The Prodigal --Pseudopodeo-- Runs Away

It has come to my attention that the Protestant controversialist known as Pseudopodeo has turned down my offer for an online debate and has written an extended note slandering me personally. It was not what I had hoped for but I am afraid that this is not unexpected of him. I had hoped that he would be a man and face me in a secure neutral venue where we could have an honest exchange of ideas in full view of the general public. In this way, there would have been no question of who said what or who did what. The whole world could just see us discussing the issues. But that is not what Pseudopodeo wanted. He wants to control every aspect of the debate because he is afraid that he will be bested if he doesn't.

But what is most telling here is the personal animosity that Pseudo holds towards me. My Lord and Savior taught that we were to love our enemies and do good to those that hate us. All Pseudopodeo wants to do is to insult and defame those of us who disagree with him. He has been taught in his strange little religion that Catholic are to be treated with contempt and that it is not necessary to treat us as human beings. To this end, Pseudo feels it is permissible to lie, insult, and misrepresent us Catholics. I find this very sad, and frankly it leads me to question his alleged commitment to Christ.

My challenge remains open. Anytime that Pseudopodeo wants to, he may open negotiations for an online debate. I am willing to put all of his derogatory remarks behind us and start fresh. It would be nice if Pseudopodeo would apologize to me for the lies he has told and for his animosity, but it is not necessary. We Christians are used to being roughly handled.

As St. Paul wrote:

1Cr 4:9
For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels and to men.
1Cr 4:10
We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute.
1Cr 4:11
To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are ill-clad and buffeted and homeless,
1Cr 4:12
and we labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure;
1Cr 4:13
when slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become, and are now, as the refuse of the world, the offscouring of all things.
1Cr 4:14
I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children.

I take these words seriously. I expect that the enemies of Christ and His Church will do whatever they can to destroy the simple faith of us who have remained loyal to the Gospel revealed once and for all to the Saints and who have not been "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the deceit of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph 4:14) as have the sad victims of the so-called 'reformation" apostasy.

My offer was made in good faith and it remains open. I forgive you, Pseudo, for anything you may have done to injure me. I ask your forgiveness for any sleight I might have made towards you. When you are ready to discuss the issues, I will be here waiting. I still pray for you at every Mass that God will convert your heart of stone to one of flesh and that you will join us who live gloriously in the reign of God.

Art Sippo MD, MPH

An Open Challenge to Pseudopodeo

It has come to my attention that the Protestant controversialist know affectionately as "Pseudopodeo" is jonesing for a debate. He is trying to sucker some unwitting Catholic into another of his one sided lynchings in a Protestant venue with an Anti-Catholic moderator.

Tsk, tsk, Pseudo. You have proposed that tactic to several of us and we have told you the terms are not acceptable.

But I have a proposal for you.

I would be happy to debate you ON LINE here on my blog site. I will choose a neutral moderator (Yes, I really will!). He will assure that there is no name calling or ad hominem personal attacks. We will stick to the issues.

You and I will discuss the rules directly BY EMAIL and then we will talk on the phone IN PERSON a recording of which I will retain so that there will be no disputes about what is said.

Once it is clear that you are serious and that you intend to conduct yourself in a gentlemanly manner, we can set up our phone discussion. We need to talk directly in person. Otherise, it will be a deal breaker.

I propose the following for our debate. These are open to negotiation:

Topic: The Catholic Doctrine of Justification is Biblical

So that there will be no mistake about what the Catholic Church teaches, we will post the Canons from the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent and we will base our debate on them. Biblical quotations from the ENTIRE Catholic Bible will be permitted to establish the truth or falsehood of the topic under discussion.

I will take the affirmative and go first.
You will take the negative and go second.

Our opening statements will be a maximum of 5000 words.

These will be followed by first responses. The first responses will be limited to 2000 words each.

We will then in turn pose questions to each other in alternating order. You will ask me a question, then I will ask you a question. The response should be no longer than 1000 words. No complex questions and no "did you stop beating your wife" questions. Ask one simple question. It is permitted to preface your question with a brief build up of no more than 2 sentences. NO EDITORIALIZING. Questions only.

After one of us gives an answer, the questioner will be given a 250 word rebuttal.

Then there will be final summations limited to 2000 words. Since we will be alternating all through the debate, I will give my final summary followed by you giving yours.

The entire debate will be done on line and will remain permanently on this blog site. oth of us will have the right to publish the debate IN ITS WHOLE UNEDITED FORM.

All the statements will be sent to the Moderator and will not be published until he is certain that they are of the right length and of an appropriate tone. No personal insults nor accusations will be tolerated. If the Moderator feels that the contents need to be revised, he will send it back to the author. Only what the Author and the Moderator agree upon will be published on the web.

If for any reason, the Moderator and the Author cannot agree on a modification, said author will lose the Debate by default and a full disclosure of the problems with his comments will be presented by the moderator. No baloney.

There will be no declaration of formal victory at this debate. Each reader will be allowed to decide for his or her self which arguments were most persuasive.

The debaters will agree NOT to do an extended "re-debate" of the responses in this debate in any form of media for a full calendar year from the date of the posting of the last final statement. It will be permissible to discuss the issues brought up by the debate freely.

I propose as the Moderator a Protestant Attorney, Mr. Rob Robinson.

I am awaiting a response.

Art Sippo MD, MPH

"Why are you so mean to Protestants?"

I have received several emails from Protestants who think I am too mean to Pcoma and who further think that I used too broad a brush in condemning Protestantism. Sadly the people who wrote SOME of these are not aware of the 17 year long campaign of personal slander that Pcoma has waged against me and of my several attempt to open dialog with him. His behavior has been abominable and sub-Christian. It also has showed what I truly consider signs of serious psychopathology including delusion of grandeur, flight of ideas, confabulation, and paranoia. I have asked Pcoma to seek professional help, but he refuses. He is living in his castle in the sky and those of us who are calling him back to reality are seen as enemies. He is a sad spectacle.

What is even sadder is that some honest people who have come in on his side are unaware of his continuous campaign of personal vilification against me, and that it is he who has prolonged and deepened the animosity between us. It is never a good idea to come in on the tail end of an argument and try and play peacemaker. You never know what started it or who is at fault.

My conscience is clear. Pcoma has told numerous lies which tickle the ears of his co-religionists and make them want to believe him. Sadly the Protestant people have been lied to so much by their "ministers" that they are under the impression that Catholics are either fools or stupid or malicious. Protestants have been taught to look down on Catholics and to treat us like the enemy. When we fight back and actually start to WIN, it is like the world has been turned upside down.

But Protestantism in all of its forms was an abandonment of the Gospel and its replacement with amoralist humanism. Justification by faith without works is not a biblical doctrine but in fact LITERALLY CONTRADICTS the Bible (See James 2:24). The idea that being righteous before God is just a formal declaration with no ontological change in the person is a medieval Nominalist idea not a Biblical one. In fact most of the innovations of Protestantism are from Medieval via moderna philosophy with only a biblical veneer.

Folks, the Christian Church from the beginning was CATHOLIC. There is no Protestantism in the Early Church. The 16th Century Deformers knew this but they LIED about it. Luther was seriously mentally disturbed and suffered from some kind of manic-depression disorder. Calvin has a motherless traumatic childhood and became cold, heartless monster who was far happier to worship a God of infinite power than one of infinite love. And Henry VIII... nobody pretends that he was anything but a greedy power-hungry money-grubber. The men he chose to run his "established church" were men of low morals themselves who coveted the power and wealth of the Church.

Historical Christianity has always been Catholic Christianity. Men like Pcoma tell multiple lies to deny this and they become rabid when a knowledgeable person rises up to defy them. Meanwhile they glory in phony doctorates and in puffing themselves up with titles like 'bishop' to which they have no right.

I am just a simple Catholic layman who has become tired of being pushed around and slandered by bigots whose sole motive is stoking their own ego. The Gospel is about detachment from the world, not about personal aggrandisement.

Catholicism has the one true Gospel. The various Protestant religions contradict that Gospel AND EACH OTHER! For this reason I condemn Protestantism as a demonic deception and I warn those seeking Christ that they will not find him there.

I know that Protestants do not want to hear this, but they NEED to hear it. Their souls are in jeopardy and I would be remiss if I said otherwise.

I call on any one seeking Christ to leave the Massa Damnata of Protestant Pandemonium before it is too late.

Art

He's So Vain, He Probably Thinks This Blog is about Him...

I can always tell when Summer is really here. The Anti-Catholic bigots of the world have just been let out of Kindergarten for the Summer Holidays and they have time on their hands. So they start trying to bait Catholics and slander us while they have the chance.

(Please note that I am not implying that the Anti-Catholic bigots are all whining petulant children who cry for their mommy whenever the big bad Catholics fight back. Oh , NO! Many of them are semi-functional adults who have little or no need of Depends at this point in their lives except when the Pope comes to visit the United States. It is just that they have been left back in ACCREDITED schools so often that they just can't get that grammar school GED, and Kindergarten is such a big step for them. Hang in there guys. The Columbia School of Broadcasting and Bible Studies will grant you a doctorate in toilet training for the right price so you can fake it and sit at the grown-up table with pride. For those who cannot afford this there is always Mrs. Puff's Boating School. She is used to dealing with Students who just can't graduate.)

In any case a certain Protestant Controversialist of My Acquaintance -- call him Pcoma -- has started off the Summer emulating the Ministry of Truth from George Orwell's novel 1984 and pretending that he never held to a position that was in fact the backbone of one of his arguments about interpreting the NT. I do not want to embarrass the little nimrod by being too specific. After all there are LIBEL laws in this country and one must be careful just how nasty one wants to be in attacking a private person. Suffice to say, his denial that he ever held to this position makes Bill Clinton under oath look like George Washington.

Pcoma, ol' buddy, you need to get real. We were all there at the debate. We heard you. You not only mentioned this particular matter in several speeches which are on tape. You also put it in your books and on your website.

Ah, but after all, you have no interest in the truth. For you, the woile apologetics game is about egoism, bluster, and who is the better debater. All your efforts in attacking me on this issue boil down to you apologizing for yourself and your behavior. It has nothing to do with the Gospel or the truth of the Christian faith. That is your problem.

It is not all about you, Pcoma. This blog today is about being a disciple of Jesus Christ conformed to his image and being subject to his will for us. You made a mistake early in your career. You need to admit it, say that you regret the error, have since repented of it and moved on. That's all. That is what Jesus would do if he were in your shoes. (Of course Jesus would never have made a mistake about a matter of faith or morals so He actually would never have to do any of this so it is more accurate to say that this is what Jesus would want YOU to do.)

Apologetics is not a game. It is not a spectator sport where the apologist puffs himself up as the defender of the faith who never loses to any opponent. It is not about winning every debate.

It is as Pope St. Peter counseled us in his First Encyclical:

1Pe 3:8
Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind.
1Pe 3:9
Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling; but on the contrary bless, for to this you have been called, that you may obtain a blessing.
1Pe 3:10
For "He that would love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking guile;
1Pe 3:11
let him turn away from evil and do right; let him seek peace and pursue it.
1Pe 3:12
For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those that do evil."
1Pe 3:13
Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is right?
1Pe 3:14
But even if you do suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,
1Pe 3:15
but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;
1Pe 3:16
and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
1Pe 3:17
For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God's will, than for doing wrong.

Apologetics is supposed to be a witnessing to the truth of Christ against the objections of men, not a defense of our own egos.

It is possible for intelligent grown ups (yes, even those in Depends) to agree to disagree without all the rancor and posturing that we have been subjected to by you and your fellow Anti-Catholics. Whatever the case may be, Pcoma, you are not infallible by your own admission. You can make mistakes and it takes an honest man to admit when he has blundered.

I have admitted to my mistakes and apologized to you for any unfair slights I have said in the past. Have you ever done that? Have you ever apologized to me for trying to deceive me in our original debate? Or for your unsportsman-like insults at the end when you have clearly lost? Or for the lies you have told about me publicly for the last 2 decades? Or for your abominable sub-Christian conduct when we were trying to come up with a venue for a debate? Or your uncharitable snipes at Pope John Paul the Great as he lay dying. Do you ever examine your conscience, admit you are a sinner, repent and try to make amends? As far as I can tell the answer to all of these is "No!" and you are proud of it. You are a very poor advertisement for your religion.

Well, Pcoma, I am a disciple of Jesus who told us to let the dead bury their dead. I have better things to do than trade nitpicking insults with you. You know I am telling the truth. Everyone in the Catholic Apologetics movements knows it. And any Protestant with integrity who can read your books and website knows it. Your posturing is hypocritical and unnecessary. Jesus said it was the truth that would set us free, not our attempts at spin doctoring. Your actions are cynical that those of an atheist who believes in no moral limits on his behavior as long as you can do harm to those whom you hate.

To the general public I give a warning. Beware of men who come to you using their personal opinion about the Gospel as a club with which to beat people. Beware of men who place their own honor ahead of the honor due to God. Be leery of the fellow who wastes time and resources attacking individuals he hates without appreciating the points they are making. There are two sides to every story and if you cannot have sympathy for your opponent, you cannot validly criticize him.

Pcoma and his crowd are enamored with the antinomian opinions of the Protestant Deformers and with the idea that they don't have to do anything to be considered righteous by God.

As a Catholic I prefer the Biblical view:


Rom 3:27
Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith.
Rom 3:28
For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
Rom 3:29
Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
Rom 3:30
since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.
Rom 3:31
Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.



Jam 2:14
What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?
Jam 2:15
If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food,
Jam 2:16
and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?
Jam 2:17
So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
Jam 2:18
But some one will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
Jam 2:19
You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder.
Jam 2:20
Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren?
Jam 2:21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
Jam 2:22
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,
Jam 2:23
and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God.
Jam 2:24
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.


Rom 6:1
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2
By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
Rom 6:3
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5
For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
Rom 6:6
We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.
Rom 6:7
For he who has died is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8
But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.
Rom 6:9
For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.
Rom 6:10
The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
Rom 6:11
So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Rom 6:12
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions.
Rom 6:13
Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness.
Rom 6:14
For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Rom 6:15
What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
Rom 6:16
Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
Rom 6:17
But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,
Rom 6:18
and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
Rom 6:19
I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.
Rom 6:20
When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
Rom 6:21
But then what return did you get from the things of which you are now ashamed? The end of those things is death.
Rom 6:22
But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.
Rom 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.


This is the Gospel as we Catholics have received it from Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the teachings of the Popes and Councils (especially Trent). We stand on this solidly founded word from God and condemn as contrary to scripture any attempt to reduce salvation to a mere naked faith and trust in God with no need for submission to His will in the works we choose to do.

This is the faith of the Catholic Church and what this blog is really about.

A Book Review: "The Truth of the Cross" by R. C. Sproul

A Book Review:
The Truth of the Cross
by R. C. Sproul
Reformation Trust Publishing, 2007

Through the generosity of Ligonier Ministries, I have been given permission to review this book by R. C. Sproul. Rev. Sproul is a Presbyterian minister who has had an active multimedia apostolate for over 30 years. I have listened to many teaching tapes from his oeuvre and have found them to be very educational and enlightening. His excellent series on historical apologetics covers the Church Fathers up through the modern day and has a fine exposition of St. Thomas Aquinas. He also has a short series on Roman Catholicism which I found to be most interesting and helpful for showing us Catholics how we are perceived by some of our separated brethren. Rev. Sproul is a great popularizer of the Christian faith who is able to take complex ideas and render them into understandable form for the masses.

Rev. Sproul is very much an ‘old fashioned’ five-point Calvinist and has not been much influenced by any of the major modern movements in Calvinist theology. This has both positive and negative connotations for Catholics who read or listen to his work. In many ways his approach to the Bible – especially the Old Testament – is quite traditional and helpful for Catholics. For example, I recommend his lectures on the Holiness of God most highly.

Sadly, when it comes to New Testament exposition, he has some very serious blind spots in which he allows the systematic speculations of conservative Calvinism to interfere with his explanation of the Biblical text. In particular, Rev. Sproul still holds to a very narrow, 16th Century understanding of the Protestant doctrine of “Justification by Faith Alone” which ignores the more recent contributions of the New Perspective on St. Paul and the re-evaluation of the place of the Epistle of St. James in the wisdom tradition central to the ministry of Jesus.

The focus of his new book “The Truth of the Cross” is on the atonement that was wrought by Christ on the Cross. This is not intended to be a scholarly study, but a popular exposition aimed at informing the person in the pew what it was that Jesus accomplished for us by His death.

The first 4 chapters give a superb exposition of the Biblical background that led up to the need for atonement. They even gave a brief treatment of some of the Patristic and early Medieval developments in our understanding of the Atonement. It is important for Catholics to remember that we are thoroughly Augustinian in our soteriology. I think Christians of all stripes will find these chapters both useful and accessible. By the time you finish these chapters you will understand the several different theories of the atonement and how each scheme can play a part in God’s overall plan for salvation.

In Chapter 5, he began a discussion of substitutionary atonement which is again quite traditional and accessible. I particularly liked his treatment of propitiation and expiation in which he shows both their differences from each other and how they are complementary. This chapter is filled with excellent biblical exegesis and exposition.

After all the good exposition of the first 5 chapters, Chapter 6 was a major let down. It is the weakest chapter in the book and, coincidentally, the one with the least biblical exegesis. Rev. Sproul tries to make the case for a theology of imputation in which the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer while at the same time the sinfulness of the believer is imputed to Christ. This is a traditional Calvinist theological speculation which in recent years has come under fire from among Calvin scholars.

John Calvin had a strong notion of ‘union with Christ’ which was distinctly his own and different from both the schema of Luther and of later Calvinist theologies. This can be seen in books such as “Union With Christ and the Extent of the Atonement in Calvin (Studies in Biblical Literature, Vol. 48)” by Kevin Dixon Kennedy, “Union with Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard” (Columbia Series in Reformed Theology) by Dennis E. Tamburello, and “Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ” (Changing Paradigms in Historical and Systematic Theology) by J. Todd Billings.

I was very disappointed that Sproul did not interact positively with this cutting edge theme in Calvin scholarship.

Catholic and Arminian scholars have been pointing out for several centuries that there is not a single verse in the Bible which describes any imputative exchange of righteousness and sinfulness between Christ and the believer. What the Bible does say is this:

Romans 4:9 …We say that faith was imputed to Abraham as righteousness.
Romans 4:20-25
20 No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God,
21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.
22 That is why his faith was "imputed to him as righteousness."
23 But the words, "it was imputed to him," were written not for his sake alone,
24 but for ours also. It will be imputed to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord,
25 who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

In short, it is our faith in Jesus as our Savior that is imputed or reckoned to the Christian as righteousness, not any transferred ‘righteousness of Christ.’ By this faith we are united with Christ in Baptism and made into a new creation (Romans 6:4). We cease being “slaves of sin” and become “slaves of righteousness” which leads inexorably to sanctification and to the fruit of that sanctity, eternal life (Romans 6:22). This is not the language of a forensic exchange but of an ontological transformation in Christ.

The whole idea of a forensic exchange of moral attributes is based not biblical presuppositions, but rather on the late medieval philosophy of Nominalism. Nominalism denied that there were any universal essences. Alleged universal concepts were merely names that described particular objects. As such, the universal ideas of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ were arbitrary designations. God, as the most powerful entity, was permitted to name his creatures whatever he liked by an exercise of His Divine will. Since the titles ‘righteous’ and ‘sinner’ were nothing but arbitrary names, God was permitted to have the last word on which designations that describes his particular creatures.

In an Essentialist worldview such as we see in the Bible, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas, it is not possible to treat ‘good’ and ‘evil’ as mere external labels. What is needed to change a bad person into a good person is a true ontological change in the essential nature of the being in question.

Failure to grasp these philosophical points leads Sproul to misrepresent Catholic teaching:
The Roman Catholic Church holds the position that man’s character is not completely tainted, but that he retains a little island of righteousness. (Page 85)

This is not correct. Catholicism insists that man possesses several natural goods to which his human nature tends without the necessity of grace. But these are not supernatural goods, do not lead to salvation, and garner no merit before God. But they are the very seeds upon which grace works in order to elevate the merely human good work to one that pleases God. We insist that grace builds upon nature. It does not supersede or destroy the good found inherently in the natural man. Instead, it elevates it to another level so that joined with Christ we are able to please the Father in our lives as He did in His own incarnate life.

The Protestant view of ‘total depravity’ is a rarefied form of Manichaeism in which the imputation of sin is placed below the level of moral agency – that is the mind and will – and fixed in the very members of the human person. Thus any inclination of the human being towards any appetite is inherently sinful in Protestant eyes because it does not lead inexorably in the natural man to acts which please God. The distinction Sproul makes between ‘total depravity’ and ‘utter depravity’ is moot. If everything human beings do is sinful, the degree of sinfulness is unimportant. The central problem is that in Sproul’s system, to take in a deep breath is sin in defiance of God. There is absolutely no biblical warrant for such a notion.

Catholicism counters that human inclinations are morally neutral until the mind and he will are engaged. The sinfulness of an act is determined by one’s understanding and intention in the act. Condemning every act of the human person as sinful as the Protestants do is ludicrous. It does not make the right moral distinctions and fails to locate the real source of human sinfulness. This is the consequence of a Nominalist view of morality in which sin is the result of a ‘name-game’, and not a ‘real’ problem. It creates a ‘legal fiction’ in which guilt and innocence are assigned arbitrarily by God without regard to who and what we are.

Sproul does not really appreciate the problems inherent in his thesis. Condemning every human act as sinful makes it seem that it is a sin just to be human. There can be no true examination of conscience or firm purpose of amendment because sin wells up in our members spontaneously and our wills merely rubber stamp our natural impulses. This type of anthropology is pastorally destructive of any true moral discipline.

In my opinion, Chapter 6 is a total wash and I advise Catholic readers to skip over it on a first reading. They may return to it later along with a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to more properly critique Sproul’s views from a Catholic perspective.

Chapter 7 takes up the story of the “Suffering Servant” from the prophet Isaiah. This is a fine exposition and very helpful in showing that he suffering of Jesus was not a Christian innovation but had been foretold many centuries earlier. I will quibble with Sproul on his interpretation of Genesis 3:15 (Page 116). I believe that the three clauses in this verse are an example of synthetic (or synonymous) parallelism and that they all refer directly to the Woman, and only indirectly to her seed. This includes the final clause in which she is prophesied to “crush the head of the serpent.” Franciscan theologians have seen in this verse the predestination from all time of Jesus and Mary together as the New Adam and the New Eve who overthrow the curse of Original Sin and defeat Satan.

Chapter 8 continues to show the continuity between the Cross and Old Testament themes. The exposition is quite good. Sproul accepts St. Thomas Aquinas’ view that Jesus was truly forsaken by God the Father in his humanity while on the Cross as a way of Jesus fully experiencing the alienation of sin. St. Thomas believed that Jesus had the Beatific Vision in his Divine person from the moment of his conception and that during this time of abandonment Jesus did not allow his Divine personhood to confer consolations to the faculties of his human nature. From a Catholic viewpoint, this was a particularly good chapter.

Chapter 9 was a long defense of a particular understanding of the Calvinist idea of ‘Limited Atonement.’ Sproul breaks with Hyper-Calvinists by seeing the atonement wrought by Christ to be sufficient to save all men while not necessarily being effective to save all men. The distinction here is very helpful and is in fact part of Catholic orthodoxy. On the whole, Catholicism is willing to see a wider franchise than what Sproul favors in this chapter. He implies that an explicit faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation. It has always been the Catholic position that an implicit faith could be accepted by God as worthy of the grace of salvation purely at the Lord’s good pleasure. There is no salvation by ignorance of the truth, but there can be salvation by God’s saving knowledge of us and the exercise of His graciousness towards sinners in circumstances which He deems fitting.

The 10th and final chapter consists of a series of questions and answers. It delves a little more deeply into theological issues and makes some comments on the signs of the times. I found all of the answers to be helpful and I think many Catholics will benefit from them.

In summary, I found this to be a very useful and inexpensive book for explaining the traditional understanding of the Cross and the Atonement from a conservative Protestant perspective. It also can be helpful to Catholics and makes fine Lenten reading. I have noted several caveats above primarily with regard to Chapter 6. I would hope that in future editions, Sproul will deal with other theories of the application of the benefits of Christ other than the double imputation schema. I would especially recommend that he deal with the “union with Christ” schema which is at the cutting edge of Calvin studies and can play a major role in increasing ecumenical understanding.

Arthur C. Sippo MD, MPH

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

A few weeks back, I got a dyspeptic note from a Protestant Minister in training who took umbrage to my views on the illegitimacy of the various Protestant religions. In his note, he took especial umbrage to the Catholic dogma of the Perpetual Virginity acting as if there was no justification for this teaching.

I was planning to do an entire expose on this fallacious notion, but my good friend Matt1618 beat me to it.

He has a fine Catholic Apologetics Website:

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/


His treatment of the PVM is excellent and I recommend it highly:

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/mary.html


This is a condensed version of the same article:

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/mary2.html


The following is an article by a Hebrew Catholic, Br. Anthony Opisso, M.D., who has since gone before us marked with the sign of faith:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm


This is a treatise on the PVM written by St. Jerome, the greatest Scripture Scholar of the Patristic period:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm


The following is a variety of quotations from the Church Fathers on the PVM:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp


Here is s list of documents including Papal teaching on the PVM:

http://www.ewtn.com/vlibrary/search2.asp


The following is a link to the website of of my friend and Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/


Here are some of his articles on the PVM:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/replies-to-protestants-alleged.html

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/dialogue-on-supposed-biblical_27.html

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/dialogue-on-supposed-biblical_31.html

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/luther-calvin-and-other-early.html

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/why-catholics-believe-in-perpetual_05.html

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/davearmstrong/112907309560033175/#17898


The following is a term paper written by an Anglican arguing in favor of the PVM:

http://www.btw3.com/classfiles/HT1/PerpetualVirginity.pdf


Here are some articles by my good friend Mark Bonocore defending the PVM:

http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/ohbrother.html

http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/jesusbros.html

http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/maryvirgin.html


Here is an article by Protestant Scholar Paul Owen on the PVM:

http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/reformedpv.html


And here is an article by my good friend and Catholic Apologist John Pacheco:

http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/heoshou.html


So despite the pretensions of my Protestant 'minister-in-training' there is indeed lots of evidence in support of the PVM and absolutely nothing before the 18th Century even questioning it except for 3 people (Jovinian, Helvidius, and Bonosus) who were condemned as heretics. So in this matter -- as in so many others -- Protestantism is seen to be a modernist fraud that supports clearly heretical notions in the service of man-made religion.

Art

Bob Sungenis and his Ordinary

The continuing controversy over the content of Robert Sungenis' web site has taken a new turn. Mr. Sungenis has said things about the Jewsih people - both inside and outside of the Church - which have brought him open criticism from many sources.

It has been the hope of many of us who are concerned about Bob that he would accept fraternal correction on these matters and bring his public views into line with the positions held by the Popes and Vatican II over the last several decades. Sadly, Bob has not done so. In the last year, his Ordinary, Bishop Kevin Rhoades, took action in the name of the Catholic Church to prevent Bob from promulgating his views as if they represented Catholic teaching. In particular, Bob published a commentary on the Book of Revelation in which he made several comments about the Jews that were scurrilous in tone.

Bob's response was half-hearted at best. He made a show of submitting to the Bishop,at first, but now he is openly accusing Bishop Rhoades of holding to heretical notions. Bob is refusing to obey the Bishop's order that he cease and desist writing about any matters having to do with the Jewish people.

I want to take a stand here in support of Bishop Rhoades and I call on Bob Sungenis as a professed loyal son of the Catholic Church to submit to his Ordinary in this matter. We Catholic apologists are the victims of the lies and bigotry of Anti-Catholics all the time. We should be very careful ourselves not to promote falsehoods about other people. And in particular, we need to be on the guard against Anti-Semitism. It is a persistent prejudice that has led to untold injustice, suffering, and even genocide. We as Catholics must never again allow such things to occur and we need to oppose this error vigorously.

The following links document the most recent events in the Sungenis controversy:

Breaking the Silence: http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/breaking-silence.html

1) Bishop Rhoades Sets the Record Straight: Bishop Rhoades refutes Sungenis’ “slanderous and erroneous” charges
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/bishop-rhoades-sets-record-straight_21.html

2) Saying “Peace!” When There Is No Peace: A discussion of the many “apologies” and promises of Robert Sungenis
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/saying-peace-when-there-is-no-peace.html

3) More Definition Difficulties: Sungenis’ misuse of “disavow” and “libel” http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-definition-difficulties.html

4) CASB2's Missing Imprimatur: The Real Reason the Bishop Said "No"Sungenis’ anti-Jewish animus comes to light in CASB2
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/casb2s-missing-imprimatur-real-reason.html

5) Response from the USCCB on page 131 of the USCC: Must one see heresy on page 131? How should one approach our bishops? http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/response-from-usccb-on-page-131-of.html

6) Is Sungenis Schismatic? The Verdict in Sungenis’ Own Words: Documentation of how Sungenis has chosen a path he has formerly criticized
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/is-sungenis-schismatic-verdict-in.html

7) The Theology of Prejudice: A discussion of how Sungenis’ animus against Jews taints his theology
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/theology-of-prejudice.html

8) The Theology of ADL Conspiracy Theories? Specific proof that even now, Sungenis is violating his most recent promises http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/theology-of-adl-conspiracy-theories.html

9) Sungenis and the New Good Friday Prayer: A recent example of Sungenis’ exaggerations and contentiousness with Jews http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/sungenis-and-new-good-friday-prayer.html

10) Sungenis Singled Out by Jewish Blogger: An example of how Sungenis is seen by moderate Jewish people
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/sungenis-singled-out-by-jewish-blogger.html

11) Clearing Roy Schoeman of Sungenis’ Slander by Ben Douglass: Sungenis refuses to retract and apologize for quote he knows to be false http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/clearing-roy-schoeman-of-sungenis.html

12) New and Old Postings by Ben Douglass: Ben Douglass re-posts his Sungenis articles and defends Roy Schoeman
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/new-and-old-postings-by-ben-douglass.html

13) When Like Finds Like:Evidence from Sungenis’ own followers that all is not well at CAI-BTF
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/when-like-finds-like.html

14) The Clinton Connection: A comparison of the tactics of Bill Clinton and Robert Sungenis
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/matter-of-character.html

15) The Matter of Character: An examination of a fundamental issue underlying Sungenis’ difficulties
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/clinton-connection.html

16) Timeline: A helpful timeline detailing what has occurred with Sungenis and when http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/02/timeline-of-events.html

Please keep both Bob Sungenis and Bishop Rhoades in your prayers.

Art Sippo