But short on time...
It's been slow (to say the least) here for quite a while, in no small part because of not-internet reality. Work and such are taking a heavy toll on my time right now, so things might stay a bit quiet at Gladio Mentis for a while. both the site and yours truly are still in commission, however, and posts will pop up every so often 'till things get back up to speed. since I can't watch the site as much as I'd like, I'll be turning on comment moderation. New comments will post, but they may not pop up right away.
October 18, 2009
Still Here...
August 10, 2009
Todd Friel, Adjust Your Antenna
You're coming in loud, but fuzzy...
I was recently referred to a website containing an article by Todd Friel, a Christian radio host associated with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort’s “Way of the Master”. The person referencing it was concerned because it made them doubt their salvation.
Frankly, the article is not full of bad theology so much as bad writing. I’m sure that in a face-to-face conversation, what Friel believes about salvation is not really different that what is actually being taught in most Bible-believing churches. Unfortunately, you have to read between the lines to see that. Most of the confusion is the fault of Friel’s awful, awful presentation of whatever it is he’s actually trying to say.
The big confusion here is in terminology. The vast majority of evangelical Christians will see the phrase “ask Jesus into your heart” and understand it the way it’s presented in most Bible-based churches. They will assume it means, “repent of sin, trust in Christ, and ask Him to save you.” That’s not what Friel means when he uses the phrase, though. He uses that phrase to mean, “just say some words in a prayer without repenting or having any faith.” In this way, unfortunately, he's being as uncharitably obtuse as some atheistic critics of religion like Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens.
Friel’s basic contention is that merely “asking Jesus into your heart” is not enough for a person to be saved. That’s true, given how he uses the phrase (see above). He indicates that a person must repent of sin and trust in Christ, because merely saying a prayer is not enough. That’s also true. Friel goes further, though, in implying that “asking Jesus into your heart” is necessarily (i.e. always) different than repenting and trusting. That’s where the real problem is. Friel is creating a straw man. When he speaks of churches or people using this phrase, he creates a false impression that anyone who uses that idea in any way is “doing it wrong”.
Friel also makes an early, and important theological error, regarding backsliding. He claims that backsliding is not possible for one truly saved. He cites 2 Corinthians 5:17, but seems to forget about Peter, Noah, Moses, David, and all of the other men who undoubtedly demonstrated saving faith, but who undoubtedly sinned afterwards. He doesn’t mention Romans 7, 1 John 1:8, or Romans 3:23, all of which remind us that even saved believers cannot live sinless lives. It would be interesting to ask Todd Friel if he has lived a perfectly sinless life ever since he trusted in Christ.
Consider these other flaws in his ten points:
There is no “right” or “wrong” way to evangelize, assuming that what is done is consistent with the commandments and teachings of Christ. Part of the problem with the Way of the Master and its associates (including Friel) is the melodramatic way they claim that all other approaches leave people unsaved and hell-bound. That’s simply not true. Articles such as the one linked above put Todd Friel at the forefront of well-meaning but poorly-equipped believers reaching well beyond their qualifications.
July 25, 2009
The Gay Jesus Movie (BF)
Rated "F" for fake...
Fire and brimestone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria! Why? They're making a major motion picture - "Corpus Christi" - where Jesus is gay! or are they?
There's not much else to say about this one except: no, they are not. Not that there aren't enough frothing anti-Christians in the entertainment industry who'd probably do it out of spite. Still, no such movie exists. What does exist is a half-baked stage play, in which Jesus and his disciples are homosexuals. It's performed for more or less the same reasons it was written: to make Christians angry. And yet, it's neither well known nor popular. It's just an oddity of the age. The chain emails which inspire so much anger and reaction are sent for the same reasons: to make Christians angry, and see what we do without thinking. Let's break that chain, shall we?
July 20, 2009
One Hoax of a Hell (BF)
Drilling for truth...
I routinely get questions, forwards, and tips regarding "the sounds of Hell". Supposedly, a team of scientists drilled dozens of miles deep into Siberia and then(for some reason) decided to drop in a microphone and a thermometer. They allegedly discovered a massive open space, outrageously hot, and filled with screams and other eerie noises. Apparently, they dug so deep they hit Hell. This must be true, because the internet said so.
Scripturally, there is no information about exactly “where” Hell is. Scriptural passages that describe Hell as being “down” or “below” should be understood in their literary context. Heavenly, good, or righteous things are spoken of as being “higher”, while evil and wicked things are spoken of as being “lower”. This does not mean that they are literally below our feet or over our heads. The same relationship works for God’s reaction to certain people or actions. Those who are rewarded or helped are being “lifted up”, those who are being punished are being “cast down”. The terms are symbolic more than literal.
With that in mind, we cannot say for sure where Hell is, or even if it is a place in this physical universe. Both Heaven and Hell might be in a different dimension, for all we know. Since the Bible does not specify, what we do know is that the actual location of Hell is not nearly so important as knowing how to avoid it! (Romans 8:1)
What is certain is that man would not be able to get into our out of hell just by drilling into it. The story about voices from underground is an ‘urban legend’, or a modern fable. In 1984, a geographic survey team in Siberia drilled about 7 miles deep. They found unusually high temperatures and strange rock formations, but little else. For some reason, descriptions of this drilling started to gain details as it was passed around, as many legends do. At one point, someone even put together an audio recording that was supposedly made by the scientists, complete with tormented screaming. In reality, none of this actually happened, and the story is just a tall tale.
There are a few things about Hell that we can be sure of: it exists (Revelation 21:8), it is eternal (Mark 9:44), and it is avoidable (Mark 16:16). We don’t know exactly where it is, or if people now living have seen it. Since the Bible doesn’t choose to focus on those details, we can be sure that they aren’t ultimately important to our relationship with God. We can focus on Christ without worrying too much about the rest.
July 15, 2009
New Series - Backwards Forwards (BF)
Hit the books before you hit "send"...
As many people do, I get a lot of forwarded email. Most of what I get is the usual jokes, chain letters, and so forth. I also get a fair number of tips, from people asking me to check out a particular website or news item. And, also like most people, I get a large number of urban legends, myths, and panicky calls to action that have little to no basis in reality. That’s frustrating enough when the emails are “secular”, or come from “secular” folks. It’s even more frustrating when they come from fellow Christians and pass along superstitious or exaggerated stories about spiritual topics.
Hence, the new series: Backwards Forwards. The name plays on emails, but any persistent rumor, myth, or urban legend moving like a case of the flu through Christian circles is fair game. Posts in this series will be (relatively) short explanations of the most common religiously-connected myths I’ve been getting. As others pop up, we’ll throw those on the bonfire as well, marked with the BF tag.
June 23, 2009
2008-2009 Year In Review
The Sword of the Mind turns 2!
The second blogiversary of Gladio Mentis passed without much notice, even by myself! As the reduced number of posts would suggest, I’ve been occupied elsewhere, and not able to blog as much as I’d like. It’s not that there isn’t plenty to talk about. I just don’t like “casual” postings, at least not here. When I don’t have the time to put something relatively well developed together, I just don’t. Better a compact and quality resource than one overflowing with fluff.
My intention with the blog is still the same: to provide useful resources for believers and seekers. What I was able to accomplish this year added to that ongoing effort.
Some highlights from the past year:
Continuing Series
No new series “officially” added this year, but I have one debuting soon that’s been brewing for a little while. Other series continue as usual. The Dangerous Ducks series continues to be popular for internet searches, mostly because of the number of people who arrive here looking for information about Arnold Murray.
Best Posts
Of the posts I was able to publish during this year, I consider these to be among the best:
Immunosurveillance (also featured on Fish and Cans)
Firmly By The Blade
Newsweek’s Blunder
Bats Aren’t Birds
Crispy Crunchy Locust Legs (and part 2)
O, Sole Fide (and part 2)
The posts on “faith alone” generated some worthwhile responses, from fellow believers. Those conversations are worth reading, if for no other reason than to remind the blogosphere that it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
Talking Points
I engaged in some very educational discussions at Atheism is Dead, Thinking Christian, and the atheist website mentioned in Crispy Crunchy Locust Legs, part 2. The AiD and Locust conversations were somewhat predictable, in that atheists who aren’t used to defending their ideas with any vigor get cranky when someone expects them to do more than pay lip service to logic. One of the lessons I’ve chosen to learn from this past year of apologetics is to take Proverbs 26:4 a little more to heart than Proverbs 26:5. I’ve passed on numerous opportunities to dialogue with persons fairly described as “fools”, and taken a pass. Hopefully, I’ll learn to do so more often.
As always, Tom Gilson’s Thinking Christian blog was the host to productive and interesting conversations. The ever-present hard heads persist, of course, but again this is nothing new. One, a (supposedly resigned) blogger known as Barefoot Bum, provided a classic case of an atheist totally lacking in integrity. While complaining about being unkindly spoken to on Tom’s blog, he proclaimed his own moral superiority on such topics…which was, and is, a complete and utter lie. More ducking, dodging, evasion, and other delay tactics sidetracked some other discussions on Evidence and the Euthyphro Dillema, spilling over into other posts.
Medicine Man
Well, this year’s been more than a bit rough. The company I work(ed) for went from new ownership to “layoffs for everyone” within a year. I’m an engineer with manufacturing experience living on Ohio…so looking for similar work is about as easy as selling corded telephones. Health issues have likewise been tough, but improving a bit in the last few weeks. Ministry opportunities at my home church continue to arise, however, and my work with GotQuestions.org has been as interesting as ever. I was very pleased to present Got Questions to my home church during our annual missions conference.
As I did last year, I hope to use the passing of the blog’s birthday as another chance to renew my commitment to pursuing rational, legitimate reasons for belief, not to mention rational, legitimate beliefs themselves! Last year, I quoted C.S. Lewis’ explanation of why every tough question needs to be answered rigorously. This year, I’ll take a more whimsical approach and present Lewis’ explanation of why some (Proverbs 26:4) need not be answered at all:Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable. – C.S. Lewis
June 15, 2009
O, Sola Fide (Part 2)
O, give me a break...
In part one, I explained how faith and works are related in the Bible, and showed why salvation cannot be dependent on our performance of any particular actions. Works are “symptoms” of salvation, not the cause of it. The fact that good works area always produced in the truly saved is what allows Christians to (with great care) distinguish between the saved and unsaved, at least in a general sense. It also provides a great self-check, which explains why New Testament passages describing the plight of the wicked aren’t indications of works-required salvation, but reminders that true saving faith produces genuine fruits of the spirit.
Here in part two are the original questions, along with my responses. The information contained in part one was originally included in my answer to this questioner.1. Did Martin Luther ridicule the book of James?
2. Why didn't Paul use the specific phrase `faith alone` anywhere in his New Testament writings?
3.Why does James say that a man is not justified by faith alone?
4.Why did Martin Luther want to throw out the book of James from his version of the Bible?
I have been raised Catholic my entire life and have started to ask questions about justification and how it's obtained. I have researched Catholic and Protestant explanations on how one is justified and I have to admit, there are compelling arguments from both sides. I ask that you please view these links; the authors are Catholics who have an impressive knowledge of the Bible and who seem to be able to back up aspects of Catholic teaching with sacred scripture. All I want is an educated Protestant interpretation of these Catholic arguments. I understand that this is not the kind of thing you are used to, but I feel that Jesus wants me to seek answers, and perhaps your interpretation will be some of those answers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR4dc6dh-0k&feature=related
http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/justification/justify_7.htm
Actually, I am very used to this kind of question. Likewise, I am also used to seeing these kinds of objections raised by Catholic apologists. I don’t know everything about the credentials of the two sources you noted, but I would disagree with calling their knowledge “impressive”. This is especially true in regards to the video series, which was more “long winded” than informative.
With that in mind, let’s consider your questions and your cited sources:
1) Did Martin Luther ridicule the book of James? Not “ridicule” so much as “deride”, or “express exasperation with”. Luther was frustrated by the Catholic tendency to take a few less-clear verses from James, and ignore the more abundant, clear verses regarding works in the rest of the New Testament. As a former Catholic scholar, he was ingrained into the idea that James taught salvation by works, which a more distanced and comprehensive reading of the text does not indicate. Catholicism is dependent on “tradition” (meaning the writings and pronouncements of various church leaders), but Christians in general are not obligated to accept everything some particular person says. That Luther was overly dismissive of James does not mean that he was wrong about everything. That Luther was instrumental in formalizing the Reformation does not mean that non-Catholic Christians must accept everything he ever said.
At this point, it’s also important to note that Luther was not the first person to challenge Catholic teachings. The idea that no one had considered any of these theological ideas until Luther arrived is historically false. Not every group dissenting from Catholicism had the same ideas, but there were many believers who broke away to pursue more scripturally based teachings. Among these were the Donatists and Novatians of the 4th and 5th centuries, the Waldensians of the late 12th century, and the Lollards of the mid 14th century. All of these groups broke away from Catholicism decades or centuries before the Reformation, on the basis of theological disagreements. Some groups, like the Waldensians, held beliefs similar to modern evangelical or fundamentalist Christians.
2) Why did Martin Luther want to throw out the book of James from his version of the Bible? He didn’t, at least not to the extent that he made any actual effort to do so. Despite the quote often parroted by Catholic apologists (including your video citation), Luther didn’t remove James. He was frustrated by it, because of the way Catholic teachers abused it to defend their positions. He certainly didn’t care much for it. Yet it was still a part of his German translation of the texts.
3)Why didn’t Paul use the specific phrase “faith alone” anywhere in his New Testament writings? Why did he have to? The word “trinity” appears nowhere in the entire Bible – not even as a translated term. This does not mean that the Bible does not describe God as triune. Looking at scripture as a whole, and interpreting less clear passages in light of those which are more clear, the idea that faith alone saves is a foundational part of Paul’s writings. Romans 3:28, for example, is Paul’s statement that justification before God is by faith, apart from works. Verse 30 then emphasizes and clarifies this by noting that both the circumcised (Jews) and un-circumcised (non-Jews) would be justified by faith. There are also verses such as Ephesians 2:8-9, where the phrase “through faith…not of works” is awfully close.
Alternatively, one could ask, if Paul intended to mean that faith, rituals, sacraments, and works were all required for salvation, why did he not say so clearly? Or at least suggest it? Why didn’t Paul tell the jailer to repent, be baptized, confess, and be confirmed, etc? Why didn’t Peter tell the crowd at Pentecost to do the same? Why did God take Philip away from the Ethiopian (who required help to understand salvation) immediately after his baptism, instead of letting him explain or administer communion, confession, prayers to dead saints, and so forth? For the Catholic to suggest that faith-alone salvation is not clearly represented in Paul’s writings begs one to notice that salvation on the basis of faith plus works plus rituals is not merely unclear, but totally absent. This is even more the case for other foundational teachings of Catholicism.
4)Why does James say that a man is not justified by faith alone? Because James and Paul are talking about two different kinds of justification (and, actually, two different kinds of faith) in their respective writings. Paul is talking about justification before God, James is partly talking about justification before men. Just as Paul described the fruits of the spirit (Galatians 5:22), James discusses how works are a natural result of saving faith. In other words, both James and Paul are stating that those truly saved will exhibit good works. Neither one is saying that those works produce salvation.
The Greek word translated “faith” (as with the English word) can have different meanings. In this case, James’ use of the term refers to intellectual assent (or mental knowledge without spiritual trust). Such ‘faith’ is dead, because merely “believing” in the coldest sense is not sufficient for salvation. Keeping this in mind, and reading James 2:19-20, one can see how James’ description of the relationship between faith and works is consistent with that given by Paul.
In regards to the website, note one gigantic side-step made by the author, here:“In saying this, let it be clear to the reader we are not saying St. Paul teaches in Rom. 2 that a man can "earn," (in the strict, legal sense of the word), the reward of eternal life... it is presumed that those who "persist in doing good" and who "seek glory, honor, and incorruption" are doing so under the advocacy of God’s grace and mercy.”
In other words, truly good works are only the product of a saving faith, not a prerequisite for it (Hebrews 11:6). That’s a sensible interpretation, but neither the website author nor other Catholic apologists apply this thought to their work-faith approach in general. The website author has noted, almost by accident, that salvation is something that happens before good works are done, because works cannot earn saving grace. They require it. Paul made that as explicitly clear as can be (Romans 11:6). This idea leaves no room for an attack on the “protestant” view that works are not a part of salvation.
I watched the entire first part of the video series, and the early part of the second. Unfortunately, as you can see, some questions are short in the asking and long in the answering. The entire video series was 10 sections, and I saw enough in the first part to make sensible criticism of it. I’m unfortunately not in a position to watch, analyze, and comprehensively cover 100 minutes of more of the same. The flaws are clear right off the bat.
In a nutshell, the video is lacking in theological, biblical, and philosophical depth. Here are a few comments:
The video mentions mortal and venial sins. These are never separated in the Bible. In fact, one of the sins that the video author calls “venial”, unjustified anger, was likened to murder by Jesus himself (Matthew 5:21-26), in the same passage where He indicated that sins of the mind are as much sins as those of the flesh.
Overall, the major flaw of the video is the behind-the-scenes idea that “protestants” teach that you can behave any way you want and still go to heaven. This is the implication made when the narrator mentions how Luther’s “1000 murders” quote would have been popular with the people. It’s the reason that the narrator thinks that listing verses where good deeds are rewarded or commended somehow refutes faith-only salvation. As shown above, this is not the Biblical teaching, nor is it even a vaguely fair representation of what is taught in Protestant churches. The implication made in the video is not only untrue, but it borders on outright dishonesty.
This assumption is behind the extensive listing of times where the Bible references those who participate in certain sins being barred from heaven, or punished, or good deeds being rewarded, or judged, and so forth. Remember, according to the Bible, good works only come from the saved. From that perspective, indicating that good works are rewarded, or that those who do evil will be condemned, is simply a statement of the results of salvation (or its lack).
For those reasons, the juvenile way in which the video claims that each verse “totally refutes Protestantism” demonstrates a severe lack of understanding.
The narrator says this: “So, the Catholic teaching is that what a person does (works) is a part of whether or not they have justification.” That’s a very slippery way of phrasing it. If the question is whether or not the person “has” justification, then there is no argument. No good works means they have not obtained justification (salvation). However, Catholicism is not presenting works as a sign of salvation, but as a requirement for it.
The narrator mentions confession, and says that it requires a “validly ordained priest”. Question: if a priest is not validly ordained (i.e. he lied, deceived, or somehow violated his position), and a person confesses to him, is that a valid confession? If a Catholic answers, “yes”, then they are admitting that the presence of a human-approved priest is not what makes true confession, but rather the intentions of the confessing sinner. If they say, “no”, then they are teaching that God will eternally punish a person for something they did not do, did not know, and cannot control, despite their sincere and submissive faith, which is antithetical to the entire message of Christ.
The truth or falsehood of Catholic teachings rests on the character and intellect of the scholars making the pronouncements. This is why they claim that the Pope is infallible when making doctrinal statements, to cover themselves against the reverse of this very problem. However, Christians are not obligated to agree with Luther, but only with those things he says or teaches that are spiritually, factually valid. Luther was wrong in some ways about the book of James. That is not a problem for believers, and suggesting otherwise, as the video does, shows the lack of theological / philosophical depth this person has.
Note also, in the James quote by Luther, there is the phrase, “for the Papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest.” Luther was noting that the rest of scripture pointed in a direction contrary to works-required-salvation, and that the traditional Catholic teaching on the subject was prioritizing a minority of less clear scriptures rather than a majority of clear ones. Nothing in the video or the website lessens the reality of this serious error in interpretation.
Then the narrator claims that protestants are “explaining away” the “clear words of this book (James)”. That statement itself is an apologetic for proof-texting. As shown above, the problem here is the Catholic tendency to put tradition-inspired single verses ahead of objective reading of the Bible as a whole.
The narrator disagrees that a man can be “externally” justified by faith (saved) but still non-sanctified within. The Bible suggests that sanctification is a process that will only be competed in heaven, where we are finally perfected. Sanctification is different than justification (salvation). The video, on the other hand, claims that one must be purely sanctified all the way, or not at all. Where, then, does sin come from? If a person was 100% purely sanctified, they would not sin, because they would be like Christ – tempted, but never failing. By that argument, the narrator would also have to claim that one is either capable of living a sinless life, or they are damned…but this even contradicts the notion of venial sins.
It’s ironic that the narrator emphasizes that “we’re going to take an honest look at what the Bible teaches”. What is presented is textbook proof-texting (interpreting without context to force your view into the verse), and is the reason individual verses are each claimed to be the final word on the subject. Keep this in mind: the narrator is coming from an interpretation colored not by Biblical context, but Catholic traditional context. Catholic teaching does not consider the Bible sufficient as a source of spiritual authority, and Catholic interpretations of many passages depend on non-Biblical writings to defend. That this is not mentioned in the video also borders on deception.
The narrator claims that Matthew 5:29-30 only makes sense if works are required for salvation. Not true – recall the idea of fruits of the spirit. Many people resist salvation because they know they’ll have to give up their pet sins. Once saved, they all note how easy it was to give them up. That Jesus would warn people that you cannot be too zealous in ridding yourself of sin, even giving up what seems precious or valuable, does not somehow mean good deeds are required to be saved. The narrator goes so far as to say, “By depriving yourself of these things, you will save your soul.” That’s putting words in Jesus’ mouth, and ignoring His overall message.
In regards to Matthew 6:14, this again comes back to the idea of fruits of the spirit. The narrator continues to pervert the spiritual order. He’s claiming that works precede salvation. The Bible teaches the opposite. A person who has truly been saved will have a forgiving and humble heart. Those who do not forgive are not in a state of forgiven-ness. As with James, we see that how a person behaves tells us something about the state of their soul.
Matthew 7:21-23 is essentially the same thing that James says; that true faith produces works, not that works produce salvation. It’s interesting that the narrator brought this passage up, since Jesus is explicitly saying, “I never knew you” in response to a litany of deeds! Once again, we see that faith precedes salvation, while works merely proceed from it. The narrator is attempting to split Christ’s parable into two parts; there is only one. The video makes an ad hoc division between, “only those who do…(therefore works are required)” and “on that day…” This is a false dissection.
Matthew 7:24-27 has little to do with this issue. Jesus is not only speaking of the wisdom of following His teachings on salvation, but also of his commandments in daily life.
Matthew 10:22 has more to do with a disagreement over eternal security than faith. The narrator is now conflating the two. Technically, they are two separate beliefs. This again shows the lack of theological sophistication in the video.
Matthew 12:36 says that every idle word will be accounted for in the day of judgment. Yes, because sin is still sin. Once again, this attack only makes sense if you pretend that the “protestant” view is that saved and unsaved people act exactly alike. Every person will be judged on the basis of their deeds, but those who have been saved will have their sins forgiven.
In fact, this point should be hit a little harder. Let’s use the same approach as the video, but directed towards Catholicism: If every idle word is accounted for, and everything we say or do will be used to judge us, and our works determine our salvation (not our faith), then we’re all condemned, including Catholics. After all, the narrator says that Matthew 12:36 “completely contradicts the idea that works are not a part of justification.” According to the Bible, we all fail that part miserably (Isaiah 64:6; Romans 3:10; 1 John 1:10).
Keeping with the narrator’s style of attack, where does this passage say that faith justifies at all? If we’re going to interpret it the way we have to for his criticism to make sense, then we have to say that Matthew 12:37 implies that works (what we say, specifically) alone are all that matter. We’ll be judged on our words (works), period. If the narrator disagrees, and thinks that we need to look at other scriptures to understand this passage, then perhaps he should do the same with all of his other attacks. This shows an inability to keep his own interpretive method consistent.
The narrator also continually says that each of these verses “totally refutes Protestantism”. This is the hallmark of one who understands the issue far less than they think they do. He’s demonstrating the very problem that causes him to believe in Catholic teachings on works in the first place. That is, that one can approach the Bible with a pre-conceived notion, and jam that contrived idea into every verse. Each verse can then be “interpreted” totally by itself, devoid of the context of other verses, in any way one wants.
As I said, I’ve offered some thoughts and notes on the first part of the video. I scanned through the other nine parts, but this particular venue doesn’t allow me the time to do a thorough analysis of 100-plus minutes of the same basic thing. Hopefully, you can see that the approach being offered is very flawed, both scripturally and philosophically.
The doctrine of faith alone is supported by objective, contextual scholarship in the same way the that doctrine of the Trinity is, though it is much clearer and easier to see. Beyond that, the idea of Catholic scholars criticizing “sola fide” for being unclear is laughable. The Bible makes not the slightest mention of Mary’s sinlessness. One cannot claim that it clearly teaches the seven sacraments, the infallibility of the papacy, that we ought to pray to the dead, and so forth. This is a can of worms that Catholic apologists ought not open up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
