Vox Apologia VII Welcome

February 22nd, 2005 | 07:06 PM |by Ed "What the" Heckman

Welcome to Vox Apologia VII!

This week’s topic is “Evolution vs. Creation: So What?”

No other field of scientific debate generates more conflict than that of evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design. In one recent debate, I was asked if this question really matters. What is your answer? Is the debate between evolution and creationism truly important? If so, why?

To submit your entry, send an email to:

Please include the following information:

  • The name of your post
  • The URL of your post
  • Your blog’s name
  • Your blog’s URL
  • Your name optional
  • A summary of your post optional (If you don’t include a summary, I will have to write one.)

Please have your entry in by Midnight, February 27th.

Update: Here is a link to the Vox Apologia FAQ.

Note: This post will remain at the top of The Greatest Pursuits until the entries are posted. Scroll down for my current posts.

Starting Lines — Feb 22, 2005

February 22nd, 2005 | 04:36 PM |by Ed "What the" Heckman

Vox Apologia VI: Biotechnology

Every Though Captive has posted the results of the latest Vox Apologia. This week’s topic is on biotechnology. I must admit that I expected a wide variety of posts ranging from bioethics to how biotech confirms the creation account. Even though the official “deadline” has passed, Phil might still be willing to add links to relevant posts if you have one.

Screwtape Speaks Again

Joshua at RazorsKiss borrows the character of Screwtape from C. S. Lewis to write this excellent scathing response to a “good is evil/evil is good” comment posted on the evangelical outpost. In “The Screwtape Letters” by C. S. Lewis, the character of Screwtape is a demon who writes letters to his nephew Wormwood on the art and techniques of deceiving humans to separate them from God. Joshua has done an excellent job of using the style. But I think his best work related to the post appears in the comments where he responds to mumon:

If you think that subjectivism is “true” Christianity - you are gravely, gravely, mistaken. Christianity is dyed-in-the-wool objectivism - which believes in absolute, proposition truth as given by the Triune God through the Word of God, the Bible. Any deviation from that Word is error.
So, please tell me where I’m “straying” from historical, biblical, foundational, fundamental Christianity?

By denying and denigrating the subjective, they deny and denigrate the very authority - theirs- to accept the premise of Christianity.

No, by denying and denigrating any breath of subjectivism within the Church, we defend and support what the Bible says is the only Truth. There is no subjective moral truth. All moral Truth is given from God, and there is no other.

(The original comment by DarkSyd is located here.)

Is The TNIV Good News?

Mark D. Roberts takes a look at the controversy generated by the new TNIV translation in a six part series. Along the way, he discusses the difficulties of doing a good translation. His explanation about translating makes the series a worthwhile read even if the TNIV controversy doesn’t interest you.

The History Of The English Bible

Bible.org has an excellent 4 part series on the history of English translations of the Bible.

I found the following quote from the last paragraph to be particularly ironic given the Screwtape post mentioned above:

The enemy of the gospel now is not religious hierarchy but moral anarchy, not tradition but entertainment. The enemy of the gospel is Protestantism run amock; it is an anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge, feel-good faith that has no content and no convictions. Part of the communal repentance that is needed is a repentance about the text. And even more importantly, there must be a repentance with regard to Christ our Lord. Just as the Bible has been marginalized, Jesus Christ has been ‘buddy-ized.’ His transcendence and majesty are only winked at, as we turn him into the genie in the bottle, beseeching God for more conveniences, more luxury, less hassle, and a life without worries or lack of comfort. He no longer wears the face that the apostles recognized.

More Defense of Intelligent Design

Witt continues his excellent explanations of Intelligent Design in response to John Derbyshire over at Evolution News & Views with “Darwin, Derbyshire and the Dogma of the Gaps” and “Derbyshire VI: Behe’s Bacterial Flagellum—Still Stirring Up Trouble for Darwin’s Defenders”.

Joe Carter Has A New Job

Joe Carter of the evangelical outpost has taken on a new job for The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity. Very cool!

Examining The Qur’an

Weapons Of Warfare has started a series analyzing the Qur’an, as has James White at Alpha & Omega Ministries.

The Basis For Human Rights

Imago Dei takes at look at which worldview provides the best basis for human rights in “Human Rights: Are They Best Grounded by Theism or Humanism?”

A Response To Bill Maher

Doug Powers applies Bill Maher’s “logic” to atheism in ‘Bless me, Father, for I have a neurological disorder’

Most Underreported Stories Of 2004

WorldNetDaily has posted their roundup of “The year’s 10 most underreported stories”.

What Place For God In Europe?

The Christian Science Monitor is exploring the state of religion in Europe in this 3 part series.

Top Ten Moral Issues In America

Chuck Colson has a list of the top 10 moral issues facing America.

Legalized Murder: Terri Schiavo

February 22nd, 2005 | 01:02 PM |by Ed "What the" Heckman

The “Men In Black” have once again stolen the legitimate authority of lawmakers. This time, they’ve legalized the murder of Terri Schiavo. That drawn out, cold blooded murder via the legal system begins today. I simply cannot express the rage and powerlessness I feel over the callous disregard for the most precious and priceless treasure in the universe: a single human life.

If the “Men In Black” can do this to Terri, they can do it to anyone. Who will be next? One of your parents? One of your children? You?

The “Philly 4” Are Free!

February 18th, 2005 | 10:23 AM |by Ed "What the" Heckman

WorldNetDaily is reporting that a judge has dropped the charges against the 4 adults of the “Philly 5”. They were charged with crimes for protesting at a homosexual pride “Outfest” event held in Philadelphia this past October.

The teenage girl is being tried separately as a juvenile. Her case is still pending.

In what is being hailed as a victory for free speech, a judge in Philadelphia today dismissed all criminal charges against four Christians who were arrested for evangelizing at an outdoor homosexual event.

“We are pleased and relieved for our clients that justice has finally been done in the criminal system, and though it is apparently slow and rusty, the system still works,” Fahling said in a statement.

But that is not the end of the story. Consider this:

“This ends only the first chapter in the ‘Philadelphia 11’ saga. The next chapter is federal action against the officers and city of Philadelphia. We are still calling for the Department of Justice to investigate the corruption and profound abuse of power that we have seen in Philadelphia.”

Amen! The “Philly 11” should never have been arrested in the first place. Just that action alone violated their right of free speech. Such abuses of power must not be permitted to happen again.

Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 1

February 16th, 2005 | 02:22 AM |by Ed "What the" Heckman

Before I get into this reply, I would like to note that Ales Rarus has won a Warnie award. Congratulations Funky!

After my last posting on Mary, Funky Dung posted a brief reply noting my essay and posting two articles from his archives. Neither article was a direct response, and no additional discussion took place in comments, so I can’t really identify where we might agree or disagree on what I last wrote.

The first posting from his archive discussed the issue of praying to the dead as a justification for praying to Mary. Since such a topic encompasses more than just Mary, I’m going to set that discussion aside for another day so I can focus on the Roman Catholic Church’s (RCC) view of Mary.

Not only did Funky post the two articles, he also posted a link to an online version of the “Catechism Of The Catholic Church” (CCC) — the official teachings of the RCC. Because the entire point of this discussion is the teachings of Romanism in comparison to the Bible, I’ve decided to go right to the source.

The CCC is a very long and scholarly document. It consists of 2,865 numbered paragraphs. Most paragraphs include multiple footnotes detailing the source of each teaching. So let’s take a look at what Romanism teaches about Mary and the source of those teachings.

Mary’s Faith

The first mention of Mary (based on the subject index) is paragraph 144:

144 To obey (from the Latin ob-audire, to “hear or listen to”) in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself. Abraham is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture. The Virgin Mary is its most perfect embodiment.

This paragraph is actually a summary statement containing no footnotes. The detailed explanation of Mary’s faith is offered in paragraphs 148-149:

148 The Virgin Mary most perfectly embodies the obedience of faith. By faith Mary welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that “with God nothing will be impossible” and so giving her assent: “Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word.”12 Elizabeth greeted her: “Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”13 It is for this faith that all generations have called Mary blessed.14

149 Throughout her life and until her last ordeal15 when Jesus her son died on the cross, Mary’s faith never wavered. She never ceased to believe in the fulfillment of God’s word. And so the Church venerates in Mary the purest realization of faith.

12 Lk 1:37-38; cf. Gen 18:14.
13 Lk 1:45.
14 Cf. Lk 1:48.
15 Cf. Lk 2:35.

For the most part, these teachings match scripture. But there are differences. The idea that Mary’s faith never wavered doesn’t match Mark 3:21, 31-35.

When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

“Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

(Mark 3:21,31-35, NIV)

Notice that Mark specifies that his family went to collect Jesus because they thought He had lost it. But when they — including Mary — arrived to take Jesus home, He refused because they were opposing “God’s will.”

Furthermore, to claim that Mary’s faith was better than Abraham’s is severely overstating the case. If her faith truly was superior, then it should have been mentioned at least once in the theological books of the New Testament when faith is discussed. But after the book of Acts mentions that Mary and her sons were praying with the apostles in the upper room on the day of Pentacost, she is never mentioned again. If her faith was superior/perfect, then she should certainly have at least been mentioned with other heros of faith in Hebrews chapter 11.

On the contrary, Jesus himself caused her anxiety and confusion by obeying God’s will when He was 12 years old. (See the entire story in Luke 2:41-52.)

And when they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.” And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” And they did not understand the statement which He had made to them.

(Luke 2:48-50, NASB)

Notice that Mary forgot that God was Jesus’ father and that Jesus’ rebuke went over her head. And anxiety is a sign of weak faith:

Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.

(Phil. 4:6, NASB)

In short, the Bible never states that Mary’s faith was superior, perfect or unwavering. On the other hand, it definitely shows that Mary worried that Jesus was doing the wrong thing in at least two instances.

New Eve

Mary is next mentioned in paragraph 411:

411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.306

305 Cf. 1 Cor 15:21-22,45; Phil 2:8; Rom 5:19-20.
306 Cf. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus: DS 2803; Council of Trent: DS 1573.

Take a look at the footnotes again. The description of Jesus as the “New Adam” is well supported by scripture. However there is no scriptural support for calling Mary a “New Eve.” That doctrine is a pure invention of the RCC. It also places Mary on the same level as Jesus Christ as having some part in our salvation.

Not only that, the claim is made here that Mary was sinless for her entire life. Quite simply, the Bible never says that! In fact, it says the opposite:

And Mary said:
“My soul exalts the Lord,
And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.”

(Luke 1:46-47, NASB)

The sinless do not need a savior.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

(Rom. 3:23, NASB) Emphasis mine

as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one;

(Rom. 3:10, NASB) Emphasis mine

If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

(1John 1:10, NASB)

For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

(Rom. 5:19, NASB) Emphasis mine

Did you catch that? One not Two.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

(2Cor. 5:21, NASB)

Again, Jesus is the only (singular) one without sin.

For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth;

(1Pet. 2:21-22, NASB)

And you know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.

(1John 3:5, NASB)

As you can see, there is plenty of scriptural support for Jesus being sinless. (This sampling only scratched the surface.) There is also plenty of scriptural support for all of humanity being sinners. (Again, I only scratched the surface.) There is a reference where Mary calls God her savior. And there is absolutely no scriptural support for the idea that Mary never sinned.

I’ve also already discussed that it was necessary for Mary to have a sin nature in Romanism, Ales Rarus and Mary: A Reply.

Without scriptural support, raising Mary (or anyone) to equivalence with Jesus amounts to blasphemy. It’s possible that later portions of the CCC may offer scriptural support. But the lack of such references right next to solid references for Jesus’ position makes such a possibility highly unlikely.

More To Come

Obviously, the CCC has much more to say about Mary. My copy of the CCC has 13 tabs marking spots which discuss Mary. I’ve only hit the first four.

To be continued…

See also: