Wednesday, November 30, 2005

The Top Ten Turkey Awards of 2005:
...the strange birds in evangelicalism

Good day Blogging Aficionados:

It is good to be home and "back in the saddle" again after being gone for several weeks. Thank you all for your patience--regular blogging entries at COT will commence as of today. I trust you all had a fantastic Thanksgiving Day with close friends and family--and helping others who couldn't help themselves.

Several of you had emailed me wondering if I was going to post "a turkey of the year" list. No doubt that 2005 was a banner year in many arenas. So I thought the idea would prove to be interesting and provocative. One caveat: the list below does not include political figures, entertainers, actors, news pundits, etc. I tried to focus on the evangelical-community-at-large when considering who would be worthy candidates.

I hope you will enjoy and post me your additions to your "turkey top ten" if you're daring enough.

2005 proved to be quite a year!
Campi


1. Paige Patterson, Jack Graham, Johnny Hunt: for promoting an anthropocentric Arminian gospel and theology; and for labeling Calvinistic pastors within the SBC as those who have “Crept In Unawares.” (While Paige Patterson is studying "theology 101" gearing up for his "debate" with Dr. Mohler on Calvinism, Jack Graham has been busy joining hands recently with TBN in a church service setting with guests Zig Ziglar and Pat Summerall. Jack was praising Matt Crouch and his wife for their contribution to the gospel through television as he was telling the crowd that night misappropriating Mark 2 that "it is our job to bring people to Jesus." Really!?! Ever read John 6:44, Eph. 1:4-5, 2 Tim. 1:9, Titus 1:2? Just goes to show you folks, Arminianism knows no shame and can justify the use of any "venue" [even TBN] for pragmatic concerns.)

2. Pat Robertson: for calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and for hurting the efforts of faithful missionaries in that country by causing their deportment. Mr. Robertson has so frequently been bombastically wrong on news issues, that his continued use of "faux pas" has turned political misspeak into a "spiritual gift." I agree with Cal Thomas that "Pat Robertson eventually apologized for his remarks about assassinating Hugo Chavez. His penance should be to retire and to take his bombastic conservative and liberal colleagues with him." Amen.

3. Billy Graham, Jack Van Impy and others for embracing Pope John Paul II and Benedict the XVI as regenerated Christian leaders even though they by their own Tridentine doctrine deny the biblical gospel of sola fide and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ for salvation. This brand of ecumenism is very hazardous to the health of the body of Christ, the work of the gospel, and the ministry of the Word of God (cp, Galatians 1:6-9; 2 Tim. 2:16-19).

4. Brian McLaren: for denying the authority and veracity of Scripture in his postmodern, Open Theist, Kantian, mystic, socially liberal EC spirituality.

5. James Dobson: for confusing patriotism with biblical Christianity; and for treating the body of Christ as a religious PAC of “Christocrats” who would rather boycott and picket nonbelievers than proclaim the gospel of grace to them. His call for political remedy to cure moral maladies of our nation is an effort in futility. Dr. Dobson, and all associated with him-without exception, have confused access to the oval office, political figures and key media, with impact upon a nation.

6. Dan Brown: for his fictitious, heretical, inaccurate, historical revisionist, abhorrent attack against the gospel, deity, humanity, and holiness of the Lord Jesus Christ in his ridiculous, Peter Pan-like, illogical, but popular book, “The da Vinci Code.” I would encourage you to pray that God would grant him saving faith and repentance for salvation. For apart from that he is heaping "wrath upon wrath" on himself. (Tom Hanks, whose films I enjoy very much, should be embarrassed for lending his excellent talents and name to such a ludicrous movie as this).

7. Evangelical leaders who supported and embraced Mel Gibson in his Marian focused, Romanistic driven, Anne Catherine Emmerick's apocryphal inspired, mystical portrayal of the suffering of the Lord Jesus Christ in his well made movie, “The Passion of the Christ.” If Mr. Gibson would have held to the biblical record, he would not only have had a more powerful movie, but one that honored the Lord Jesus in His atonement on the cross.

8. Dr. Russell Moore of the Henry Institute for hosting Joseph Pearce as their key literary academic spokesman for the Gheens Lectures this year to explain the Christian imagery and message in Tolkien's, “Lord of the Rings.” (Pearce is a devote Romanist who is the Writer-in-Residence at Ave Maria University and Associate Professor of Literature. He previously taught at Ave Maria College in Michigan. He is also the Co-Editor of the St. Austin Review and the Editor-in-Chief of Sapientia Press). This is unconscionable. When did the leadership at *SBTS officially agree to affirm Romanists purporting a religious ideology and gospel contrary to the Word of God and biblical Christianity, from a Romanism world-view, to be considered worthy of enjoying the endorsement and platform of Southern as teachers/scholars/theologians lecturing men being trained for pastoral ministry in the local church?

*Knowing that Dr. Moore, the Henry Institue, and SBTS stand for biblical orthodoxy; that they affirm the doctrines of grace, sola fide and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ in salvation; and that they also affirm what Romanism represents is a false gospel, a false church, led by a false pastor, occupying a false office - is what makes their hosting of Dr. Pearce so surprising even in this educational exchange. I am simply contending that inviting a devout Romanist, like Joseph Pearce, as their principle lecturer speaking not only in matters of Tolkienian literature, but also from a biblical context of faith in explaining "Truth or Myth: Unlocking the Lord of the Rings" to seminarians is inconsistent and diametrically opposed to what their own confession and beliefs are both Scripturally and in The Abstract of Principles. To quote from another great fictional series, Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade: "they chose... poorly."

9. Luis Palau: for his Graham-like foot-in-mouth statesmanship when in China recently for playing politics and demeaning the persecuted church when he said, “churches are not underground, just unregistered.” To make matters worse, Palau displaying his unequaled ignorance of the state of the true church in China went on to say, “Personally, I would encourage the unregistered churches to register and receive greater freedom and blessings from the government." This is embarrassing and tragic for the literal thousands of Christians who have lost their lives in China for being faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ. (I ministered at a Luis Palau Crusade in England eight years ago where he had one of the leading Romanist church officials in England close in prayer in the name of Mary at the end his crusade. This was unthinkable. I’ll never do another Palau Crusade again).

10. Dave Hunt for his idiotic, benign, distortions, of the biblical doctrines of grace (see James White site for a thorough analysis of Hunt's irrational logic and theology). Dave Hunt’s misappropriation of Scripture is rivaled only by the massive proof-texting debacle by brother Warren in the PDL material.

PS - If some think I am being flippant or sarcastic for that purpose only, I am not. These men influence millions of evangelicals around the world. Their skewed doctrinal affirmations should not go unnoticed or remain unaddressed. Far from humorous - these are serious concerns that each represent. Your outrage and argument should be with each of them. Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player.

31 comments:

2Tal said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
2Tal said...

I'm sure someone will say this is judgmental, devisive, unloving etc. etc.
"HOw dare he say that!?", "These are all the key players of Christendom!", "Touch not God's anointed!" etc. But what is so unloving about correcting error if it is truly error? I think these potential indictments on Steve may be without merit. What do we do when when truth is compromised and we who affirm biblical doctrine are labeled as wolves by some of these "lofty key players"? Who else would dare hold a lense to God's Word and rightly divide it in the face of fierce oppostion? For that I appreciate you Steve.

May we continue to pray for one another that the truth would set us free and that God would give us a desire for it and the boldness and wisdom in how to proclaim it.

Jeremy Moore said...

where is roy moore??!?!? you know he is running for govenor!!! now every alabamian will HAVE to have the 10 commandments on everything..even our state flag!!

rick warren and his new reformation is another one.

joel osteen and his skinny dr. phil "preaching"..i am good enough, smart enough, and dog gone it people like me!!

Eric M Schumacher said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
2Tal said...

Eric..
I do not want to speak for God since ultimately we all stand or fall before Him alone. However, a couple blogs down Steve said, "Happy Thanksgiving from One Turkey to Another" so I don't think one should necessarily take the term "turkey" with malicious intent. Yes, Steve may use sarcasm and ridicule at times without immediate face to face correction but it is certainly not the extent of his ministry. The question is, "might God use even this for His glory?". I think a case could be made that Paul used similar tactics himself and if there's one thing Steve knows it's scripture.
Luther and Calvin were the world's worst when it came to insults (read Luther's response to "The Freedom of Will" by Erasmus). But does that mean all his offenses were counterproductive to reformation in the doctrines of grace? I don't think so. Not to say Steve is necessarily completely right or wrong but let's "hope all things" regarding him as well..

Bhedr said...

>Not to say Steve is necessarily completely right or wrong but let's "hope all things" regarding him as well..<

Amen! If anything true can be said of Steve his heart aches when he burns a hole in our hearts. He does not do this to make a name for himself as some do only to build and lobby for a position in the >defenders of the faith heirachy< he does this because he is genuinely concerned and has abandoned all for the sake of Christ. If anything crosses our hearts then may we examine and draw closer to God through obeying him. If you disagree in some areas well then "eat the meat and throw away the bones" but please don't cast away a man who loves God and has a heart for truth. Pray for balance in his life and challenge him to keep on. Some good things were brought out here. I especially like the part about China. As far as some of these SBC leaders? Pray for them and pray for the Founders.Pray for my pastor as we have had some good heart to heart discussions on this. Pray for me too. I am in the SBC and still wrestle with some of this and so I pray that God's Holy Spirit will prevail and his proper truth will be proclaimed and that souls will be brought to Christ.

My neighbor passed away last week and my heart is still aching over this as he is most likely in Hell and I am not at peace that I did enough to warn him or pray for him.

Jeremy Weaver said...

Good list, Campi!

Eric M Schumacher said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sam H. said...

thanks bro. steve, some of us watch the goings on in areas outside our own realms and wonder who will speak up. Christ's church has so much housecleaning to do... [bad pun]We already know that a vacuum won't do (men have been trying to empty the church of theology and truth for years), maybe we need more sledgehammers... [/bad pun]

Nathan White said...

Good thoughts Steve, its good to see you back.

In case anyone is interested, because I am so close with some within Johnny Hunt's church, I have posted a review (its long) of his most recent anti-Calvinism sermon. Here's part one of three.

SDG

pilgrim said...

That's a good run down there.
I can't say I disagree with any of them.

If only more people realized a lot the things you pointed out.

Kurt Porter said...

Great List. It is sad that the church (visible church)is so messed up. So many being driven hear and there by every changing wind of doctrine. Oh that God would arrest these mens hearts. I thank you Steve for you dedication to cutting it straight.

littlegal_66 said...

One of Webster's definitions of a "turkey" is "a person who lacks good sense or judgment."
In light of that definition, I'm sure we can all agree that everyone on the list has exhibited a lack of good sense or lack of good judgment on occasion over the course of the last year. (It must have been difficult to narrow the list down to just 10).

One question for the "Church's 'Truth Detector'" ;-) : Are these in order of the extreme degree to which the particular individual takes their "turkeydom?" (Or is that "turkeyism?") Just wondering if they are in any particular order.

P.S. Jeremy--I like the new icon.

wisdomofthepages.com said...

Two quick questions regarding your giving Moore a turkey:

1. Are you saying that it is never allowable for a Protestant institution to allow a practicing RC to speak on any topic? I mean, the Gheens lectures are not chapel services, they are lectures of an academic flavor.

2. Even if your answer to #1 is that indeed it is not allowable... don't you think that a lecture to a couple 100 seminary students who are fully aware of Pearce's RC) is picking at zits compared to the others? What I mean is, it doesn't fit. Popes, DaVinci Codes, and MacLarens - this is big stuff that goes beyond one insitution, state, denomination.... If you hadn't mentioned the Moore turkey (which in all honesty I do disagree with you on), how would this incident even have been known beyond SBTS students (or purveyors of the SBTS web-site?)? Even if I agreed with your criticism, this still seems trivial.

Scott Lamb

ColinM said...

Piano Player:

What's the lowdown on this Mohler-Patterson showdown? Is it official? There is no buzz about it on campus.

Jim from OldTruth.com said...

You sure don't hold back the punches Steve. For that I'm giving you the "William Farel" award. If you remember, he was Calvin's sidekick who would go into Romanist churches and try to disrupt their heretical Mass. That man could sure speak his mind! Anyway, since I just made up the award, you are the first to get it:-) I agree with everything you said; keep up the great work.

--Jim from www.OldTruth.com

SJ Camp said...

Scott Lamb brought up a couple of very good questions here--I will try to answer them:

Scott said, 1. Are you saying that it is never allowable for a Protestant institution to allow a practicing RC to speak on any topic? I mean, the Gheens lectures are not chapel services, they are lectures of an academic flavor.

I agree on the nature of the Gheens lectures, but here is the difference. Joseph Pearce was brought in to explain and define biblical content within the Lord of the Rings tome. A Romanist is instructing seminary students in regards to biblical truth... THAT shouldn't never be allowed on any condition. If Dr. Moore (who is a fine Bible teacher in his own right) were to be having a series of lectures say on the effect of media on cultural trends and brought in Limbaugh, Will, York and Noonan as his panel to discuss these things - not a problem. They are not speaking biblically, but only in media terms. That's a different scenario. It would be like watching the Harvard series on Law and Justice. Not a problem. BUT when you elevate one to speak biblically from a Christian world-view on any issue and they are not regenerate and do not affirm the real gospel of sola fide and imputation of the righteousness of Christ, you are on slippery ground. If the principle you suggested is taken to its logical conclusion, why not have a Mormon or JW instruct the seminarians biblically about Lord of the Rings? If Romanism is a false church, preaching a false gospel, led by a false teacher (AL Mohler's words) - then why limit the lectures to Romanists speaking from God's Word?

Scott said: 2. Even if your answer to #1 is that indeed it is not allowable... don't you think that a lecture to a couple 100 seminary students who are fully aware of Pearce's RC) is picking at zits compared to the others? What I mean is, it doesn't fit. Popes, DaVinci Codes, and MacLarens - this is big stuff that goes beyond one insitution, state, denomination.... If you hadn't mentioned the Moore turkey (which in all honesty I do disagree with you on), how would this incident even have been known beyond SBTS students (or purveyors of the SBTS web-site?)? Even if I agreed with your criticism, this still seems trivial.

Was the Reformation trivial? Is not Romanist doctrine and gospel opposed to the biblical gospel of sola fide and sola scriptura? No, I'm sorry. Dr. Moore was not only wrong on this, but it is not a small thing whatsoever. Did you know that he had Pearce close the last panel discussion in prayer? Even Pearce remarked that he wrote the prayer and there was nothing in it that was too Roman... Everyone chuckled in background. Is that really funny? Who is Pearce praying to? Though not mentioned, for him Mary is the mediator--not Christ. Is this acceptable within genuine biblical Christianity? Of course not.

We are so numb to these things that it is a shame that a great seminary like Southern would open themselves up to such influence and with such accolades being touted to Dr. Pearce.

Lastly, this was made known because it is on Moore's website of the Henry Institute. That is how I discovered it. It is out there world wide... not just contained at Southern. Obviously, Dr. Moore thought it worthy to post in the general marketplace and not just keep it "private" with SBTS students. BUT the scope of the influence is not the issue here... it is the truth of the influence. Do Romanists speak for you? Does Benedict XVIth represent biblical truth and gospel to you? I would assume no. Then why is Pearce being given this platform to speak biblically on anything?

If this is what seminaries have come to... then the need for Reformation is more profound than we could ever imagine.

This is just an important as the other issues listed. And because of its subtlety, maybe more important.

DOGpreacher said...

AMEN!

Glad your back on the keyboard Steve!

thelittlefields said...

I would agree with Jeremy and put good ol' Joel Osteen on the list. We here in Houston get a large dose of his babbling all around us...blah. I won't comment on the others on the list, I might get kicked out of seminary!--Dirk

Bhedr said...

Ah, the masked avenger Super "D" has come out of his phone boothe. Welcome back Doxo and I hope you got plenty of sleep.

marc said...

You missed me Steve. My wife says I'm a strange duck all the time.

Shawn L said...

Steve,

I'm lost a bit on this post. Though I understand your point about what they are teaching, I'm not entirely certain what purpose it serves in naming names of people.

I think evangelicalism has gotten to divisive rather than helping people see the joy of the scriptures and the greatness their.

I've been so surprised by the direction evangelicalism has gone in the past few years as well on a downward spiral, but I think that is why the body fo Christ has benefited from people like John Piper and the puritans, etc, and people like you as well who are getting us to really be awakened to the glory of God in the face of Christ. You have all in my life so much for the past 5 years. Much of what you have told me about the glory of God in your Abandoned to God CD really awakened me to my own condition.

If we go around naming names of people who are needing to grow in their faith how are we encouraging and proding them to grow in Christ. I'm not sure if the body responds to these kinds of things by more praise of God unless they are given and shown the glory of God as the way the scriptures proclaim it.

Well anyway off to bed. I could be totally wrong as I think of the fact that we need Jeremiah's and John the Baptist's so much as well, but I'm also very aware of my own sins as they turn into the wrong kind of argumentation and less about patience and equiping the body of Christ and encouraging them to see the Glory of Christ.

Some of the times I think like this my heart is more in need of James 4 kind of meditation as I am hoping from a response from someone in the body that just isn't happening but need to put my hope in Christ alone, but my job sometimes is to just pray for them.

Please let me know your thoughts.

candleman said...

I think you forgot this very juvenile, unhumorous Steve Camp post.

{{{Candleman}}}

Tony Myles said...

What about the guy who invented Testamints? I don't see him anywhere!

sandman said...

It seems I have the same heart in all these, except the movie, The Passion of Christ.
I also like the movie, Jesus of Nazserath. Both of these are foundationally Catholic. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe I don't love the Lord more because of these wonderful forms of art, but my heart is moved in such a different way when I see our Lord laying down His life for such an ungodly sinner as myself.
I'm quite the reformed kind of guy, but I seemed to miss all the Catholicism and simply saw a wonderful Savior praying to His Father, and then being obedient, and fulfilling His Father's will, even when He did not desire to do so, because of the most extreme pain He would have to endure, as He drank that cup, that only He could. Why Jesus would do that for me, I'll never know. But I love Him, because He did this for me personally, and I don't really need a movie, but it did touch my heart, and I love my Lord and Savior, and Friend even more.

I could surely debate the theology in the film. And that could actually be a benificial way to be edified as well.

Anyway, I said too much. So I;ll say goodbye. Gal. 6:14.
Don Sands

jane said...

I'm confused. Wasn't Tolkien Catholic? So why shouldn't a Catholic speak on the themes in his book? Or are you throwing out Tolkien as well? Then you'd have to throw out C.S. Lewis since they had an ecumenical gathering known as the inklings. I'm very mixed about what you wrote, so could it be possible that some of what you wrote was spot-on and some of it is too harsh or extreme?

ed said...

I just saw the "Chronicles of Narnia", I thought the "Lord of the Rings" film trilogy was better(better special effects, better battles, better monsters) On a theological take, There are some people including John Robbins of the late Evangelical philosopher Gordon Clark's "Trinity Foundation" that argue that CS Lewis was not a Christian. See his essay found on line entitled: "Did CS Lewis Go to Heaven?"

Applejack said...

There is some irony in your post about the Pearce situation. It doesn't reflect much of a Reformed view of culture, where all truth, goodness, and beauty are God's truth, goodness, and beauty--whether from the mouth/hand of a Christian or a pagan.

So let's assume--for the sake of argument, not because I agree--that Dr. Pearce is not a Christian because he is Roman Catholic (the "Romanist" tag seems as antiquated as does the idea that the Catholic Church is the same today as it was at the time of Trent). That does not disqualify him from being an instrument to demonstrate God's truth, goodness, and beauty. Just as there could be a biblical scholar who does not believe but whose work illuminates the wisdom, beauty, or context of Scripture.

Otherwise, you need to extend your admonitions all the way back to Calvin, who sometimes approvingly quoted Catholics and pagans. Was Calvin right to glean insights from St. Augustine, who never formulated the Protestant view of justification, even on other issues?

You may also need to ask Dr. Sproul about the non-Christian rationalists or common sense philosophers from whom he has drawn (without accepting all of their ultimate viewpoints).

Thus, I don't see how the case that Dr. Pearce would not be able to lecture on a topic involving the Bible or Tolkien. Besides, I suspect he wasn't trolling LOTR for its insights on the justification controversy. Isn't it possible that he may point to a Scriptural truth that you may even agree with? Do you know what part of the Bible he was teaching? Did you hear the lecture?

SJ Camp said...

Lots of great stuff in this thread so far.

Let me begin addressing Applejack's last post (I will get to others as well this evening.)

Here is the press release by Dr. Moore promoting the recordings of the Gheens Lectures.

"Joseph Pearce, writer-in-residence and professor of literature at Ave Maria University, recently delivered the Gheens Lectures at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Pearce spoke on myth, creation, and creativity in J.R.R.Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. The lectures culminated with a panel discussion between Pearce, philosopher James Parker, literature professor Jim Orrick, and myself on the place of literature and creativity in Christianity.

That was his purpose in being there. Not as only a Tokienian Lititurist... but to address the place of literature and creativity in Christianity.

For the record: he was speaking in part out of the context of God's Word; I have heard all the lectures (I do my homework before I post); and he also closed the entire lecture series in prayer (making a joke before he did that his prayer wouldn't contain any Roman Catholic references... ha, ha, ha.)

When someone is brought in to a seminary to address issues of culture within Christianity is not reasonable to ask that that person be orthodox on the essentials of the faith? Are we so politically correct in our times that even the vessel doesn't matter because we have a generalized skewed view of either general revelation or an elastic view of God's purposes in biblical instruction of men of God training for the ministry at a well-known and respected reformed seminary because "where all truth, goodness, and beauty are God's truth, goodness, and beauty--whether from the mouth/hand of a Christian or a pagan."

That sounds poetic but cannot be supported biblically. Under that scenario Luther would have never confronted Tetzel on indulgences; Athanasius wouldn't have battled Arius; and Hus, Tyndale, Polycarp, even Paul wouldn't have had to be martyred for the gospel... Why? Because "goodness and beauty are God's truth whether from the mouth/hand of a Christian or a pagan."

The methods are important; the motives are important; the message is important; and the messenger is important.

Pearce needs to be invited to come to an orthodox seminary for one purpose only; not to instruct others, but to learn of the glorious gospel of sola fide/sola gratia/solus Christos.

Riomanist is not antiquated when the current Roman church has never repudiated Tridentine doctrine. It is the same heretical church today as it was in Luther's time. The only thing that has changed is that evangelicalism has bought the ecumenical lie that Romanism and the Reformed faith are part of the same religion. They are not.

Hope this helps and thank you for your post,
Steve
Gal. 1:6-9

Applejack said...

Steve, thanks for the reply.

You wrote:
"That sounds poetic but cannot be supported biblically. Under that scenario Luther would have never confronted Tetzel on indulgences; Athanasius wouldn't have battled Arius; and Hus, Tyndale, Polycarp, even Paul wouldn't have had to be martyred for the gospel... Why? Because 'goodness and beauty are God's truth whether from the mouth/hand of a Christian or a pagan.'"

I have to admit, you completely lost me here. What does affirming--in the mainstream of Reformed thought--that all truth, goodness and beauty are God's have to do with Luther/Tetzel, Athanasius/Arius, Paul's martyrdom, etc? I'm not saying that corruption and falsehood don't exist, but that where there is truth, goodness, and beauty, they belong to God.

Moreover, for the sake of consistency, I hope you condemn Calvin for his extensive use of Augustine in the Institutes. Calvin drew support from Augustine on issues like predestination. (It was harder to find support in Augustine for justification.) But what about the more "Catholic" elements of Augustine's thought? What about his views on Mary?
Go to http://www.vatican.va/spirit/documents/spirit_20001208_agostino_en.html
and see the Vatican approvingly quote Augustine on Mary. Moreover, what about Augustine's Platonic influences? By your logic, Calvin should be rebuked for exposing believers to a man who, despite our best efforts to Protestantize, remained in many ways "Catholic" (of course it was the only institutional option, but I mean in terms of theology). By my logic, Calvin appropriated what he found to be true in Augustine without endorsing every aspect of his thought.

As to your explanation of the term "Romanist," it still strikes me as unnecessary, considering that the terms "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" suffice nicely. I haven't heard Catholics describe themselves "Romanists," so calling them that strikes me as either nostalgic for the halcyon days of Catholic/Protestant conflict during the Reformation or worse, as just plain derisive (which may explain why the likes of anti-Catholic bigot Ian Paisley still use the term in Northern Ireland).

Finally, I agree that substantive differences remain. But since you "do your homework," I will trust that you have read all post-Tridentine documents through Vatican II and beyond. I will trust that you are aware that the Catholic Church is not monolithic but has disagreements/schools of thought within itself.

Applejack said...

Steve,
Sorry for continuing a long response, but one more thing came to mind. You mentioned that you listened to all the Pearce lectures. Unfortunately, your only references to it are a press release and an anecdote about the closing prayer. Since you have offered such sharp criticism of the seminary and Pearce, wouldn't it behoove you to elaborate on how Pearce's lectures demontrated Catholic fallacies about justification and the solas? How did Pearce's lectures specifically mislead students into Catholic positions on these issues? We need to hear more on the content of the lectures. Otherwise, if these things aren't evident in Pearce's lectures, is it just that he's a Catholic?