lloyd R. Bailey, Abingdon Press, 1987. The definitive biblical review of the death penalty.<BR/> <BR/>copyright 1997-2007 Dudley Sharp<BR/> <BR/>Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters<BR/>e-mail sharp(at)aol.com, 713-622-5491,<BR/>Houston, Texas<BR/> <BR/>Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.<BR/> <BR/>A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.<BR/> <BR/>Pro death penalty sites <BR/> <BR/>homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx<BR/> <BR/>www(dot)dpinfo.com<BR/>www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm<BR/>www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm<BR/>joshmarquis(dot)blogspot.com/<BR/>www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm<BR/>www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com<BR/>www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_contents.htm (Sweden)<BR/>www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html<BR/><BR/>Permission for distribution of this document is approved as long as it is distributed in its entirety, without changes, inclusive of this statement.dudleysharphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12796468204722853648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65199261162982766142007-05-31T07:07:00.000-04:002007-05-31T07:07:00.000-04:00Vatican I actually does affirm inerrancy. It even...Vatican I actually does affirm inerrancy. It even uses the phrase "dictation of the Holy Spirit." On the other hand, Catholic dogma itself must be interpreted, so it really only means what the pope says it means. Heck, if he says it actually means that the moon is made of cheese, what can you say to that?<BR/><BR/>Anyway, most Protestants do <I>not</I> set up a Magisterium. To be a Magisterium, it would have to be able to publish binding dogmas with no rationale whatsoever and be absolutely followed as the mouthpiece of God himself. The only Protestants that do that with their clergy and leaders are Pentecostals and Episcopalians.Fearsome Piratehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12171985273546955313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8756240727899855522007-05-30T16:35:00.000-04:002007-05-30T16:35:00.000-04:00Classic Protestantism asserts…that the individual ...<I> Classic Protestantism asserts…that the individual believer is competent, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to interpret the meaning of the Bible (69).<BR/><BR/>This is a caricature of the Protestant position. It might be true of the Plymouth Brethren, but little else. <B>Many Protestant denominations demand an educated clergy.</B> As a former PCA pastor and graduate of Gordon-Conwell, Hahn has no excuse to mislead the reader this way.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't get it. Many Protestant denominations set up their own Magisterium and this is the "true" position?<BR/><BR/>If the Holy Spirit shows me the truth in Scripture then I could care less what some overblown, self-appointed "pope" says. But then I suppose I'm not competent to judge what the Bible says or not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41920681156025872582007-05-30T08:41:00.000-04:002007-05-30T08:41:00.000-04:00Hi Ben,The scope of my comments was limited to mod...Hi Ben,<BR/><BR/>The scope of my comments was limited to modern (really, modernist), mainstream Catholic Bible scholarship in relation to Hahn's new book on apologetics. I myself affirm the inerrancy of Scripture.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88122019738408046022007-05-30T00:39:00.000-04:002007-05-30T00:39:00.000-04:00Dear Steve,I am curious what you meant when you re...Dear Steve,<BR/><BR/>I am curious what you meant when you referred to the "hiatus" between Scott Hahn's "pious claim" that the Bible is free from error and the contemporary state of biblical scholarship. Is your point simply that there is a chasm between Hahn's position and the position of mainstream Catholic biblical scholarship (which I grant), or are you claiming that there is a chasm between Hahn's position and that which has been really proven by literary/historical/archeological science? That is to say, do you yourself deny biblical inerrancy, or are you simply attempting to fault Hahn for inconsistency? (because he holds a position which the large majority of Catholic biblical scholars reject)<BR/><BR/>Cordially,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76145064794686817422007-05-29T19:50:00.000-04:002007-05-29T19:50:00.000-04:00I haven't read Hahn's book, but according to Amazo...I haven't read Hahn's book, but according to Amazon it's 240 pages long (which probably includes indexes and the like). I don't think in an introductory work he is obligated to include opinions that are not in agreement with his own, even those that are "mainstream" catholic scholarship (Brown, et al.) For example, if you are writing an introductory book on Christianity and Reformed theology, are you obligated to mention Barth, Brunner, the later Berkouwer, etc?<BR/><BR/>Of course, there is no excuse for someone like Hahn presenting his conservative view of the Bible as the church's view of the Bible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9387697178205692642007-05-28T12:28:00.000-04:002007-05-28T12:28:00.000-04:00Another shot of the one true church:http://www.tre...Another shot of the one true church:<BR/><BR/>http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Africa/Ethiopia/North/Tigray/Abune_Yemata_Guh/photo184674.htm<BR/><BR/>And here's the one true seminary of the one true church:<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Debre_Damo_Acces.jpg<BR/><BR/>http://www.natytoursethiopia.com.et/DebreDamo.htmstevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46423981676211530362007-05-28T11:43:00.000-04:002007-05-28T11:43:00.000-04:00Anyway, anyone who knows anything ought to know th...Anyway, anyone who knows anything ought to know that the one true church is...Abuna Yemata:<BR/><BR/>http://www.pixagogo.com/Photos/Albums/Photo.aspx?id=S4-jwpaGQyC3oUQ!1dtrUkwCnvW!7wa8j6z0rPaDpC1pUgjQlI66Hi6U3PW-VlQeW6<BR/><BR/>http://www.pixagogo.com/Photos/Albums/Photo.aspx?id=S488a-0gaUM2j7yTw6sIvDMST493xkY3okys6YfK1wCYG3GUwMoa3QdUxp3a3nuscZ<BR/><BR/>http://www.photographersdirect.com/buyers/stockphoto.asp?imageid=736503stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76773835381791573742007-05-28T11:40:00.000-04:002007-05-28T11:40:00.000-04:00If you would like an even more obvious and persnic...If you would like an even more obvious and persnickety (not to mention fun) demonstration of that, listen to James White's debate on Papal Infallibility w/ Tim Staples. Listen to the final 2 minutes or so of White's rebuttal just before the intermission and cross-examination and then listen to the way Staples roots around like a pig for a truffle for an answer.<BR/><BR/>Oh, heck - just listen to the whole debate. In terms of entertainment value, it's right up there w/ James White-Vin Lewis and Doug Wilson-Dan Barker.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12091624437907636842007-05-28T10:13:00.000-04:002007-05-28T10:13:00.000-04:00Thanks for the great review, Steve.Do any of you k...Thanks for the great review, Steve.<BR/><BR/>Do any of you know if there is document or teaching that prevents or permits a layman and/or non-authoritative Catholic to speak in any capacity for their church? <BR/><BR/>When we read Hahn or the recent convert Koons write an apologetic for Rome what official authority do these writings hold? And if they don't have the imprimatur (which can be revoked) then it seems their positions are simply their on rationalization of their decisions, but their church hasn't officially validated their reasons. Certainly doesn't seem much different than the protestant making their own decisions without an "infallible" interpreter.<BR/><BR/>But that's just my interpretation... :-)<BR/>MarkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47942099319659325472007-05-28T09:45:00.000-04:002007-05-28T09:45:00.000-04:00ANONYMOUS SAID:“As a member of the PCA, I am not a...ANONYMOUS SAID:<BR/><BR/>“As a member of the PCA, I am not a big fan of Scott Hahn. At the same time, I find your writing to be filled with far more errors than his, along with the arrogance of your tone. Your review is not only mean-spirited in tone, but intellectually dishonest. I just finished reading Reasons to Believe, along with my wife, who is thinking about returning to the Catholic Church. She naturally loved it, but I also got a lot out of it. When I saw your blog today, I showed her what you wrote here, and we both found ourselves shaking our heads at the many inaccuracies throughout. Frankly, we lost count, not that you would care. For one thing, Hahn was never in the PCA, not as a pastor or even a member. For another thing, he quotes widely from many biblical experts, catholic and protestant, including those you say he chose to ignore, like Raymond Brown, Luke Timothy Johnson, Joseph Fitzmyer...”<BR/><BR/>i) Bridges has already pointed out the ambiguous state of the public record regarding Hahn’s former Presbyterian affiliations.<BR/><BR/>ii) You suffer from reading incomprehension. This is a review of his book on Catholic apologetics. He does not quote widely from mainstream Catholic scholars in the course of this book. Whether he does so elsewhere is irrelevant to my statement, which was specifically made in reference to this book. And it’s very telling that in his magnum opus in defense of Catholicism, he doesn’t quote mainstream Catholic scholars in support of his traditional prooftexts or idiosyncratic interpretations.<BR/><BR/>iii) It’s obvious that you’re involved in a self-softening up exercise to follow your wife back into the church of Rome. Pity you don’t take Biblical headship more seriously, and pity that you are more devoted to Scott Hahn and the pope than you are to the Lord Jesus Christ. Your loyalties are skewed, to say the least.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9348906630381358792007-05-28T09:18:00.000-04:002007-05-28T09:18:00.000-04:00Great post Steve. I've been a follower of Catholi...Great post Steve. I've been a follower of Catholic apologetics for many years now and I have never understood the Catholic respect given to Scott Hahn. He is by far one of the worst biblical exegete of the bunch, but he is given more praise and respect then any of the others. Your post clearly demonstrated his inadequacies in this area.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7607912837533776752007-05-27T18:43:00.000-04:002007-05-27T18:43:00.000-04:00I just finished reading Reasons to Believe and fou...I just finished reading Reasons to Believe and found that Hahn did a decent job of summarizing a wide range of apologetic issues for a popular audience. In writing for catholic readers, does Hahn take some short cuts? Sure he does, just like the reformed scholars that he mentions often do (R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, Gordon Clark, Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen). Not surprising, since these men were big influences on Hahn in his own training early on. In point of fact, Hahn restates the modest scope of Reasons to Believe as an introductory guide to apologetics for beginners. <BR/><BR/>Being neither Protestant or Catholic, perhaps you will permit this Orthodox brother to recommend a little more christian charity. I might also recommend some of Hahn's more scholarly work on the bible and theology, which shows the kind of technical work he can do, and which is available online: <BR/><BR/>http://www.salvationhistory.com/library/scripture/CBQ%20Heb9%207-2004.pdf<BR/><BR/>http://www.salvationhistory.com/library/scripture/CBQ%20Gal3%2008-2004.pdf<BR/><BR/>http://www.salvationhistory.com/library/scripture/CBR%20Covenant%20Research-2005.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68901734875815836052007-05-27T18:03:00.000-04:002007-05-27T18:03:00.000-04:00Steve makes many good points, but I would add the ...Steve makes many good points, but I would add the following regarding Acts 1 and succession. Judas’ replacement was chosen as a unique fulfillment of prophecy. It was something that reflected poorly on Judas. Being replaced in such a sense was bad, not good. Roman Catholics and others who use this passage to argue for their concept of apostolic succession are taking a passage about a <I>negative</I> and <I>unique</I> fulfillment of prophecy involving the replacement of one person by <I>one</I> other and distorting it into a <I>positive</I> and <I>ongoing</I> church practice that <I>does nothing to fulfill the prophecy in question</I> and involves <I>a large number</I> of people replacing one person in succession.<BR/><BR/>On the perpetual virginity of Mary, Hahn’s reference to <I>one</I> ancient Christian who opposed the concept, on the basis of New Testament references to brothers of Jesus, is misleading. The evidence suggests that many ancient Christians opposed the perpetual virginity of Mary, even though it was a popular view among the church fathers of later centuries. Whether the people who opposed the perpetual virginity of Mary did so on the basis of New Testament references to Jesus’ brothers isn’t of much significance. What’s more significant is the fact that many did oppose the doctrine. Eric Svendsen addresses this subject in the book Steve referenced, and I’ve addressed it in posts here in the past. Basil of Caesarea refers to many Christians of his day who rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary. Also worth noting is that the Jewish historian Josephus seems to have viewed James as a biological brother of Jesus, as John Meier, another source Steve cited, mentions.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Peter’s prominence in some parts of the New Testament, it should be noted that not only is Paul more prominent in other parts of the New Testament, but he’s also more prominent than Peter among the earliest church fathers. While men like Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp were often writing to Pauline churches or were part of Pauline churches themselves, such churches often had been in contact with Peter as well. Besides, if there had been a papacy, then <I>every</I> church would have been a Petrine church in that sense. Yet, these early patristic sources more often cite Paul as an example for others to emulate, quote Paul, or emulate his writing style, for example. Peter was prominent in the earliest generations of Christianity, but he doesn’t seem to have been as prominent as we’d expect a Pope, the first Pope, to be, and he doesn’t seem to have been as prominent as Paul.<BR/><BR/>Concerning the queen mother, not all kings are referred to as having had one. David, the king Jesus is associated with most, didn’t have one that we’re aware of. And are we to go looking for a parallel to every detail that ever existed in the Israelite monarchy? What about the details surrounding patriarchs? Or judges? Or prophets? Etc. Must there be a New Testament parallel to everything? If not, then why assume that the role of queen mother is something to be paralleled?Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65472163189241739882007-05-27T15:49:00.000-04:002007-05-27T15:49:00.000-04:00Thanks for the review,QuoteHe often engages in pro...Thanks for the review,<BR/><BR/>Quote<BR/>He often engages in prooftexting, but the actual meaning of the text always falls short of what he needs it to mean, which is why he then takes refuge in the church fathers—which is not to say that his use of the church fathers is necessarily any better.<BR/>Endquote<BR/><BR/>Jason might return with this church father quote:<BR/><BR/> But how shall any one who is unskillful as these men pretend, be able to convict the gainsayers and stop their mouths? or what need is there to give attention to readings and to the Holy Scriptures, if such a state of unskillfulness is to be welcome among us? Such arguments are mere makeshifts and pretexts, the marks of idleness and sloth. But some one will say, 'it is to the priests that these charges are given':<BR/>Chrysostom in Webster/King Holy Scripture Vol. 3, pg.192<BR/><BR/>Gerstner (Hahn's teacher) found solice after reading Hahn's Rome Sweet Home and recognizing that Hahn had never understood the Reformed faith, was thus allowed to pray for Hahn: <BR/> So instead of leaving the Protestant church, and the Reformed and Presbyterian church at that, he actually was leaving the lost world into which he was born- and from which he was never actually separated- for the false church of Rome. He has lept form the frying pan into the fire, and only God can deliver him as a brand from the burning. Rome is NOT home for the Christian.<BR/>Gerstner, Justification by Faith Alone pg.185Ron Van Brenkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15623171051016737306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9065812222658314822007-05-27T14:27:00.000-04:002007-05-27T14:27:00.000-04:00As I recall, when Hahn apostatized, it was the RCC...As I recall, when Hahn apostatized, it was the RCC apologetics community who advertised his PCA credentials. However, when confronted he explained that The Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) had no record of his ordination or any record of Trinity Presbyterian Church, the church where he had been a pastor. Mr. Hahn acknowledged these facts but offered an explanation. Trinity Presbyterian was an independent church with an average attendance of 30 when two of its elders laid hands on him in a private ceremony in 1982. He served as their Associate Pastor for about two years. The church remained independent until its closing in 1986. <BR/>According to his Wiki entry: He is noteworthy in that he started out as a Presbyterian minister and theologian with ten years of ministry experience in congregations of the Presbyterian Church in America, and Professor of Theology at Chesapeake Theological Seminary. On the other hand, his conversion story transcript mentions the PCUSA. His curriculum vitae lists a church in the United Presbyterian Church. So, if Steve is in error, it seems its only because the information on his Presbyterian phase is itself contradictory and muddy.<BR/><BR/>Gerry Matatics, by way of contrast, was undeniably a PCA pastor, and he's the one who reported helped Mr. Hahn apostatized. Birds of a feather...GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2478996876787269622007-05-27T12:07:00.000-04:002007-05-27T12:07:00.000-04:00"find your writing to be filled with far more erro..."find your writing to be filled with far more errors than his, along with the arrogance of your tone. Your review is not only mean-spirited in tone, but intellectually dishonest."<BR/>- "we both found ourselves shaking our heads at the many inaccuracies throughout"<BR/>- "There are many other glaring errors"<BR/><BR/>Care to demonstrate a few instead of making groundless assertions? <BR/><BR/>FYI, I thought this review was an excellent demonstration of the poor Biblical exegesis demonstrated in Roman Catholicism, and was a far cry from displaying any kind of arrogance whatsoever yea rather an excellent example of examining Modern RC Apologists claims and dismantling them through solid argumentation grounded in sound biblical exegesis. <BR/>You may consider checking you and your wifes obvious romantic infatuation with Rome at the door before you sympathetically look to find anything that you can grab hold of to justify your departure.<BR/>It seems pretty obvious you have a semi-bias in favor of Rome before you even seek out to understand the differences between the two incompatible faiths of the Reformed and the RC. It makes me wonder how "grounded" you actually are in the Reformed faith when you make a post like the one above, especially inferring that you "got alot out of it". <BR/>Your inability to find the simple and repetitive errors in this book, as Steve has carefully and thoroughly pointed out, should sound off an alarm not only for you but also for anyone else who has been persuaded by them.<BR/><BR/>I guess I shouldn't hold my breath as to your documentation of the many inaccuracies throughout Steve's post, but just in case you wish to prove your point with examples instead of merely asserting it - something you seem to have been taught through the reading of Hahn's book, let it be known I have been able to hold my breath for very long periods of time.Discipled by Himhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06166951083543729038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34620480126850022332007-05-27T10:09:00.000-04:002007-05-27T10:09:00.000-04:00As a member of the PCA, I am not a big fan of Scot...As a member of the PCA, I am not a big fan of Scott Hahn. At the same time, I find your writing to be filled with far more errors than his, along with the arrogance of your tone. Your review is not only mean-spirited in tone, but intellectually dishonest. I just finished reading Reasons to Believe, along with my wife, who is thinking about returning to the Catholic Church. She naturally loved it, but I also got a lot out of it. When I saw your blog today, I showed her what you wrote here, and we both found ourselves shaking our heads at the many inaccuracies throughout. Frankly, we lost count, not that you would care. For one thing, Hahn was never in the PCA, not as a pastor or even a member. For another thing, he quotes widely from many biblical experts, catholic and protestant, including those you say he chose to ignore, like Raymond Brown, Luke Timothy Johnson, Joseph Fitzmyer, and others (btw, who is Ronald Murphy?). There are many other glaring errors, but I don't think accuracy is a big concern with you, so I will stop here. In any case, such a screed is a pretty sorry excuse for a review.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com