Reply to my Nephew Jed on Facebook

Here is the video I could not put in the comments:


Jed you said:

Except logic would ask if there are 13 apostles the 12 and Paul why would you send the 12 to minister to a 2 million people and the other guy (or two if you want to be specific and include Barnabas) to 1 billion? And how can it be a misuse ...of scripture when Paul repetitively make a big deal of being the apostle to the gentiles.

Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

2Ti 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

He also specifically mentions that he has a special message.

1Co 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

The word dispensation is the Greek word Oikonomia which means rules of administration.

Facebook stinks for these sort of conversations. I cant even figure out how to link to our conversation over there. I am linking to my blog so I can use bold and quoteblocks and such. You said: “why would you send the 12 to minister to a 2 million people and the other guy ... to 1 billion?” I don't know. It wasn't me who sent them. ;-) Why did God make mosquitoes? Doesn't seem “logical” to me, but He did. What are you saying here though, I am not sure?
I think there is an error of assumption in your question though Jed, that the 12 and Paul have separate ministries to the point of different gospels. Just because Paul is sent to the gentiles does not mean he is is exclusively ministering to gentiles. And we see in scripture he is not. He always goes to the synagogue first when coming to a town. He preaches to many Jews AND gentiles the same message of grace in Christ. (which includes repentance and is also called the gospel of the kingdom by him)...”testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 20:21) Acts 20 is an awesome example of this. Read the whole portion of v17-32 and it is real clear. I will bold the sections I think are very pertinent to our discussion.

From Miletus he (St. Paul) sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. And when they had come to him, he said to them: “You know, from the first day that I came to Asia, in what manner I always lived among you, serving the Lord with all humility, with many tears and trials which happened to me by the plotting of the Jews; how I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house, testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. And see, now I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies in every city, saying that chains and tribulations await me. But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears. So now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.” (Acts 20:17-32).

Notice that for Paul, the "gospel of the grace of God" and the "kingdom of God" are the same thing. Not only that, but Paul's gospel includes repentance. So "Paul's gospel" is the same as "peter's gospel". The only difference is one of mission. Paul's mission was to go to the gentiles, something that was revealed to him, yes. And something that was a mystery. It was also revealed to Peter of course in the incident with Peter preaching to Cornelius (a gentile), and was quite a mystery to him as well.

You said:

And how can it be a misuse ...of scripture when Paul repetitively make a big deal of being the apostle to the gentiles.

The misuse I was referring to was Stam in chapter 9 of Things that Differ When all Galatians 2 says is that Peter, James and John "gave to me [Paul] and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:" and it also shows how Paul corrected Peter's hypocrisy.

I then said:

That is a lot to get out of that verse. Just because they are focusing on different groups of people does not mean there are 2 "programs" or gospels any more than being a missionary to Borneo means there is a special "Borneo" program different from other gospels. This is simply a misuse of scripture.

So I stand by my statement that that is a misuse. It is reading into the scripture to say they preached different gospels in Gal. 2. Even the "withstood Peter to the face" part of Gal. 2 merely shows hypocrisy on Peter's part. Where in the world does it show a handing on of (or losing of) the authority of the keys? Where does it show that different gospels were being preached? All it shows is that Paul and Barn were sent to preach the ONE gospel to to gentiles. Other than the Stam scripture in Gal.2, the scriptures you give show that Paul's mission was to the gentiles. You are right Jed when you say:

"Paul repetitively make a big deal of being the apostle to the gentiles."

Yes, yes, yes he does make a big deal about it. And I can't think of any Christians who deny that he is the apostle to the gentiles! But what he does not do is say that his apostleship is to preach a different gospel, which really is the only disagreement between your religion and mine (and other non-ultra-dispensationalist Christians) The scripture you give simply do not show what you need to show: that he had a unique gospel in its content and not merely in it's recipients. I really think this is what you are trying to show right? Here are the verses you give one by one followed by my comment:

Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

His calling is to go to the gentiles, and that it is an important calling. Nothing here about a different gospel from that of Peter and the 12. Next one:

1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

His mission is to preach, and to be an Apostle, and to go to the gentiles. Nothing here about a different gospel from that of Peter and the 12. Next one:

2Ti 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

Again, his mission is to preach, and to be an Apostle, and to go to the gentiles. Nothing here about a different gospel from that of Peter and the 12.

These next scriptures you preface with the following:

"He also specifically mentions that he has a special message:"

So let's see the special (by which I will assume you mean different) message.

1Co 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

So he is a minister of the gospel. I mean, he even says THE gospel! Nothing here about a different gospel from that of Peter and the 12.

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Again, he has been given the task of "dispensing" or administering, or preaching THE gospel to the gentiles. Who disagrees with that? Nothing here about a different gospel from that of Peter and the 12.

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

Same as the other verses, he has been made a minister of the gospel. Is he special? Yes. He is one of the greatest men who have ever lived! He was given one of the most important tasks ever given to anyone, to bring gentiles into the Church. But nothing here about a different gospel from that of Peter and the 12.

So I think I have shown that the verses you provided do not say what you think they say (that Paul preached a different gospel from that of Peter and the 12). In addition I provided evidence from Acts 20 showing that Paul's gospel included repentance, was called the gospel of the kingdom AND the gospel of grace, was aimed at Jews AND gentiles, and was described as being received from God, all written to the same bishops of the same local church, in the same chapter of scripture. I'll throw in Acts 26:20:

First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.

But to get back to the original point of all this, none of what you provided shows how the keys were lost by Peter. If you say (with Stam) that Peter had the keys at some point, I think you need to show when they were lost. Paul pointing out Peters hypocrisy did not somehow do it. Paul being given a mission to the preach the gospel to gentiles does not do it. So what does it? When did Peter lose the keys?

Can't wait for this in November

Here is an excerpt from the "Catholicism" series being aired on PBS this fall. Father Barron is great. I can't wait.

Harold Camping: Man in the Protestants Mirror

Condescending Old Fart, and Heretic After his failed prediction of the rapture, piece of crap false prophet Harold Camping has the following to say to reporters: (I personally transcribed from video from the AP from May 24) (Bold text indicates emphatic, slow voice with hands gesturing in the air for effect)

“On May 21st 2011 we didn’t feel any difference… we didn’t see any difference in the world, but we know from the bible that God brought judgment day to bear on the whole world… the whole world is under judgment day. And it will continue up until October 21 2011 and at that time the whole world will be destroyed. God had not opened our eyes yet to the fact that May 21 was a spiritual coming, as we had thought it was a physical coming, but He has come, he has come in the sense that He now has the world under judgment… if people want me to apologize I can apologize yes, I did not have all of that worked out as exactly as a should have... or wish I could have had it…uh... that doesn’t bother me at all. I’m not a genius, and I pray all the time for wisdom and when I make an error I admit, I say “yes, I was wrong”… I can’t be responsibility of anybody’s life, I’m only teaching the bible. I’m not teaching what I believe or that I’m the authority, but that this is what the bible says. I don’t have spiritual rule over anybody, except my wife.”

OK, so he is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. And is the whole situation deliciously funny? Yes, Hilarious. He is a false prophet and deserves ridicule. But that is not what I want to focus on. I am a very sarcastic person and that is a fault of mine. I eat this kind of thing up because I get to point out someone’s failures which I tell myself I am far from following them into. Of course I have my own problems that I sweep under the rug amongst all my pointing, hooting, and mocking. Mote and beam, you know the drill. So I don’t wish to rub Harold Camping’s nose in his foul hairball he has hacked onto Christianity’s carpet. Anyway, it should be obvious to us all that he is a complete looney. Right? Hmm… But WHY is he a looney? What is at the root? Evangelicals need to ask themselves what is different about Camping’s method of bible interpretation and theirs? I want to argue that no matter which version of sola Scriptura (bible alone) Protestants take, they are solidly in Camping’s “camp” when it comes to method. Coming to a different conclusion does not mean other Protestants are off the hook. You can say all day that you would never predict the rapture day because Jesus says in Matt. 24:36 that we can’t know. And hey YOUR RIGHT! But I want to clue you into the fact that even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. Even Hitler loved his dog. Pretending the bible is all as easy as interpreting Matt. 24:36 is just silly and sad. Yet that is exactly what Protestants think about their interpretive abilities. Reformed Christians generally don’t even believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, so they like to think they are really far from the likes of Camping. But strangely, when they describe their method of interpretation, it will match Camping 100% Here is what I mean. Take a look at the quote I transcribed. This is what Camping says:

“I’m only teaching the bible. I’m not teaching what I believe or that I’m the authority, but that this is what the bible says.”

This is EXACTLY what any Protestant would say! “BUT,” says Joe Protestant, “Camping is not teaching what the bible really says! He is taking things out of context and making things fit his preconceived view of things! So there!” Of course, I respond Camping would say and believe the same about you! Because the fact remains that he is using the exact same method you are. Cases like his false prophecy are really easy for you to point at and say he got it wrong, but we all know that there is more to bible interpretation than sensational false prophesies. In the everyday world of the average Christian, there are DOZENS of important doctrinal and dogmatic issues that cannot be pointed at with the same confident finger. What about baptism? Is it a sacrament or an ordinance? Does it regenerate or just symbolize? Is it for or infants or adults? And this is merely ONE important issue that Protestants disagree among themselves about “what the bible says”. And you all use the same logic as Camping; that you are just going by “what the bible says”. And sadly, from personal experience I believe you. I don’t believe you set out to deceive yourselves or anyone else, you just want the truth, and you believe your interpretation is true. You want to submit to what you see as an authority outside yourself (the bible) but what you end up with is some man’s opinion of what the bible says (maybe yours, maybe someone else’s, maybe right maybe wrong). To the Protestant skeptic, I offer proof of this fact: Heretic Test. To prove to yourself your method of discovering truth from the bible is no different than Harold Camping’s method; ask yourself the question “How would my current situation look different if my interpretation were wrong?” That is to say, assuming your current reading of scripture on (doctrine X) is correct, what would be different in your approach/interpretation in a situation where you fell into error? If there is no difference in what you would say or feel between these two situations, then what makes you so sure you are not in grave error? Remember we are talking about method not result. Again, let’s assume for sake of argument one of the following propositions: A. You have properly interpreted the bible and understand what God is saying in His word about doctrine X. B. You have completely misinterpreted the bible and have an incorrect interpretation of doctrine X. Now let’s ask our question. If your current situation is A, what would be different about how you would describe your situation from within situation B? What would you say differently? If you believe you are in situation A at this moment (pick a doctrine), what would you say right now about your own situation that Harold Camping would not say about his situation? (queue Jeopardy music...) Answer? The fact is you would say nothing substantially different from him. You would say you have taken the bible at it’s word, that you have studied hard and asked the Spirit for help, that you had prayed for wisdom, and had gleaned the truth from the bible. In short, you would say you are following the bible. Harold Camping would say the exact same as you. So I ask you, how are you any different from him in this respect? If you can’t point to a difference, then there is none my friend! Tu quoque? As a Catholic, I do not fall into this trap with you. When I look at situation A above, I am using the Magisterium (teaching office) of the Church as a guide. So when I ask the question “what would be different?” my answer is that my doctrine would have to change from that of the Magisterium. For instance, a Catholic CANNOT hold to premillenialism and the usual “rapture” theology it entails. That is specifically forbiden for Catholics to hold that view. So if I were to start believing that tomorrow, I would immediately find a big change in my method. I will find that I no longer am in agreement with the Church on this matter and have either ignored or disobeyed the Magisterium of the Church. The Magisterium of the Church. Bishops of the world gathered at the Second Vatican council. I can then either return to orthodox belief or remain in my heresy, but either way, there is quite a difference in my situation, and I (unlike you) can describe it to you in detail. The Protestant (you) has no such difference. Each doctrinal position he takes will be for the same reasons as the gravest heretic, and both roads are paved with the best of motives and most inocent intentions. The Protestant looks over and sees the heretic saying he believes the bible, the protestant believes the same, and would say the same. The Protestant looks over and sees the heretic claiming the bible as his highest authority (and truly believing so) and the Protestant would say THE EXACT SAME THING ABOUT HIS OWN SITUATION. If you behave like a heretic, talk like one, and can’t tell the difference between yourself and a heretic… then you are a heretic! So Protestants, I suggest you not be so quick to laugh at Harold Camping. You are standing shoulder to shoulder with him under the banner of sola Scriptura, using the EXACT same arguments he does and saying the EXACT same things about scripture he does, so the conclusion is inevitable: you are objectively a heretic just like he is. You fool! Cower in shame before the bishops of the Church Christ founded and repent of your arrogation of authority. There is ONE faith, and ONE, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. Crawl back to Christ on your hands and knees and beg his priests for absolution for your schism. Kyrie Eleison!

Uncomfortable quote for Protestants

St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon in 180 AD:

“It is incumbent to obey the priests who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate [bishops], have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (Against Heresies, 4:26:2)

If this quote makes you uncomfortable, you are not in the Church that Christ started. Repent and come to Jesus.

Doug Wilson says faithful Catholics will go to hell

Here is the short video from Doug:

Will Faithful Roman Catholics go to heaven from Canon Wired on Vimeo.

Here is the comment I left on the video: I am a recent convert to the Church, (the Catholic Church) and have been steeped in Reformed theology about as much as a layman can be. So I think I understand what I am leaving behind (and what I am able to keep from it) and where I am going. Upon unbiased examination, Rome is simply not what I was told she was. The main difference (according to Protestants) seems to boil down to imputation Vs. infusion. Well, if you have a proper understanding of the primacy of grace in Catholic theology, then this distinction just does not add up to a reason to stay separated from the Church Christ founded. Grace is ALWAYS first in Catholic theology. If infused grace makes me holy, that sure looks like the work of God to me. Protestants like to focus on Eph 2:8-9: "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." Catholics love that verse as well but have a better way of explaining verse 10: "For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." Infusion is a much more beautiful doctrine. God is not content that we remain in our sin. We must be perfect as Jesus said we must. And that perfection comes from Him in both Catholic and Reformed theology. If Luther's snow-covered dunghill (imputation) were not merely snow-covered but instead transformed by God into pure snow from top to bottom (infusion), which is more miraculous? Which is more monergistic? Which gives more glory to God? Infusion of course. As far as Doug thinking I will be in hell (for I certainly think I understand Catholic theology and reject the Protestant understanding of sola fide) I am OK with that. I respect his conviction. But let it be known that Catholics believe the same. Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Unless you are invincibly ignorant of the identity Christ's Church, you will be damned for rejecting her. As the church father St. Irenaeus said in 180 AD: "It is incumbent to obey the priests who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (Against Heresies, 4:26:2) Why should I listen to Protestants with no authority from Christ? Your personal exegesis just is not impressive (been there done that)... sorry, but all the chest pounding and bible thumping you can muster will not make your interpretation of scripture anything more than your opinion. Who started your Church again? What year did he start it? What Bishop in the line of succession authorized it? The Reformed believe in ecclesial deism, and hold to a "conservative" religion that is merely another century's liberalism. Wake up to Mother Church. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

Altar Girls= Liturgical Oxymoron.

I recieved the following question in an email:

According to this letter, http://www.adoremus.org/CDW-AltarServers.html the Holy See’s Congregation for Divine Worship reaffirmed that bishops may allow altar girls, at their discretion. (Supposedly this was first allowed under JPII?) “With respect to whether the practice of women serving at the altar would truly be of pastoral advantage in the local pastoral situation, it is perhaps helpful to recall that the non-ordained faithful do not have a right to service at the altar, rather they are capable of being admitted to such service by the Sacred Pastors. Therefore, in the event that Your Excellency found it opportune to authorize service of women at the altar, it would remain important to explain clearly to the faithful the nature of this innovation, lest confusion might be introduced, thereby hampering the development of priestly vocations.” What do you think?

What can I say, it sounds cocky, but JP2 (of happy memory, and soon to be declared Blessed), was simply wrong about altar girls (He was wrong about evolution too) This does not shake my faith because I know the Pope is only infallible when speaking in certain situations. Well, I will give the benefit of the doubt in most situations where I am tempted to disagree, but some things we must draw the line. Altar girls and similar abuses are one of those lines in my opinion. Scripture, tradition, and 2000 years of magisterium are against this practice of women on the altar 100% right up until the sexual revolution of the 20th century. Coincidence? What about "taking things slow" which I always hear is how things are to be done in the Church. Shouldnt we wait a hundred years or so after the sexual revolution before entertaining the idea of women on the altar? Instead it took, what... 5 or 10 years? And in many ways we are not even done with the depths this revolution will likely sink to. As far as what I think about Cardinal Estevez letter, it is just weak. Asking people to remember things they should know is not the same as telling them what they should do. Sometimes a shepherd needs to use his hook instead of just whistling. There are some liberal Bishops and Priests in this country who will merely crumple up Estevez' letter and toss it in the trash and think... "welp, on with business as usual, lets start a new "women on the altar" program and we can have them dancing on top of the altar, because hey its not forbidden". They could care less about vocations or tradition, they want women at the altar because they are modern femenists, or they have caved to the spirit of the age, or they just don't care about the issue. Thank God Estevez did not cave to what the liberal Bishop asked for. The Bishop requested whether "a Diocesan Bishop would be able to oblige his priests to admit women and girls to service at the altar" (my emphasis) How sick is that? He wants to be able to FORCE his Priests to have this practice. I have not researched the issue much, mainly because my Parish thankfully does not allow the practice. From the document you provided it looks like it is allowed for local Bishops to allow the practice. OK I knew that. But it is still an abuse. (There was a time when married Catholics could not recieve the Eucharist for a lengthy period of time (24 hrs I think?... not sure) after having relations. I think that was an abuse as well, even though it was sanctioned by the Church.) All I know is that it is insane. Do you doubt that women at the altar is an abuse? The church has had 2000 years to come up with that one and never did. Then it just so happens it starts having women servers during the most massive "sexual revolution" the world has ever known. Now don't get me wrong, the Church has been protected from accepting the deadly sin of contraception. That is a miracle, and one that we can be proud of. So perhaps God is allowing the church to be infected with less serious things instead. Like a good Father He is allowing us to get drunk so we can have the hangover, but protecting us while we learn our lesson. Altar girls are like if you saw the preist consecrating the wine in a Zip-Lock bag. Would the consecration be valid? Well, I think it would. What if the practise was sanctioned by Rome in some way? Well they are wrong. And I will say they are wrong untill they declare I MUST say otherwise. Bad attitude to have? Yeah, probably. But give me a break, look at what has happened to the world in the last 50 years! This is war, and our Church leaders need our support not only in the good they preach and do, but they need our encouragement to STAND UP as bold shepherds like David who killed lions and bears in defense of his sheep. Be bold Bishops! Call this generation to a new level of holines, drive the siliness from the temples with your whip, and the sheep will flock to you! Of course, I should probably just shut my mouth about all this and pray and worry about my own "abuses" and sins. Bear with me.

Evolution part trois

I was asked by my online acquaintance Brent what I mean by evolution, and that kind of information we can expect to get from a theory like evolution. My answer got long enough I thought I would post it on my blog so I can have a better record of the conversation. Here is my thinking at this point: OK, my idea of evolution is what I believe to be the broad cultural view of it. It is seen as the theory that explains how one species becomes another over long periods of time, by very gradual changes, by natural selection of fitter characteristics over less fit ones. Darwin’s book is called on the Origin of the Species, and that certainly is what evolution attempts to explain; how different species originated from a common ancestor. On the face of it, this could be true. I mean I can imagine in my mind little evolution factories in the cells that are "selecting" traits and making the gradual changes. I can picture the cell knowing that it needs to get this amphibian turned into a whale and it sets about getting it done over millions of years. And if that were the case, well then glory to God for an amazing design. But by its practitioners own admission, that is not what science has seen in the cell. What they have seen contradicts their theory, yet they still cling to it. What they see in the cell is not a blob as Darwin thought it was, but the complexity of a galaxy full of planets which are each full of cities which are each full of libraries which are each full of books which are each full of unique and wonderful literature. Next to each of those libraries are factories that all work together to maintain and repair the libraries and build more galaxies. What they see in the fossil record directly contradicts what Darwin said should be expected as far as transitional forms, yet they still cling to the theory as if it were the theory of gravity. If you have the time, this series of videos of Dr. David Berlinski is really interesting. (I love this guy!) I am no scientist that is for sure. But that does not mean I will swallow a theory that seems to have been disproven, (or at least that does not have the kind of evidence it seems it should by this point in history) just because scientist mostly agree it is true. ESPECIALLY when it seems to me they have non-scientific motives for holding the theory. Here is what I mean: I think the main reason evolution is rarely questioned even in the face of a lack of evidence is because of the alternative. Which for Godless mainstream scientists is NO alternative at all. I suspect they think that if the story of evolution is false, the only option is special, instantaneous creation. Now that may not be the case, and Berlinski says as much. There could be some yet undiscovered theory of how speciation happened. But evolution ain’t it from what I have seen. Now one might ask, "who cares" about evolution either way. Well, if my suspicion is right, and evolution, against the evidence against it, is being held out there as a theory for the express purpose of giving a further excuse for sin and unbelief ala Romans 1, then whether or not the theory itself is compatible with Christian theism it should be rejected as evil. Put another way: If it appears to me that this scientific theory is being believed for primarily pagan religious motives, namely to deny the Creator as it says in Romans 1, then although it can be argued that the theory is technically neutral as far as science goes (it does not necessarily imply Godless motives to believe it), it should nevertheless be resisted by Christians so as not to give scandal. For instance: if you live in a village where all the men go out and chop wood on Thursday evenings while singing “waltzing Matilda”, then hey that’s great. Chop away Christian. But then you discover that instead of using the wood for cooking like you are, the other men are using it for a bonfire for human sacrifice. I think it is clearly wrong to go out chopping with them on Thursdays in this case, and you might even want to sing a different tune when you go on Wednesdays. If a hundred years later they are merely pretending to chop the wood, and are incredulous that you can't see their stacks of wood piled all around, then you really should stop "chopping" wood with them. Things have obviously progressed to some sort of pagan religion or madness and you should run away. The more I think about this topic and examine the “proofs” for evolution, the more I become convinced that for the scientists that hold to it evolution has long since past the point of being what St. Paul is speaking of in Romans 1:

“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools…”

Global warming has some similarities here. Most scientists may well believe in man-made global warming. But their godless reasons for doing so should make us want to steer clear of them. Their science has crossed over into religious belief. Evolution is atheistic religious belief, held to in opposition to good evidence for the falsity of the belief. A special creation is just impossible to the mind of modern man. So he clings to an ad hoc, improbable theory of evolution as the only “possible” explanation. Well, I am under no such delusion, and do not see why I should worship in their temple. If my fellow Catholics or Protestant brothers want to eat the meat sacrificed in their temple, so be it. You are probably not sinning, and I am not your judge. But I will point and laugh at you. And I will point out that you look absolutely absurd down on all fours eating the crumbs that fall from this decadent cultures table. I believe history will show your compromise to be needless at best, and damaging to the faith at worse. Have a blessed day on this Holy Thurday! I look forward to recieving the Lord at mass tonight when we remember the Last Supper. Peace, David Meyer

Bottle rockets from howitzer barrels

"I had joined the [Presbyterian] church because I had despaired of myself, and because despairing of reason I had wished to submit to authority. If the Presbyterian church had satisfied me that she had authority, was authorized by Almighty God to teach and direct me, I could have continued to submit; but while she exercised the most rigid authority over me, she disclaimed all authority to teach me, and remitted me to the Scriptures and private judgment. ‘We do not ask you to take this as your creed,’ said my pastor, on giving me a copy of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith; ‘we do not give you this as a summary of the doctrines you must hold, but as an excellent summary of the doctrines which we believe the Scriptures teach. What you are to believe is the Bible. You must take the Bible as your creed, and read it with a prayerful mind, begging the Holy Ghost to aid you to understand it aright.’ But while the church refused to take the responsibility of telling me what doctrines I must believe, while she sent me to the Bible and private judgment, she yet claimed authority to condemn and excommunicate me as a heretic, if I departed from the standard of doctrine contained in her Confession. This I regarded as unfair treatment. It subjected me to all the disadvantages of authority without any of its advantages. The church demanded that I should treat her as a true mother, while she was free to treat me only as a step-son, or even as a stranger. Be one thing or another, said I; either assume the authority and the responsibility of teaching and directing me, or leave me with the responsibility [of] my freedom. If you have authority from God, avow it, and exercise it. I am all submission. I will hold what you say, and do what you bid. If you have not, then say so, and forbear to call me to an account for differing from you, or disregarding your teachings. Either bind me or loose me. Do not mock me with a freedom which is no freedom, or with an authority which is illusory. If you claim authority over my faith, tell me what I must believe, and do not throw upon me the labor and responsibility of forming a creed for myself; if you do not, if you send me to the Bible and private judgment, to find out the Christian faith the best way I can, do not hold me obliged to conform to your standards, or assume the right to anathematize me for departing from them." Orestes Brownson, in The Convert; or, Leaves from my experience (1857), (pp. 23-25)

That was taken from a comment by Bryan Cross on Called to Communion. I think Orestes Brownson is spot on. His words mirror my recent experience in the PCA, and so well put! I want to read more of him. It is true about Presbyterians that they make discipline one of the “marks” of the church, and will certainly excommunicate, but at the same time will leave doctrine to the individual. That is just inconsistent. It is like they have a big howitzer, but instead of artillery shells they drop bottle rockets down the barrel with a helpless shrug. They know they *should* be firing the authentic magisterial rounds, but think the ammo ran out in the early church.

Theistic Evolution or Materialistic Evolution Part 2

So I am listening to the radio today and the show "the inner life" comes on the Catholic radio. The guest priest is asked to talk about suffering. He proceeds to say that suffering began when man first sinned. He then talked about how all creation is affected by that sin too. As an example, he gave natural disasters, but also mentioned animals attacking man, and.... mosquitoes. So if god made mosquitoes before the fall of man, did they suck on fruit? If not, did they drink animal blood only? Were they created after the fall? Did they "evolve" the ability to suck blood as a result of the fall? Update: I am trying to keep an open mind, but finding the "evidence" fro evolution of any kind seriously lacking. More and more, it looks as if Christians that believe evolution are either just believing what they were taught and (admirably) making it fit the bible, or worse, they are embarrassed to not believe the majority view on origins. The theory just makes no sense! Sure your allowed to believe it, and your allowed to wear shorts to mass with a beer-bong on your head. That does not mean you SHOULD do so however. So far I have heard that I SHOULD believe evolution followed mainly by reasons why as a Catholic I CAN believe evolution... not why I should. If I were a Catholic biology teacher, I can see how these arguments might persuade me. Having your job on the line might make you willing to swallow all sorts of weird theories. Take panspermia for instance. The theory that life came from outer space on an asteroid! The discoverer of DNA liked that theory. I am not kidding you, this theory is spoken of with a straight face by modern scientists. A STRAIGHT FACE! Noah's ark is crazy, but panspermia is science... yeeaaahhh.

Today's headline: "The birthrate plunged from 2.08 to 2.01 between 2008 and 2009..." The following video is from 2008. The "point of no return" of 2.11% it describes for a society's birth rate has now been passed in this country according to the latest demographics. In 2080 while evangelical Christians argue about whether head coverings are required in Church and whether the Pope is the antichrist or not, the new Islamic Republic of the USA will mandate that their wives wear burkas, turn their churches into Mosques, and force them to convert or pay a slave tax. Worldwide, Islam recently became bigger than the Church (the Catholic Church), so if the Protestants will unite under the Pope, and we can unite under the banner of Christ with a new fervency, perhaps we can have a fighting chance. But if Protestants remain addicted to sola scriptura and contraception, and continue to disobey Christ's command that we all have one faith under one shepherd, this nation will be an Islamic Republic a century from now. Christian men, arise and prepare your house for battle. If these Muslim hordes rush our defenses and find their children being converted to Christianity, and their culture being won to Christ, we have a chance. If they find us docile and lukewarm in our faith, Christ will let them overrun us. Christ has promised his Church, towering upon the rock of Peter, that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Let us form our ranks and prepare for the next crusade.