Today In TheologyRelating Theology To Our World Today! |
|
||||||||||
|
|
Yesterday on the Dividing LinePosted by Pros Apologian - February 15, 2008 on 2:39 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White Yesterday on The Dividing Line the callers drove the topic after I spent the first portion of the program discussing the renewed move to define Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Co-Mediatrix, and Advocate for the people of God, as discussed by Art Sippo in a recent blog article. Then the callers had some pretty tough exegetical and hermeneutical questions. Here's the program (free/high quality).
The Abuse of Ignatius of Antioch by Roman Catholic Apologist Steve Ray (#3)Posted by Pros Apologian - February 15, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White
Peter Established The Roman Church? (Part One)Posted by Pros Apologian - February 14, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames Swan Roman Catholics believe Peter established the church at Rome, served as its first pope, and was eventually martyred there. This faith claim is not based on Biblical evidence. It is elusive "tradition" which posits Peter (and Paul) established the Roman Church in the early 40's. Peter is said to have remained in Rome for twenty-five years, preaching the Gospel, and eventually writing the epistles of 1 and 2 Peter. Some versions of this twenty-five year period include Peter's travels, with Rome serving as his "home base" when he wasn't on missionary trips or attending church councils. Other versions have Peter going to Rome shortly after the Jerusalem council in 49 AD, and then returning to Rome just prior to 60 AD. Yet another version has Peter going to Rome one time only: towards the end of life during Nero's reign.Despite the differences and lack of unanimous agreement in these reports, the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "[W]e may conclude that Peter labored for a long period in Rome. This conclusion is confirmed by the unanimous voice of tradition which, as early as the second half of the second century, designates the Prince of the Apostles the founder of the Roman Church." Catholic apologists run into some dire problems when trying to square up any of these traditions with the Biblical information. It's no wonder that Catholic Answers states, "Admittedly, the Bible nowhere explicitly says Peter was in Rome; but, on the other hand, it doesn't say he wasn't. Just as the New Testament never says, 'Peter then went to Rome,' it never says, 'Peter did not go to Rome.' In fact, very little is said about where he, or any of the apostles other than Paul, went in the years after the Ascension. For the most part, we have to rely on books other than the New Testament for information about what happened to the apostles, Peter included, in later years." The tradition though should at least square with the Biblical facts. True, there are no explicit verses or contexts in the New Testament establishing Peter ever being in Rome. In the handful of times the word "Rome" appears in the New Testament, Peter is not linked to it in any way that would substantiate Catholic claims. The historical information given by the Bible documents Peter's ministry in Palestine and Syria. When Paul wrote to the Roman Church, there is not even a hint or allusion to Peter being its bishop, nor is there any evidence that Peter founded the church with Paul. Similarly in the epistles written by Paul from Rome, any information linking Peter to Rome is absent. In Romans 1: 8-13, Paul indicates he hadn't yet been to Rome. Romans 15: 20-24 clearly contradicts the tradition that Paul founded the Church at Rome with Peter. Scholars date Paul's letter to the Romans around 58 A.D. Factoring this in the timeline of Peter's twenty-five year Roman episcopacy, Peter would have been in authority at Rome for approximately sixteen years. Peter would have been well established. Search through Paul's letter to the Roman church, and you will find no greeting or reference to Peter. While it is true that simply because no mention of Peter is made by Paul does not prove he was not in Rome, the absence of these references present some practical problems. the Jesuit scholar Joseph Fitzmyer has stated, "Paul never hints in Romans that he knows that Peter has worked in Rome or founded the Christian church there before his planned visit (cf. 15:20-23). If he refers indirectly to Peter as among the 'superfine apostles' who worked in Corinth (2 Cor 11:4-5), he says nothing like that about Rome in this letter. Hence the beginnings of the Roman Christian community remain shrouded in mystery. Compare 1 Thess 3:2-5; 1 Cor 3:5-9; and Col 1:7 and 4:12-13 for more or less clear references to founding apostles of other locales. Hence there is no reason to think that Peter spent any major portion of time in Rome before Paul wrote his letter, or that he was the founder of the Roman church or the missionary who first brought Christianity to Rome. For it seems highly unlikely that Luke, if he knew that Peter had gone to Rome and evangelized that city, would have omitted all mention of it in Acts." [Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 30]. Despite these problems, some Catholics will actually argue for positive Biblical evidence for Peter in establishing the Roman church. There are two primary verses used. This entry will focus on the first, Acts 12:17. Acts 12:17 "But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, Go show these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place." In Acts 12, we read that King Herod had "arrested some who belong to the church"(v.1). Included in this detention were James and Peter. What follows is the account of Peter's miraculous escape from prison. After being released by an angel, Peter went to the home of Mary (the mother of John). Peter described his miraculous escape to those praying for him in Mary's house. Peter's last words to these believers that evening were, "Tell James and the brothers about this." And then Luke records the crucial words: "and then he left for another place" (v.17). Some Roman Catholics identify "Another place" as Rome. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes, "[B]y "another place", Luke meant Rome, but omitted the name for special reasons." What these "special reasons" are, the Encyclopedia does not explain. However they do mention it is within the realm of possibility that "Peter made a missionary journey to Rome about this time (after 42 A.D.), but such a journey cannot be established with certainty." Part of the tradition states that Peter ministered in Rome for twenty-five years. This requires Peter to have arrived in Rome around 42 AD. Act 12:17 records events just previous to this date. This verse though, is only utilized by Roman Catholics holding to the tradition that Peter (and Paul) established the Roman Church in the early 40's. There are other Roman Catholics who hold to the tradition that Peter founded the Roman Church towards the end of his life. Which tradition then, is correct? No definitive statement has ever been put forth. In part two, we'll look at the second popular proof-text used by Roman Catholics to establish Peter in Rome, 1 Peter 5:13, "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son." Is "Babylon" is a code-word for Rome? Has Rome infallibly explained this verse?
Augustine, Origen, and Other Patristic Stuff, on The Dividing LinePosted by Pros Apologian - February 13, 2008 on 10:03 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White For those who like church history/patristics oriented programs, yesterday's Dividing Line was for you! Discussions of Augustine, Origen, and whether you should interpret the New Testament in light of Christological definitions created three and four centuries after the time of the Apostles filled our time on the program. Here's the program (free/high quality).
Ahmed Deedat Refuted, the Deity of Christ Defended (#3)Posted by Pros Apologian - February 13, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White
An Attempt to Defend Deedat…SortaPosted by Pros Apologian - February 11, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White A young man has attempted to defend at least a portion of Deedat's argument on John 1:1, here. But here is a strong illustration of the fact that "a little Greek is a dangerous thing."
Theology Matters: Peace with GodPosted by Pros Apologian - February 9, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White
Another Sign the UK is LostPosted by Pros Apologian - February 8, 2008 on 11:01 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White I do believe we will need to start to view our brothers seeking to proclaim the gospel in the United Kingdom as foreign missionaries in their own homeland, given the speed with which the British culture is collapsing into utter irrationality and loathing of God and His laws. I was just pointed to this article:Gay Christian wins £47k pay-outMy friends, judges who make such outlandish and perverse decisions as these will not bring the wrath of God, they are the wrath of God! Truly as the Scriptures say, The wicked strut about on every sideAnd likewise, Righteousness exalts a nation,I have dear brothers and sisters in the UK, and I encourage you to pray for them with me as they face an ever more hostile culture--in a land where the monuments of the Christian faith remain etched in stone, a sobering reminder that God's blessings are not hereditary, and when a nation turns its back, even slowly and over time, upon God's truth, its decay and punishment is inevitable. Pray especially that those who faithfully labor in the proclamation of God's Word would find great delight in their studies, and would truly see that they have an audience of just one, their heavenly King. Pray that they will not become discouraged by the hard-heartedness of the culture. May God grant them courage, peace, and joy in Him!
King James Onlyism on YouTubePosted by Pros Apologian - February 8, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White I was sent a link to this gentleman's videos attacking me. It is a classic example of the mindset that exemplifies King James Onlyism. The description included such lines as, "James White, the master deciever and arrogant liar that he is has distorted much facts about the King James Bible and the history of the Bible as a whole." As soon as I posted this video, he removed the original and posted another. In it, he promised to read my book and document all the "holes" it has in it.I have since seen videos wherein he says I am a "liar, deceiver, an anti-Christ, and not a regenerate person." This is the kind of behavior KJV Onlyism produces in its followers not just once in a while, but regularly. Of course, I invite this gentleman--no, given his own words, I challenge him--to call the Dividing Line to make his case to me directly. I would very much like to see his zeal channeled into more productive areas.
Preparing to Visit an Islamic Presentation on The Dividing LinePosted by Pros Apologian - February 7, 2008 on 9:45 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White First three quarters of today's program involved talking to a brother from Florida about what kind of question he can ask of his Muslim friends at a presentation on the Qur'an as the "final revelation from God." I made reference to this video and played it during my response. I also mentioned the video below, which I had just posted on YouTube. Here's the program (free/high quality).
An Islamic Bible Quiz: Test Your FaithPosted by Pros Apologian - February 6, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White This is a response to this video.
Today on the Dividing LinePosted by Pros Apologian - February 5, 2008 on 11:50 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White Covered a range of items again today, starting off with a truly excellent Christopher Hitchens impression by yours truly (really, I mean it!), and some discussion of his hatred of God, followed by a call from Stephen up in Toronto about the Deedat videos and Dave Hunt's debate with Shabir Ally coming up. Then I reviewed Steve Ray's comments on Catholic Answers Live about the apostolic fathers. Here's the program (free/high quality).
The Canon According To AugustinePosted by Pros Apologian - February 5, 2008 on 2:13 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames Swan Gary Michuta's recent book is entitled, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger. Michuta and I have at least one thing in common in regard to the canon. He states, "Any bible-loving Christian will want to make such an examination [of the Deuterocanonical books], surely, rather than run the risk of spurning a set of books which may, in fact, contain God's own holy Word" (p.5). I can appreciate that Gary takes this issue with the seriousness it deserves. I'd like to challenge Mr. Michuta though on the consistency of his point about "spurning a set of books which may, in fact, contain God's own holy Word." That is, I'd like to see if Rome takes this issue with the same seriousness that Gary and I share.In his book, Michuta points out that Augustine accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture. Gary presents various examples from Augustine quoting the Apocryphal books as Scripture. Gary states, "Throughout Augustine's works, the disputed books are used as nothing less than inspired canonical Scripture indistinguishable from the other books of the Bible, save only that they are not accepted by the Jews. Augustine's positive viewpoint was later enshrined in the decrees of the councils of Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage I (AD 397) in which he participated" (Michuta, pp. 159-160). I don't doubt Gary's point about Augustine's influence on Hippo and Carthage. What is interesting, Michuta then refers to a section from Augustine's City of God as a counter-apologetic against any who would argue that Augustine rejected Maccabees as canonical. He quotes Augustine stating, "These are held as canonical, not by the Jews, but by the Church, on account of the extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs." I agree with Gary that this remark from Augustine does not "overturn the whole tenor of Augustine's work" (p.160). In context, Augustine does say the Church (not the Jews) accepted Maccabees. However, this particular section from Augustine argues for much more. In this same section, Augustine refers to the Apocryphal book of 1 Esdras (or 3 Esdras): About Esdras and the Books of the Maccabees. NPNF1 footnotes the citation of Esdras as "Esdras iii.and iv." Following the methodology put forth by Michuta, Augustine does seem to be using Esdras as canonical Scripture. Augustine includes Esdras with Esther and Maccabees, and even asserts Esdras can possibly be prophesying about Christ. The "Esdras" being referred to is not currently contained in Roman Catholic Bibles among the canonical books. I point this out, because it serves as proof that if, as Michuta holds, Hippo and Carthage followed Augustine, here we have an indication that Augustine accepted the spurious book of 1 Esdras (or 3 Esdras), and therefore these councils did as well. Michuta though later states, "Many things are questionable about Esdras. The Council of Carthage may have included Esdras on its list. We don't know for certain" (p.240). On page 160, Michuta states Carthage followed Augustine's view. On page 240, we don't know if they did or not. Michuta is in this awkward position because of Trent. If Trent rejected this book, then the earlier councils were in error. Or, perhaps the earlier council was right, and Trent is in error. Gary though argues that Trent did not reject or affirm the canonicity of 1 Esdras (or 3 Esdras). This solution still fails to explain why a book that was Scripture according to Augustine (and probably Hippo and Carthage), was not able to be deemed such (one way or the other) later by Trent. Why wouldn't Trent be worried they were spurning a book which may, in fact, contain God's own holy Word? Gary points out that Esdras was "passed over in silence" by majority vote at Trent (p.240). He notes three voted against it, eight didn't vote, and forty two voted to pass over it. I find this method of determining truth quite suspect. The very words of God were decided upon by men who could not decide, or chose not to! But this is the Roman Catholic paradigm: truth is determined by voting. Why is this method God's method? Because Rome has decided it is so. Search your Bibles for rules on voting to determine truth. Even if one tries to stretch the Jerusalem Council to work by Rome's rules, Acts 15:25 states, "So we all agreed" in regard to the messengers and letter content sent to Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. If Trent were being led by the same Holy Spirit that led the Jerusalem Council, why couldn't Trent determine the status of Esdras? Michuta states, "Those who claim then, that Trent 'rejected' Esdras are mistaken. It did not. In fact, any rejection or affirmation was purposefully withheld" (p. 241). The question for Gary Michuta is, why? For what purpose? We've recently given Catholic apologist Gary Michuta a lot to contend with. Dr. White has put together a series of video responses to Mr. Michuta's recent video. I've done a lengthy article on Michuta's presentation of Luther's denial of the Apocrypha. My friend Carrie has been doing some excellent work on the Council of Trent, particularly the canon vote, and Michuta's understanding of it. I don't know the status of any responses Mr. Michuta may provide. Gary can add this entry to his list, as well as the implications of his view I noted months ago here.
Christopher Hitchens: Proving Romans 1 True with an English AccentPosted by Pros Apologian - February 5, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White
Dave Hunt and What Love is This? on YouTube #2Posted by Pros Apologian - February 4, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White
Who is That Skinny Guy with the Big Glasses?Posted by Pros Apologian - February 3, 2008 on 11:23 pm | In aomin.org | Comments Off James White 1994, Austin Texas. Riding more than 5,000 miles a year on a road bike. Still had just enough hair to try to do a flat-top. Couldn't get a word in edge-wise with Larry for the first five minutes of the show! Here is a nearly hour long video on the deity of Christ recorded nearly a decade and a half ago. We noted that I had just finished writing The King James Only Controversy at this point, and I do look pretty much like I did in the John Ankerberg series we did in 1995. Thanks for posting this, Larry!
Ahmed Deedat on the Deity of Christ: Rebuttal #2Posted by Pros Apologian - February 3, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White
Friday Evening MiscellaneousPosted by Pros Apologian - February 1, 2008 on 9:47 pm | In aomin.org | Comments Off James White A pastor friend of mine up in Scotland took this shot. Makes me want to get back to Scotland, that's for sure. Just gorgeous. Of course, right now, this spot is probably blanketed under snow. Might be a bit less inviting!
I'm working on getting two more vlogs put together this afternoon, one of which continues the refutation of Ray/Michuta. The other is derived from an Islamic video I ran across on YouTube that is most interesting.
In light of the Steve Gregg situation yesterday, I remembered that Carla had designed a Radio Free Geneva shirt, here. I may well make the debate series we do (we are looking at early April, five days in a row) part of the Radio Free Geneva series.
The Abuse of Ignatius of Antioch by Roman Catholic Apologist Steve Ray (#2)Posted by Pros Apologian - February 1, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White I continue with my examination of Steve Ray's claims concerning Ignatius of Antioch (second in a series).
One of the Most…Unusual Dividing Lines of All TimePosted by Pros Apologian - January 31, 2008 on 8:19 pm | In aomin.org | Comments Off James White Well, I thought I would spend some time talking about the Gregg debate, but as soon as the intro music finished, I looked at my little tablet pc, which has our phone system software running on it, and who is the first caller, but Nadir Ahmed. And the attached description of the call is about why he won't be doing our debate. And it just got stranger from there! Nearly 40 minutes with Nadir covering...well, you just sorta have to listen. Then the next call was on Mormonism, and then a call back on Islam! I'm tired just thinking about it! You won't fall asleep during this one, to be sure! Here's the program (free/high quality). Now, by the way. Nadir said it is a "lie" that there are any textual variants in the ancient manuscripts of the Qur'an. I do not have time to go into depth at this point in time, but I did want to provide the following scan of just a single page from Die dunklen Anfänge, a primarily German work edited by Karl-Heinz Ohlig and Gerd-R Puin (Schiler, 2005). Here we have a discussion of textual variants found in Surah 2:222 in the Fogg's palimpsest. Briefly, the page not only shows a graphic showing the scriptio inferior and scriptio superior (palimpsests are manuscripts where the original has been wiped off and a new work written on top of it; they are often read by use of ultraviolet light); it gives the readings, showing how the original version of this text differed from the later standardized (i.e., called the "Uthmanic") text. Note as well that the original reading of this manuscript tended to agree with the readings of Ibn Mas'ud over against the later standardized text. The point is, here is documentation of textual variation in an early manuscript of the Qur'an, something Nadir Ahmed called "a lie" on the program today.
Steve Gregg/Calvinism Debate in California CanceledPosted by Pros Apologian - January 31, 2008 on 5:52 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White I have canceled the proposed debate in California with Steve Gregg on Calvinism. We will do a series of programs instead. Here is a discussion of the developments that led to this decision. And, I noted this response to Gregg in my comments.
A Textual Discussion from our Chat ChannelPosted by Pros Apologian - January 31, 2008 on 2:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White Here is a pdf of the discussion in channel.
Appearance on apologetics.com RadioPosted by Pros Apologian - January 30, 2008 on 5:05 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White This coming Friday night/Saturday morning I will be the guest on the apologetics.com radio program on KKLA with Lindsay Brooks. My daughter, Summer, joined us for the first half hour to talk about her experience last semester with Dr. Carter. Then we pretty well wandered about the apologetic landscape! We pre-recorded the program since...it airs between midnight and 2am! Maybe twenty years ago, but now, I do not guarantee my orthodoxy past 11pm at night. Anyway, as I mentioned the program airs at midnight, and then it will be available on the web at www.apologetics.com.
Appearance on apologetics.com RadioPosted by Pros Apologian - January 30, 2008 on 5:05 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White This coming Friday night/Saturday morning I will be the guest on the apologetics.com radio program on KKLA with Lindsay Brooks. My daughter, Summer, joined us for the first half hour to talk about her experience last semester with Dr. Carter. Then we pretty well wandered about the apologetic landscape! We pre-recorded the program since...it airs between midnight and 2am! Maybe twenty years ago, but now, I do not guarantee my orthodoxy past 11pm at night. Anyway, as I mentioned the program airs at midnight, and then it will be available on the web at www.apologetics.com.
It Is Good to ListenPosted by Pros Apologian - January 30, 2008 on 2:10 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White Here is an article from muslimmatters.org that is worth reading. It deals with the Ahl al-Kitab, (أهل الكتاب), "the People of the Book," which in the Qur'an, depending on context, is a reference to Christians, Jews, or Christians and Jews. I.e., monotheists who possess the Scriptures that Allah sent down before the Qur'an. It is good to listen to the Muslims as they speak amongst themselves. You learn more than when you only concentrate upon what they say to those outside their community. Note the conclusion of the paper:The Ultimatum 33 Ma’idah:65 34 A’raaf:157 35 Bayyinah:6 36 Nisaa:131
Making Up Catholic AnswersPosted by Pros Apologian - January 30, 2008 on 2:00 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames Swan After listening to countless hours of Catholic Answers Live, I've noticed many on the questions can often be difficult, odd, unanswerable, or simply confusing. For instance, a caller recently asked Patrick Madrid something like, what happens to guardian angels after those they are "guarding" die? Do they get reassigned to a new a person, or do they retire? I admit, I'd never thought about this question. Patrick was busy thumbing through the Summa Theologiae searching for the answer, and quickly came up with his own speculative answer on the spot. You won't find that answer in the Bible, that's for sure, but to come up with any sort of answer did impress me.The next question was about Mary. Did Mary know she was sinless? If you're like me, you do a quick scan of the Bible in your head and think, "there's no possible way Madrid can get this answer from the Bible." But lo and behold, Madrid attempted a Biblical answer. I've included Madrid's answer to hear: And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me? holy is his name. His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation. He has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. He has helped his servant Israel, remembering to be merciful to Abraham and his descendants forever, even as he said to our fathers." Madrid mines from this text, "Mary needed a savior obviously." In his Pocket Guide To Catholic Apologetics, Madrid says, "Mary's sinlessness did not mean that she did not need a savior; she herself proclaimed Him to be such. Christ indeed saved Mary from sin- from all sin- but he did this for her prior to her contracting sin. We, on the other hand, are saved after we fall into it" (p.30). One thing should be most obvious: nowhere in Luke 1 does it state Mary lived her life sinless, nor can the act of being saved prior to sin be exegeted from the text. In fact, Madrid's interpretation is in direct contradiction to Romans 3:10-18, as well as countless other Scriptures that clearly teach the universal scope of sin on all of mankind. Even Madrid's Pocket Guide references Romans 5:12-19 and Ephesians 2:1-3 when speaking of original sin. Following in the same manner, Madrid states, "She knew that God saved her from sin in a particular way." She knew? Based on what? Not this text, that's for sure.The caller then asks the same question to Madrid that I would have: Could you not take Mary's statements as just pertaining to Mary being pregnant with Jesus? Madrid answers, "There's nothing wrong with interpreting it that way." Considering the fact that Mary's song is filled with familiar expressions from the Psalms and other parts of the Old Testament, and considering that the thrust of the entire Old Testament was about Jesus, the caller makes a very accurate observation. The emphasis of Mary's song is on the Messiah, and God's mighty acts of sovereignty and providence over all mankind. By allowing for this interpretation, though espousing one completely different, Madrid demonstrates something I find often in Catholic apologetics: affirm everything to cover all bases. Further speculating on Luke 1, Madrid states, "To some extent, maybe not to a great extent even, Mary understood that God had given her a special grace, a special favor," and, "Mary had some inkling she had a special gift of sinlessness." "To what extent she knew it, how technically she was able to comprehend the details of it, I don't know, and Scripture, and Scripture doesn't tell us. That would be my guess."Guess indeed. Here Madrid argues that Mary may have only had a strong hunch on her sinlessness. Obviously, a person this side of eternity can only know their lives up to the point lived. Dr. White has made an excellent point in his book on Mary pertaining to this: "Mary speaks of God as her savior. Are we really to imagine that she said these words with an understanding of a dogma that would not be defined for another 1,800 or more years? She would have had to have had a personal understanding of her own experiential sinlessness and the preemptive application of the merits of Christ to her in order to say these words in the way Roman Catholic theologians would have us understand them. Given that it is obvious that she did not fully understand the work of her Son at the Cross, how could she possibly view herself in such light?" [Mary: Another Redeemer? Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998), pp. 151-152]. Madrid then argues that any rational person could figure out that something unusual and different had been given to Mary. Yes indeed, something unusual did happen to Mary, and that is explained in Luke 1:35-37, but it is going beyond the text to state that Mary was given the gift of sinlessness, as if God almighty couldn't bring forth a holy, righteous savior from fallen humanity apart from making her sinless. The host of Catholic Answers attempted to help Patrick out by referring to the angel's greeting, "Hail, full of Grace" and uses this to infer Mary must have realized she wasn't committing sin. But as Eric Svendsen has pointed out, "Modern scholarship has dismissed the translation 'full of grace' as a nonviable rendition" of the Greek term used. Svendsen notes even Catholic sources are avoiding this translation: "Even a Catholic source such as Zerwick avoids the translation 'full of grace,' opting instead for the less theologically loaded praises 'endowed with grace; dearly loved.' The MNT task force translates it as 'graciously favored by God,' while noting that the Douay Rheims translation, 'full of grace,' is not literal and is gradually being replaced among Roman Catholic translators. The most recent standard Catholic translations the NAB and the JB, have followed suit in their renditions (NAB, 'O highly favored daughter'; JB, 'So highly favored') [Eric Svendsen, Who Is My Mother? (New York: Calvary Press, 2001) p. 129]. Madrid's last comment is the most revealing. He states to the host, "I suspect that if you and I could sit here for a couple of hours we could come up with additional ways of looking at this that would make sense according to Scripture." I believe that these men actually could do just that. How ironic that one of the typical charges made against Protestants is that of Biblical interpretive anarchy: that those without an infallible interpreter come up with all sorts of interpretations of the Bible. Here is a fine example of just that, speculation on a Biblical passage while reading one's theology into it. If anyone is guilty of misusing a text, it is Madrid's interpretation of Luke 1. To see Madrid's speculative Biblical exegesis on Mary in action, take a look at this article from Dr. White, A Biblical Basis for the "Immaculate Conception"? (A Review and Rebuttal of Patrick Madrid's Article "Ark of the New Covenant" in "This Rock" magazine, December 1991). Madrid puts forth things like, "Mary's Immaculate Conception is foreshadowed in Genesis 1, where God creates the universe in an immaculate state, free from any blemish or stain or sin or imperfection." For the last few months, I've regularly listened to the Catholic Answers broadcast. I do this, because in order to really understand a different Gospel, particularly one I'm responding to, I find it helpful to actually read the materials they write, and listen to the shows they produce. To hear these people present Roman Catholicism from their own perspective is a revealing reminder that theology is not simply theoretical. The guests and hosts of Catholic Answers are deeply committed to their beliefs. They have a goal of bringing people into their church, and vigorously and unabashedly promote their beliefs. One cannot accuse me of simply being cheered on by those that oppose Rome without actually checking out their materials. I don't expect everyone do this, nor do I recommend it. At times, it can be very draining and depressing. There have been times, after listening to 3 or 4 hours of Catholic Answers, I long for the clarity and wisdom of the sacred Scriptures. I long to hear the depth and richness of the actual Gospel of Jesus Christ, that by faith in Him alone can I ever have peace with God. After listening to Roman Catholic apologists speculate on Mary, guardian angels, discuss what is, or is not a mortal sin or a venial sin, and what to do to be restored to right standing with God, I'm overwhelmed by the clarity and beauty of the Bible. In fact, after listening to Catholic Answers, I have an even greater appreciation for sola scriptura.
Making Up Catholic AnswersPosted by Pros Apologian - January 30, 2008 on 2:00 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames Swan After listening to countless hours of Catholic Answers Live, I've noticed many on the questions can often be difficult, odd, unanswerable, or simply confusing. For instance, a caller recently asked Patrick Madrid something like, what happens to guardian angels after those they are "guarding" die? Do they get reassigned to a new a person, or do they retire? I admit, I'd never thought about this question. Patrick was busy thumbing through the Summa Theologiae searching for the answer, and quickly came up with his own speculative answer on the spot. You won't find that answer in the Bible, that's for sure, but to come up with any sort of answer did impress me.The next question was about Mary. Did Mary know she was sinless? If you're like me, you do a quick scan of the Bible in your head and think, "there's no possible way Madrid can get this answer from the Bible." But lo and behold, Madrid attempted a Biblical answer. I've included Madrid's answer to hear: And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me? holy is his name. His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation. He has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. He has helped his servant Israel, remembering to be merciful to Abraham and his descendants forever, even as he said to our fathers." Madrid mines from this text, "Mary needed a savior obviously." In his Pocket Guide To Catholic Apologetics, Madrid says, "Mary's sinlessness did not mean that she did not need a savior; she herself proclaimed Him to be such. Christ indeed saved Mary from sin- from all sin- but he did this for her prior to her contracting sin. We, on the other hand, are saved after we fall into it" (p.30). One thing should be most obvious: nowhere in Luke 1 does it state Mary lived her life sinless, nor can the act of being saved prior to sin be exegeted from the text. In fact, Madrid's interpretation is in direct contradiction to Romans 3:10-18, as well as countless other Scriptures that clearly teach the universal scope of sin on all of mankind. Even Madrid's Pocket Guide references Romans 5:12-19 and Ephesians 2:1-3 when speaking of original sin. Following in the same manner, Madrid states, "She knew that God saved her from sin in a particular way." She knew? Based on what? Not this text, that's for sure.The caller then asks the same question to Madrid that I would have: Could you not take Mary's statements as just pertaining to Mary being pregnant with Jesus? Madrid answers, "There's nothing wrong with interpreting it that way." Considering the fact that Mary's song is filled with familiar expressions from the Psalms and other parts of the Old Testament, and considering that the thrust of the entire Old Testament was about Jesus, the caller makes a very accurate observation. The emphasis of Mary's song is on the Messiah, and God's mighty acts of sovereignty and providence over all mankind. By allowing for this interpretation, though espousing one completely different, Madrid demonstrates something I find often in Catholic apologetics: affirm everything to cover all bases. Further speculating on Luke 1, Madrid states, "To some extent, maybe not to a great extent even, Mary understood that God had given her a special grace, a special favor," and, "Mary had some inkling she had a special gift of sinlessness." "To what extent she knew it, how technically she was able to comprehend the details of it, I don't know, and Scripture, and Scripture doesn't tell us. That would be my guess."Guess indeed. Here Madrid argues that Mary may have only had a strong hunch on her sinlessness. Obviously, a person this side of eternity can only know their lives up to the point lived. Dr. White has made an excellent point in his book on Mary pertaining to this: "Mary speaks of God as her savior. Are we really to imagine that she said these words with an understanding of a dogma that would not be defined for another 1,800 or more years? She would have had to have had a personal understanding of her own experiential sinlessness and the preemptive application of the merits of Christ to her in order to say these words in the way Roman Catholic theologians would have us understand them. Given that it is obvious that she did not fully understand the work of her Son at the Cross, how could she possibly view herself in such light?" [Mary: Another Redeemer? Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998), pp. 151-152]. Madrid then argues that any rational person could figure out that something unusual and different had been given to Mary. Yes indeed, something unusual did happen to Mary, and that is explained in Luke 1:35-37, but it is going beyond the text to state that Mary was given the gift of sinlessness, as if God almighty couldn't bring forth a holy, righteous savior from fallen humanity apart from making her sinless. The host of Catholic Answers attempted to help Patrick out by referring to the angel's greeting, "Hail, full of Grace" and uses this to infer Mary must have realized she wasn't committing sin. But as Eric Svendsen has pointed out, "Modern scholarship has dismissed the translation 'full of grace' as a nonviable rendition" of the Greek term used. Svendsen notes even Catholic sources are avoiding this translation: "Even a Catholic source such as Zerwick avoids the translation 'full of grace,' opting instead for the less theologically loaded praises 'endowed with grace; dearly loved.' The MNT task force translates it as 'graciously favored by God,' while noting that the Douay Rheims translation, 'full of grace,' is not literal and is gradually being replaced among Roman Catholic translators. The most recent standard Catholic translations the NAB and the JB, have followed suit in their renditions (NAB, 'O highly favored daughter'; JB, 'So highly favored') [Eric Svendsen, Who Is My Mother? (New York: Calvary Press, 2001) p. 129]. Madrid's last comment is the most revealing. He states to the host, "I suspect that if you and I could sit here for a couple of hours we could come up with additional ways of looking at this that would make sense according to Scripture." I believe that these men actually could do just that. How ironic that one of the typical charges made against Protestants is that of Biblical interpretive anarchy: that those without an infallible interpreter come up with all sorts of interpretations of the Bible. Here is a fine example of just that, speculation on a Biblical passage while reading one's theology into it. If anyone is guilty of misusing a text, it is Madrid's interpretation of Luke 1. To see Madrid's speculative Biblical exegesis on Mary in action, take a look at this article from Dr. White, A Biblical Basis for the "Immaculate Conception"? (A Review and Rebuttal of Patrick Madrid's Article "Ark of the New Covenant" in "This Rock" magazine, December 1991). Madrid puts forth things like, "Mary's Immaculate Conception is foreshadowed in Genesis 1, where God creates the universe in an immaculate state, free from any blemish or stain or sin or imperfection." For the last few months, I've regularly listened to the Catholic Answers broadcast. I do this, because in order to really understand a different Gospel, particularly one I'm responding to, I find it helpful to actually read the materials they write, and listen to the shows they produce. To hear these people present Roman Catholicism from their own perspective is a revealing reminder that theology is not simply theoretical. The guests and hosts of Catholic Answers are deeply committed to their beliefs. They have a goal of bringing people into their church, and vigorously and unabashedly promote their beliefs. One cannot accuse me of simply being cheered on by those that oppose Rome without actually checking out their materials. I don't expect everyone do this, nor do I recommend it. At times, it can be very draining and depressing. There have been times, after listening to 3 or 4 hours of Catholic Answers, I long for the clarity and wisdom of the sacred Scriptures. I long to hear the depth and richness of the actual Gospel of Jesus Christ, that by faith in Him alone can I ever have peace with God. After listening to Roman Catholic apologists speculate on Mary, guardian angels, discuss what is, or is not a mortal sin or a venial sin, and what to do to be restored to right standing with God, I'm overwhelmed by the clarity and beauty of the Bible. In fact, after listening to Catholic Answers, I have an even greater appreciation for sola scriptura.
The Talpiot Tomb and the Princeton Seminary SymposiumPosted by Pros Apologian - January 30, 2008 on 3:02 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffColin Smith On January 13-17 this year, Princeton Theological Seminary held a symposium on "Jewish Views of the Afterlife and Burial Practices in Second Temple Judaism." The subtitle to the symposium was: "Evaluating the Talpiot Tomb in Context." The list of participants included James Charlesworth and Geza Vermes. I daresay most of you are saying "umm... who?" These are not Evangelical scholars by any stretch of the imagination, which is what makes the findings of the symposium all the more interesting in light of the media hoopla over this topic. I will link to the full report below, but here's a taste:"A firestorm has broken out in Jerusalem following the conclusion of the [Symposium]. Most negative assessments of archaeologists and other scientists and scholars who attended have been excluded from the final press reports. Instead the media have presented the views of Simcha Jacobovici, who produced the controversial film and book The Lost Tomb of Jesus with Hollywood director James Cameron, and who claims that his identification has been vindicated by the conference papers. Nothing further from the truth can be deduced from the discussion and presentations that took place on January 13-17, 2008."Read the full report for yourself. May it be of use to you as you encounter those who take the drivel of Jacobovici as fact.
Steve Ray and the Protevangelium of JamesPosted by Pros Apologian - January 30, 2008 on 3:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White A caller asked Steve Ray about the Protevangelium of James, one of the early "infancy gospels" from the end of the second century that became the basis for later Marian dogmas (such as the concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary). Here's a review of his comments.
The Big Announcement on the Dividing Line today!Posted by Pros Apologian - January 29, 2008 on 4:50 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White After making the announcement of the Ehrman debate and conference in January of 09, the calls started. So the first half hour is pretty much about the upcoming debate, conference, and cruise, with special guest Mike O'Fallon, and the second half our callers drove the agenda...all over the road! Here's the program (free/high quality).
January 21, 2009, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida: Can the New Testament Be Inspired in Light of Textual Variation? James White vs. Bart EhrmanPosted by Pros Apologian - January 29, 2008 on 1:05 pm | In aomin.org | Comments Off James White There is probably no more pressing apologetic concern than the constant attacks upon the veracity and integrity of the text of Scripture. And no one is more central in the current attacks upon the New Testament than the chair of the department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, author of The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture and the NY Times Best-Seller, Misquoting Jesus, Dr. Bart Ehrman. Dr. Ehrman has been moving more and more into full and open opposition to the Christian faith, and his next book, due out mid February, makes this clear. It is titled, God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer. Clearly Ehrman is moving beyond his field of study (textual criticism) with a title such as this.
On the Dividing Line today I played clips from Christopher Hitchens, author of God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, singing the uncritical praises of Ehrman's work as the final word on the scholarly front, followed by citations from Islamic sources who likewise use Ehrman as their chief modern resource for attacking the Christian Scriptures. As a result, there is simply no greater addition we can make to the cause of Christ in apologetics than to debate Bart Ehrman as a part of our 2009 National Conference. We will be joining other ministries in presenting the topic, "God's Faithful Word in an Unbelieving Word."
First and foremost, pray that God will be pleased to bless the debate, all the preparations, and most importantly, the result, to the edification of His people, all to His glory and honor. Pray for the ministries involved, and most of all, plan on being with us for the debate, our conference, and the cruise to the Eastern Carribbean. The debate is January 21st in Ft. Lauderdale (details at the links above), the conference and cruise is the 22nd through the 29th. Make plans to be with us now at this important event!
Ladies and Gentlemen, Children of All Ages…and wonky Too! It is TIME for the BIG ANNOUNCEMENT!Posted by Pros Apologian - January 29, 2008 on 11:55 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White  Well, after many false starts and lots of hurdles, in just over an hour I will be making the "Big Announcement" on the Dividing Line! Make sure to be listening! These folks will be! (Possible Arabic Translation: We Are So Excited About the Big Announcement!)
Athanasius’s 39th Festal Letter: Not Altogether Accurate?Posted by Pros Apologian - January 28, 2008 on 3:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White This is the third in my series of refutations of Gary Michuta's failed attempt to defend Steve Ray's comments on Catholic Answers Live. Enjoy!
Collection of Critiques on Steve GreggPosted by Pros Apologian - January 27, 2008 on 3:02 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffAlan Kurschner Steve Gregg's rhetoric and repetitive avoidance with engaging meaningful Biblical discussion must be contrasted with the following critiques that Dr. White provided last year on the Dividing Line.I have placed here a collection of all the Dividing Line Radio shows with James White responding to Steve Gregg's claims and interpretations. If you know anyone who follows Gregg's teachings, send them this link so they can be provided these thorough responses. 1. Introduction to Gregg's synergism; and John 6. Here. 2. Gregg's ignorance of standard Reformed literature; his misrepresentations of the Reformed understanding of God's nature, God's love, justice, and the topic of assurance. Here. 3. His errors of Greek grammar; his misrepresentations on predestination; 1Peter 2:8; Acts 13:48. Here. 4. Full discussion on Acts 13:48 and responding to Gregg's errant interpretation of this text. Here. 5. Exposition on Romans 9. Here. 6. Part 1 - Critique of his interpretation on Romans 9. Here. 7. Part 2 - Critique of his interpretation on Romans 9. Here.
Dave Hunt and What Love is This? on YouTubePosted by Pros Apologian - January 27, 2008 on 3:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White
Debate Set: Sunday Night, March 30th, Twin Lakes Church, Aptos, CaliforniaPosted by Pros Apologian - January 25, 2008 on 8:14 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White For those who recall the series I did last summer responding to the lectures of Steve Gregg against Calvinism, a debate is scheduled for Sunday night, March 30th at Twin Lakes Church in Aptos, California.In preparation Mr. Gregg has indicated that his views have evolved, I guess would be the term, since he recorded the programs I responded to. So in downloading the literally hundreds of pages of web board posts that represent his current position, I found these comments: I have been reading, for the past few days, the debate between Dr. White and Dave Hunt. I confess that it has been vexing, as both men seem too interested in attacking each other personally than in sticking strictly to the issues. Mr. Hunt, in my opinion, stuck more with the issues and answered James's points more consistently than James did with Mr. Hunt's points.Elsewhere, I found Mr. Gregg referring to my "raving" out how "exegetical" Calvinism is, with these thoughts: Then I realized that Dr. White holds to a rather narrow definition of the word exegesis. When I use the term, I am speaking of rendering an explanation of a text, based upon:Those who have read my work to any depth at all well know how far off Gregg's views are. I cannot offer any explanation for what would cause such a complete misreading of my materials. At the end of this particular post, wherein Mr. Gregg demonstrates that he has yet to have the slightest idea who I am, what I believe, what I teach, etc., he quotes from Matthew 11, "I thank you, Father...that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them unto babes!"The irony is he doesn't read the text in its context: Matthew 11:25-27 5 ¶ At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. 26 "Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. 27 "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.In the context, Jesus is rejoicing in God's judgment, and in that context affirms that this is in accordance with the Father's will. Then we have the direct statement that to know the Father, the Son must will to reveal Him to you. There is an exclusivity in the Son's revelation of the Father, and it is one based upon the Son's will, not upon man's! If one wishes to say that it is the Son's will to reveal the Father to all indiscriminately, then why put these words in the context of judgment? No, these words are directly parallel to those in John that emphasize so clearly the divine right of self-revelation to those given by the Father to the Son. All I can say is it is going to be an interesting debate.
The Abuse of Ignatius of Antioch by Roman Catholic Apologist Steve RayPosted by Pros Apologian - January 25, 2008 on 3:01 am | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White Four years ago I addressed the abuse of the words of Ignatius of Antioch by Roman Catholic apologists, at that time quoting from an article by Tim Staples as my example. I then took the time to work through the text of Ignatius' epistle to the Smyrneans, demonstrating that a fair and contextual reading does not support the abuse of his words by modern Rome. As Steve Ray repeated this abuse on Catholic Answers Live recently, I have begun a series of video blogs documenting this, using the audio from the DL of 2004, combined with the text of Ignatius. Here is the first in the series. If you wish to have extra documentation, I had provided these links to the English and Greek texts even back in 2004.
Today on The Dividing LinePosted by Pros Apologian - January 24, 2008 on 9:02 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White Almost felt like a new season of Dividing Lines with our new website! Had callers the first half hour, including Colonel Leino USMC calling from Okinawa! Then I addressed the Steve Ray/Gary Michuta saga. I mentioned that you might just want to be keeping an eye on the blog over the weekend and on Monday. Who knows that important information might be posted! Here's the program (free/high quality).
John Piper Responds to “A Common Word”Posted by Pros Apologian - January 24, 2008 on 4:08 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White I was sent a link to John Piper's video response to the controversy over "A Common Word." I am providing it here. I would go beyond Dr. Piper and say that I am not simply profoundly disappointed in the "Christian" response: I found the reply, titled "Loving God and Neighbor Together," a sad example of Christian dhimmitude. Dhimmitude is the status of monotheists (Jews and Christians, in the main) under Islamic rule. Islam severely restricts the freedoms of dhimmi peoples under their rule, prohibiting proselytization, for example, or even singing hymns too loudly. It is an attitude that is inherent in Islamic theology, and it flows from the notion that Muhammad is the final prophet, the seal of the prophets, and that sharia must be established all across the world, creating a universal Dar al Islam. I see "Loving God and Neighbor Together" speaking in dhimmi fashion for a simple reason: Islam comes after the Christian faith; Islam claims to be consistent with the teachings of the prophets, and it even claims to lead people to love Jesus Christ. Yet, it is Islam that denies that Jesus is the Son of God; Islam denies the cross of Calvary, and the resurrection; hence it denies propitiation, the gospel, and the entire heart of the Christian faith. In fact, Islam cannot define itself without doing so through the negation of Christian beliefs. I offer two citations from the Qur'an in support of my assertion:حسورة الإخلاص - سورة ١١٢ سورة المائدة - سورة ٥ Surah 112:3 is clearly a denial of the Christian doctrine of Christ as the Son of God (though, I would argue, the Qur'an does not understand the Christian doctrine it denies, to be sure); and Surah 5:17 identifies as blasphemy (كَفَرَ, kafara) a belief in the deity of Christ (though, again, the Qur'an is in error in its understanding of the doctrines it denies). We must remember that Muslims believe Jesus was a Muslim: that he prayed like a Muslim, dressed like a Muslim, and most importantly, taught little more than this: "Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord" (Surah 5:117). Tremendous biblical truths, such as the words of our Lord in Matthew 11:27, "All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him," are directly denied (though, again, probably without direct knowledge on the part of Muhammad, who simply did not have direct access to the Christian Scriptures) by the words of the Qur'an, attributed to Jesus, "Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine" (5:116). So why do I identify an attitude of dhimmitude on the part of the respondents? They did not provide a uniquely Christian response. Surely, they must know the issues that separate us (though, I confess, looking at some of the names attached, that may not be the case); so why pretend we can talk about the love of God when Christians believe the love of God is revealed first and foremost in Jesus Christ, Emmanuel, God with us, and shown in the cross of Christ, which is denied directly by Islam (Surah 4:157)? The battle is already over when, as a Christian, you start anywhere other than the central epistemological claim of our faith: 13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,Contrast this with the plain words of the Qur'an, "O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of Allah...." So by seeking some kind of common ground outside of the definitional parameters of the Christian faith "Loving God and Neighbor Together" has abandoned the only message we have to proclaim to the Muslim people! This is why it has been opposed by all those I know who know Islam and see the bold proclamation of Jesus Christ and Him crucified as the greatest means of loving the Muslim people.
Welcome to the NEW aomin.org!Posted by Pros Apologian - January 24, 2008 on 2:29 pm | In aomin.org | Comments OffJames White Three years in the making! Yes indeed, we knew we needed to upgrade our site a long time ago. So what took so long? Simple. We make a penny scream before we let it go, so we did not go out and buy a pre-made template. Besides, we have skilled volunteers. But, of course, our volunteers are just that: and as you all know, if you want something done, you find the busiest people to do it. But...it's done!Now, you will see, of course, that it will take time to migrate the older articles to the new format. One of the reasons it took some time to do the new design is due to the sheer size of our site. We've been doing this for over a decade now, and stuff piles up on a website! So you will find some links going back to the old site for now, but we are working diligently to get everything up to speed. Of course, now that this new format is operational, future changes will be a lot easier, thankfully. It was the first "get caught up to modern technology" move that took so long. For those who don't know, the format we had first appeared in 2000. So old, it had become retro! So we hope you will find our new website easy to use and helpful. I sure like the way it looks! I would like to extend my thanks to (using their IRC nicks) AOMin, Shamgar, Micah, ENielsen, Spidey and buzz for all their hard work for a very long and extended time period. Enjoy!
« Previous Page — Next Page » |
|
© 2007 Learntheology.com © For Content Belongs To The Respective Authors. Quality Web Design |