Dimond in (a) rough spot

Peter Dimond found himself in a rough spot after accusing me of using FAKE Church Father quotes. After being cornered over and over, Dimond's best responses were to accuse me of "lying", being "spiritually blind", and using "FAKE" Church Father quotes.

FULL MP3 will be available later this week---but for now, enjoy this tiny clip!

Peter Dimond vs. The Church Fathers

Future Debate(postponed because I got sick!)

I will be debating John Salza on the authority of Vatican II's teaching on religious liberty. The debate will be recorded and available in MP3 format shortly thereafter. John Salza is a published author and runs his own website on the net. Salza is a good friend of mine and I hope the debate can be fruitful.

If anyone is interested in this debate, you may contact me

gnrhead@gmail.com

--William--

Peter IS the ROCK-a quick PATRISTICS PRIMER

Logos Bible Software--for the iPhone!

For those that know me, they know I never leave home without my iPhone. I have Bible software on it, my Septuagint and my Greek New Testament at a finger tap away--always! I also have a radio and access to my email at my fingertips.

Earlier I got a phone call from Father Mitch, notifying me that Logos had come out with a software for the iPhone. I downloaded it immediately. I have got to say, it's AWESOME!

Here is a screenshot of what my iPhone Desktop looks like now






















Here are a few screenshots of the actual application itself as I use it on my iPhone






























































































































As you can tell, the Library it offers, the presentation of the Biblical Greek text, and the layout are fantastic. I can only expect this application to get better.

From what I have heard, I will be able to sync my COMPLETE Church Fathers Catholic edition to my iPhone as well. That is simply amazing. To be able to read the Bible or the Church Fathers whenever I feel like it is simply awesome.

Get the software if you have an iPhone. If you don't, get an iPhone and get the software!

Here is a screenshot of the actual page--log on to your Logos account and check it out


















For more information, check out the official site here

Logos Bible iPhone site

The Marian Debates

GOD BLESS you!

It's great to be actively posting again!

I just recently finished debating the Marian Dogmas. I am very pleased that there is a Catholic that has finally debated AOMIN (a blogger for them at least) on all the Marian Dogmas. The last person to do that was Gerry Matatics and he is no longer a Catholic. I hope these debates can stand for many years to come and help strengthen the faith of Catholics that have questions on Mary and her role in salvation history.

I will be posting the links to all the debates quite soon and commentary on them as well.

It's interesting how history favors Catholicism more than you can imagine. In debating these dogmas we have seen just how far from Biblical and Historical Christianity that Reformed Protestantism really is. It's such a shame.

Mary:Mother of our GOD

Below are some images that I made myself in regards to evidence in Luke on Mary being the MOTHER OF OUR GOD.

I haven't blogged or posted new videos lately because I have been incredibly busy. Traveling and doing talks and debating takes up WAY more time than I could have EVER expected. I do a lot of talks in Mexico---where the faith needs a very strong defense more than ever.

Below I will post the MP3 link to my DEBATE I had against AOMIN's turretinfan on MARY:MOTHER OF GOD as well as a follow up response to the Lucan passage that is discussed.

For those that couldn't tell how "clueless" tfan was during the debate, maybe the images and the Youtube video I did on this topic can held shed some light on it!















Above we are examining the usage of KURIOS, the Greek for LORD in Luke 1. We can see that EACH TIME it is used it is in reference to GOD!

























BELOW we see verse 43..a CLEAR affirmation of the DEITY of Christ. Let's recall that Elizabeth was INSPIRED by the HOLY SPIRIT when she declared that MARY was the MOTHER OF HER LORD--her GOD! In keeping in tune with Luke's terminology, it's ILLOGICAL to claim that Mary was being called anything other than the mother of GOD.































Here is the video I did on this very important chapter of Luke's Gospel account

A detailed examination of Luke 1 and Mary as MOTHER of GOD!

And here is the MP3 of the debate

MARY:MOTHER OF GOD? between turretinfan and myself!

James Swan on Athanasius

Mr. Swan has an interesting commentary on Athanasius and various other things dealing with the Reformation and Catholicism. Below we will provide Mr. Swan's comments in italics and bold underlining. We will also respond to a portion of Mr. White's article.


It's sometimes argued the Reformers didn't have the right to call for the reform of the Roman church. How could a small minority challenge the authority of the established majority? Of course, there are many nuances and rabbit trails to meander down when one gets into this discussion- like did the reformers have miracles to prove their reform efforts? or who left who: did the reformers leave, or were they expelled? I'd like to bypass those topics for a bit, and apply what I'll dub, the rule of consistency.

Had the Reformers actually CALLED for the Reform of the Church and not adopted new theological doctrines never known to Christianity before then it would have been quite fine. But what we have from Luther to Calvin to Zwingli is a transformation of what Christianity was always about to what many have appropriately dubbed the DEFORMATION of Christianity. The outrage of the Reformation is not because of a "minority" challenging the larger group of Christians. Rather, the outrage stems from the fact that Christianity evolved in a different way. We would eventually see the rise of the man made tradition of Sola Scriptura. The teaching of sola fide as taught by the reformers, something completely alien to not only the Bible but the Early Church. Mr. Swan would have you believe that the Reformers "had the right to call for the reform of the Roman church."

But he fails to explain that the reformers so strongly opposed each other as well that you can't truly lump the Reformers together in a single aspect of their desired "reform".

Let's assume that the Reformers were wrong to go against the established church. The majority position was the Roman position at the time of the Reformation. What then do we do with Athanasius? I recently re-read Dr. White's article, What Really Happened at Nicea? The section most pertinent to this is about half way down entitled, "The Aftermath." Dr. White explains:

Again Mr. Swan is confused as to why the radical Reformation was out of line. This confusion, then, allows the Protestant mindset to compare Athanasius to that of the Reformation. The real winner is in the fact that Athanasius held to so many core teachings of the Catholic faith that the Protestant Reformers themselves would later abandon and speak strongly against!

We will move onwards to examine Mr. White's article that Mr. Swan has presented for us.

Modern Christians often have the impression that ancient councils held absolute sway, and when they made "the decision," the controversy ended. This is not true. Though Nicea is seen as one of the greatest of the councils, it had to fight hard for acceptance. The basis of its final victory was not the power of politics, nor the endorsement of established religion. There was one reason the Nicene definition prevailed: its fidelity to the testimony of the Scriptures.

To claim that the reason Nicaea eventually prevailed was because of the testimony of the Scriptures is straining it a tad bit. Of course, no Christian would argue that the Scriptures don't speak to the full truth of the deity of Christ. But most individuals who are actually familiar with Nicaea and the events that surrounded it and it's aftermath are well aware of the victory of the EXTRA BIBLICAL term HOMOOUSIOS. Of course, the reality that Christ was of the same substance of the Father can surely be found within the Sacred Scriptures, but is also well entrenched within the teaching of the Church from it's very inception. In fact, as Mr. White will later admit, Nicaea did not even touch upon the topic of the Canon. Therefore, the Nicene position prevailed because of it's "fidelity to the testimony of the Scriptures" and the constant teaching of the Fathers of the Church in safeguarding the Sacred Tradition that is so much a part of our faith.

During the six decades between the Council of Nicea and the Council of Constantinople in 381, Arianism experienced many victories. There were periods where Arian bishops constituted the majority of the visible ecclesiastical hierarchy. Primarily through the force of political power, Arian sympathizers soon took to undoing the condemnation of Arius and his theology. Eusebius of Nicomedia and others attempted to overturn Nicea, and for a number of decades it looked as if they might succeed. Constantine adopted a compromising position under the influence of various sources, including Eusebius of Caesarea and a politically worded "confession" from Arius. Constantine put little stock in the definition of Nicea itself: he was a politician to the last. Upon his death, his second son Constantius ruled in the East, and he gave great aid and comfort to Arianism. United by their rejection of the homoousion, semi-Arians and Arians worked to unseat a common enemy, almost always proceeding with political power on their side.

Under Constantius, council after council met in this location or that. So furious was the activity that one commentator wrote of the time, "The highways were covered with galloping bishops." Most importantly, regional councils meeting at Ariminum, Seleucia, and Sirmium presented Arian and semi-Arian creeds, and many leaders were coerced into subscribing to them. Even Liberius, bishop of Rome, having been banished from his see (position as bishop) and longing to return, was persuaded to give in and compromise on the matter.

During the course of the decades following Nicea, Athanasius, who had become bishop of Alexandria shortly after the council, was removed from his see five times, once by force of 5,000 soldiers coming in the front door while he escaped out the back! Hosius, now nearly 100 years old, was likewise forced by imperial threats to compromise and give place to Arian ideas. At the end of the sixth decade of the century, it looked as if Nicea would be defeated. Jerome would later describe this moment in history as the time when "the whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian."

Yet, in the midst of this darkness, a lone voice remained strong. Arguing from Scripture, fearlessly reproaching error, writing from refuge in the desert, along the Nile, or in the crowded suburbs around Alexandria, Athanasius continued the fight. His unwillingness to give place- even when banished by the Emperor, disfellowshipped by the established church, and condemned by local councils and bishops alike- gave rise to the phrase, Athanasius contra mundum: "Athanasius against the world." Convinced that Scripture is "sufficient above all things," Athanasius acted as a true "Protestant" in his day. Athanasius protested against the consensus opinion of the established church, and did so because he was compelled by scriptural authority. Athanasius would have understood, on some of those long, lonely days of exile, what Wycliffe meant a thousand years later: "If we had a hundred popes, and if all the friars were cardinals, to the law of the gospel we should bow, more than all this multitude."

Movements that depend on political favor (rather than God's truth) eventually die, and this was true of Arianism. As soon as it looked as if the Arians had consolidated their hold on the Empire, they turned to internal fighting and quite literally destroyed each other. They had no one like a faithful Athanasius, and it was not long before the tide turned against them. By A.D. 381, the Council of Constantinople could meet and reaffirm, without hesitancy, the Nicene faith, complete with the homoousious clause. The full deity of Christ was affirmed, not because Nicea had said so, but because God had revealed it to be so. Nicea's authority rested upon the solid foundation of Scripture. A century after Nicea, we find the great bishop of Hippo, Augustine, writing to Maximin, an Arian, and saying: "I must not press the authority of Nicea against you, nor you that of Ariminum against me; I do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other; but let us come to ground that is common to both- the testimony of the Holy Scriptures."

After Mr. White's article concludes, Mr. Swan comments:

I often wonder about those who attack the Reformers for standing against the majority, and how they explain Athanasius.

Athanasius was an Early Father who stood for the truth of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Athanasius, like Ireneaus, Martyr, Tertullian, and others...was a heresy hunter that stood for the truth of the Catholic faith. There is a huge difference in Athanasius and the Reformers who squabbled even amongst each other! Athanasius stood against what he perceived was a deviation from the TRUE faith. The testimony of the Scripture and the Early Fathers backed him up 100 percent!

Can we say the same of SOLA FIDE?

SOLA SCRIPTURA?

Where are these teachings in the Early Church? Where are these teachings in the Bible?

The Reformers did their best to act JUST like the Arians did. Would Athanasius have been proud of the Reformers changing the teachings of the Church that he so STRONGLY HELD TO--->

The Corporeal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

The Intercession of the Saints

Veneration of Mary, and so much more could be brought up!

If anyone gives it a close look, they can see the Reformers for being SIMILAR to the Arians in the time of Athanasius. The Reformers were not similar in the sense of denying the DEITY OF CHRIST. But in the sense of going against the Scriptures and going against the testimony of the Fathers of the faith...the Reformers stand side by side with the Arians in deviating from eternal truths of the faith.

If we were to have witnessed Athanasius up close, would it appear that he was standing against the church?

Athanasius stood up against those that attempted to deviate from the faith of the CHURCH that Jesus Christ left us. Athanasius NEVER once stood up against the eternal truth of the Catholic faith that Christ left us.

By what authority did he do so? Did he have miracles to back up his "mission"? Did he have "ordinary" or "extraordinary" authority to stand against the majority? On what basis, during the time period in which he lived, could one have judged him to be a true or false reformer?

Athanasius had the same authority ALL of us have in today's day and age in the faith. He had the obligation, as a shepherd of the flock of Christ, to stand up for the Catholic faith and to defend it's teachings! It would have been easy to have judged him as a false reformer. Athanasius, was in fact, AGAINST REFORM in the Church! This is the very subject Mr. Swan mistakes in his article. ATHANASIUS was against the eternal truth of the WORD OF GOD being reformed by the Arians. Athanasius wanted the one truth FAITH preserved in it's entirety, and the honor and truth of CHRIST to be kept intact! He was hardly a reformer in the sense that Mr. White or Mr. Swan would like you to believe.

People rebel against authority all the time, be they Catholic or Protestant. The real question: is their rebellion supported by the infallible source of truth, the Sacred Scriptures? Consider my Protestant friends, the recent Harold Camping debate shows, particularly Day 2. The logic and exegesis of the Bible used by Mr. Camping was outrageous: it was pure gnosticism. We don't have to appeal to an infallible church or council to deem Mr. Camping heretical. The Bible itself, if allowed to be read like any document should be read, shows that Mr. Camping is in dire error.

That brings us to the utter failure of Protestantism. The beaten like a dead horse argument of

How does Mr. Swan know what the "Sacred" Scriptures are? Does the Bible itself notify him of the books that are to be in his Canon? Or is Mr. Swan relying on some OUTSIDE authority to define just what his traditional canon will be? Mr. Camping's teachings, we are told, are "pure gnosticism."

The one little detail that Mr. Swan fails to realize himself, is that at least GNOSTICISM predates the man made traditions of SOLA FIDE and SOLA SCRIPTURA. That's when you've got to really examine yourself. Mr. Swan doesn't need an infallible Church or Council to deem what his authority should be. It's the traditions of the Reformers for him. But which Reformers?

Mr. Swan goes on, examining a portion of a Catholic apologist's blog then commenting by saying

The Lord Jesus clearly held these men responsible for knowing and understanding the Scriptures. Were the Sadducees supposed to respond, "How could we? We did not have an infallible interpreter of the Bible!"

The problem herein lies in the fact that the Reformers, even if they wanted to deny any sort of hierarchy in the Church, they could have viewed the testimony of the Fathers and Councils and Church History as a whole. What would later come from the Reformation and beyond is simply a distortion of Christianity.

Mr. Swan further states

Take the sacraments for example. During the early centuries the church did not limit the number of sacraments to seven. There were more, or less. Some lists had less than seven, others had as many as thirty. It wasn't until the mid-13th century that the number was finally set at seven. How does one decide how many there are? From the Bible.

In the early centuries of the Christian Church the number surely is NOT limited to seven. There is a clear reason for this. Whereas we find the number at times shorter or at times inflated, a careful examination shows that the word Sacrament amongst the Fathers did NOT always mean what it means today. The terminology in usage of the time at times simply meant certain aspects of the Christian faith as well as other things, as many historians have noted. The fact that be pointed out, though, is that the early Church always recognized the grace that flowed from what were later officially set into 7 Sacraments. So it wasn't a later development. The reality of the 7 sacraments and the grace conveyed from them was ALWAYS taught in the Early Church. It was clear, though, that the term had a wide range of usage in the Early Church.

As to the insistence that the Reformers simply stated, "I'm right" "without consulting traditions or authorities" - this is simply historically untrue, say for someone like John Calvin. He had a decent grasp of church history. In Luther's case, he stated, "the sum of my argument is that whereas the words of men, and the use of the centuries, can be tolerated and endorsed, provided they do not conflict with the sacred Scriptures, nevertheless they do not make articles of faith, nor any necessary observances." This is a far cry from "History meant nothing anymore."

So Calvin had a DECENT grasp of Church history. We wonder how Mr. White, Swan's AOMIN boss would feel about such a comment. Mr. White is a Calvinist and we could only imagine him cringing at the thought that the creator of his religion was only DECENT in Church history. Of course, we wouldn't contend such a comment. Calvin was confused as to the issues of the Biblical canon as well as completely out in left field when it came to the Ignatian epistles, dismissing them all as trash.

If there is another infallible rule of faith besides the Scriptures that could've helped out Athanasius, where was it?

Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture. (Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 6)

Athanasius comments on “BUT IF A COUNCIL BE NEEDED..”

Why would a council be needed when Scripture is SUFFICIENT above all things? Mr. Swan, like others at the AOMIN camp, seems to be confused on Athanasius and his theology.

Why did Athanasius have to struggle for his life against the church majority?

Mr. Swan's comments seem a tad bit misleading. He phrases such in order to try and harmonize the Reformation with Christianity's great battles for the faith. Unfortunately the difference is quite startling. Athanasius struggled against those that were trying to usurp the orthodox faith. The Reformation attempted to do exactly what the Arians were doing in principle. That is, USURP the orthodox Christian faith.

Why did he have to argue his position from Scripture? Why couldn't he have argued from some other infallible authority?

Athanasius never CONFINED himself SOLELY to Scripture. And as I pointed out to Mr. White before, the Arians were twisting and distorting the Biblical text beyond belief. It's logical that Athanasius would argue from the Scriptures against individuals DISTORTING the Sacred text of GOD. But still..we find Protestantism attempting their very best to adopt a few of the Fathers to help support their positions. It's unfortunate that the early Church was Catholic and didn't have an ounce of Protestantism running through it's veins.

-Albrecht