Have you ever encountered an apologetic scenario wherein the ministers of the Iglesia ni Cristo (1914) use a Bible version to prove any of their doctrines and abandon the same Bible version if it contradicts their other doctrines? This tactic is called "Bible Version Hopping".
For instance, the INC uses Lamsa's version of Acts 20:28 to prove that the name of the church is "Church of Christ". They will even prove to you that the Lamsa version, which was translated from Aramaic, is reliable. However, Lamsa translates Hebrews 1:8 as "Thy throne, O God". When I pointed this out to INC members in the internet forum while debating the deity of Christ, they quickly dismiss this verse as mistranslated (just to defend that Christ is only a man). The INC relies on Bible versions that translates Hebrews 1:8 as "God is your throne", such as the Moffat version. Funny isn't it? It shows how a religion can be biased just to uphold their doctrines.
Can this also happen when Roman Catholic quotes the church fathers? Is there such thing as "Church Father Hopping"? Well, I won't keep you in suspense. My latest opponent in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Atty. Marwil Llasos of Defensores Fidei Foundation, stumbles upon a church father named, Tertullian (around 160-220 AD).
In his article at his blog, Immaculate Conception (May 31, 2006), Atty. Llasos quotes Tertullian as a support:
The early Church Fathers clearly saw Mary as the New Eve:
Tertullian
"And again, lest I depart from my argumentation on the name of Adam: Why is Christ called Adam by the apostle, if as man he was not of that earthly origin? But even reason defends this conclusion, that God recovered his image and likeness by a procedure similar to that in which he had been robbed of it by the devil. It was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise through a Virgin the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex was by the same sex reestablished in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight" (The Flesh of Christ 17:4 [A.D. 210].
Tertullian is also quoted by Atty. Llasos in his article "Types of Mary in the Old Testament" (March 2006):
Tertullian (+220), another Church Father, used the Eve-Mary parallel as a secondary argument in favor of the virginal conception of Jesus Christ and emphasizes the act of faith involved. Building on the insights of Justin, Ireneus and Tertullian, the theme of the Eve-Mary parallel was expanded upon after the Council of Nicaea in the year 325.
HOWEVER, when it comes to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Atty. Llasos quotes the church father, Jerome who... well... oh just read it for yourself:
Likewise, a heretic by the name of Helvidius raised an objection against Mary’s perpetual virginity. St. Jerome (347-420 AD) rebuked Helvidius in a treatise on Mary’s perpetual virginity:“I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defending....! must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was mother before she was a bride, continued a Virgin after her Son was born.”
Who can dispute with St. Jerome, the greatest Scripture scholar of all time?
Jerome:
“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church.
-Mary Ever Virgin (2006) http://marwil-n-llasos.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html
I wonder if Atty. Llasos is even aware of the church fathers he is quoting. Admittedly, he is good when it comes to quoting historical records. Unfortunately, being biased and selective is another thing. We see Atty. Llasos quotes Tertullian to support some Marian doctrines, but he then quotes Jerome who apparently rejects Tertullian. Will he support Jerome on that specially when Atty. Llasos said: Who can dispute with St. Jerome, the greatest Scripture scholar of all time?
So what's Atty. Llasos have to say to this? "The church fathers are not infallible!" Good, so as the rest of the human beings in the world. "I only quote the good writings of Tertullian!" While you're at it please quote from the good writings of Muslim apologists.
Then again, we would have to see.
POST SCRIPT:
Supporters of Atty. Llasos are already accusing me of abandoning the topic since I posted this article. I am not done with him yet.
His colleague Carlos Palad responded wtih a lapse of about one year on the email exchanges about Sola Scriptura, yet I did not celebrate of this delay. After I posted my response to his belated response, he emailed me of an article about Protestants in Spain, but I never accused him of changing the topic. He still has to respond to my article but I don't mind what he does in between so long as it is non-offensive to both of us.
Please be fair.
This is what I call a "diversionary tactic." Like the INCs, when Protestants are caught with their pants down, they divert the issue. Like when the topic is true church, they bring up purgatory, Mary worship, etc.
ReplyDeleteRodimus acts like an INC minister. When Atty Llasos presented a very impregnable explanation/defense of Mary's perpetual virginity, Rodimus didn't bother to make a counter-rebuttal. Instead, he brought up Immaculate Conception to avoid answering Atty Llasos's support of Mary's Perpetual Virginity. Very slick! Very INC-like!
Rodimus, you haven't answered many of Atty Llasos's questions yet in his blog:
http://marwil-n-llasos.blogspot.com/
If you are unable, then admit that you can't and you can move on to another topic.
To echo Atty Llasos's repartee, after having been audited, you have been weighed but found wanting.
And by the way, Atty Llasos has publicly challenged you to a debate. See the comment box in your PERPETUAL VIRGINITY article.
A true Christian is not afraid to defend his beliefs. Are you a true Christian, Rodimus?
So this is where you went, Rodimus.
ReplyDeleteI see you're concocting more of your deception. Creating more supposed discord where there are none.
Where did Jerome disagree with Tertullian on the issue of Mary's Perpetual Virginity? And when did Jerome say that Tertullian "did not belong to the church"?
I pity CPAs because you are identifying yourself as one of them. You are making it appear that CPAs fail miserably in logic and general information.
When Jerome said that Tertullian did not belong to the church, he was stating a FACT.
In case you don't know--and I think you don't--Tertullian left the TRUE CHURCH later on in his life and became a Montanist. And that is despite Tertullian's earlier defense of the true faith.
So, there you go, pretending to know things that you don't, making up discord where there is none, and cooking up supposed "Church Father hopping" when the truth is you simply can't reply to any one of Atty Marwil's pronouncements.
Just admit it, Rodimus. Your lies and inventions have nowhere to go but hell.
It would be up to you to ride such concoctions to where they are bound to go. Maybe you will deserve it.
CP: This is what I call a "diversionary tactic."
ReplyDeleteRodimus: It's not a diversionary tactic. I am waiting for Atty. Llasos to finish posting his rebuttal to my recent articles since he is giving it in installments. When he is finished, then I will reply. For the meantime, I would still have to write new articles. This new article isn't about Perpetual Virginity, but rather an exposition on how certain apologists can be selective.
Cenon Bibe: In case you don't know--and I think you don't--Tertullian left the TRUE CHURCH later on in his life and became a Montanist. And that is despite Tertullian's earlier defense of the true faith.
Rodimus: I think you better discuss that with Atty. Llasos because he quotes from Tertullian on the Immaculate Conception. The point of this article really is why quote from a church father which, like you said, left the church?
As to your previous arguments which Fr. Abe concludes you made mince meat out of my arguments, well I am not done with you yet. I will get back to you when I can.
Rodimus: Supporters of Atty. Llasos are already accusing me of abandoning the topic since I posted this article. I am not done with him yet.
ReplyDeleteHis colleague Carlos Palad responded wtih a lapse of about one year on the email exchanges about Sola Scriptura, yet I did not celebrate of this delay. After I posted my response to his belated response, he emailed me of an article about Protestants in Spain, but I never accused him of changing the topic. He still has to respond to my article but I don't mind what he does in between so long as it is non-offensive to both of us.
Please be fair.
CP: Since you diverted the issue from Perpetual Virginity to Immaculate Conception, it really looked like you already conceded to Atty. Llasos’s arguments. Now to acquit yourself, you should answer the relevant questions he asked you like:
Where in the Bible does it say that “Mary had other children aside from Jesus?”
Where in the Bible does it say that “Mary is the mother of the brothers of Jesus?”
These are just a few of the questions that Atty. Llasos wanted some answers from you. If you can’t find any verses to these questions, then please ADMIT that you can’t. Verbal engineering and non-responsive replies would do you no good.
As to your issue with Mr. Palad, I am of the understanding that you’ve had private email exchanges with him before about Sola Scriptura. And just like what you did in Atty Llasos’s case, you posted them in a public forum (the Bereans) without informing him. So what if Mr. Palad replied after one year? He must have his own reasons. He's not obligated to answer you especially if your query is laced with poison.
We are being fair to you, Rodimus. The moment you went public with your private discourses with Atty Llasos, was the moment you became fair game. Exhaust all arguments first in the Perpetual Virginity then you can move on to another topic. The guerrilla tactic was very slick, though. I’m impressed.
CP: Since you diverted the issue from Perpetual Virginity to Immaculate Conception, it really looked like you already conceded to Atty. Llasos’s arguments.
ReplyDeleteRodimus: The new article is not even about immaculate conception.
CP: So what if Mr. Palad replied after one year? He must have his own reasons.
Rodimus: The point I want you to get is that I didn't make fun of Mr. Palad's late reply. We all have our reasons and we should respect that. But that's not what you did when I posted a new article.
Atty. Llasos has finished his installment replies. My turn now!
What should I discuss with Atty Marwil? His accurate quotation of historical documents?
ReplyDeleteYou Bereans are pitiful. You paint yourselves in a corner and yet you have the gall to pretend that you cornered us. Please stop making a joke out of yourselves.
But to patronize your pitiful stance: What is wrong with quoting from Tertullian's TRUE and CORRECT pronouncements that were made BEFORE he turned his back on the TRUE FAITH?
I'm sure you will just again try to squirm yourself out of that one.
So, Fr. Abe is correct. You are simply dead meat that is going through the grinder.
Why additional responses are you waiting for? Didn't you already sink into a dark, tiny and cramped hole because you can no longer react to my rebuttals?
ReplyDeleteTumakbo ka na tapos ikaw pa ang may ganang magyabang na kesyo may inaantay ka pang sagot.
People reading your blogs should have realized by now that you Bereans should not be taken seriously. I know I don't.
You're lucky Atty Marwil is wasting more patience on you. If you ask me, you Bereans don't even deserve courtesy because of your actions.
You should get what you deserve: A hard knock on the head. But since that would be too harsh, it would be enough to consider you people as mere jokers.
Sorry, but that is how things are with you.
CB: What is wrong with quoting from Tertullian's TRUE and CORRECT pronouncements that were made BEFORE he turned his back on the TRUE FAITH?
ReplyDeleteRodimus: Oh, just one word: HYPOCRISY. You acknowledge Tertullian as a Church Father when it comes to Immaculate Conception but you dismiss him as quick as lightning when it comes to Perpetual Virginity. It's no different with the INC's version hopping.
CB: You're lucky Atty Marwil is wasting more patience on you. If you ask me, you Bereans don't even deserve courtesy because of your actions.
Rodimus: There goes my self-esteem. I failed to win your approval.
Anyway, I really don't care what you say. You're not God and you don't represent the entire world. I will do what I have to do because I am very sure that there are people out there who is blessed with my works. There's really nothing you can do about it.
Judgment Day: CFD vs Bereans at the Araneta Coliseum. Go! Go! Go!
ReplyDeleteGood idea but not a ticket of winning all the evangelicals to embrace perpetual virginty of Mary just by a whatever-reason debate at the araneta. It is so huge huh...Discussions can go on here unless you needed to really talk publicly with each other.
ReplyDeleteGood idea but not a ticket of winning all the evangelicals to embrace perpetual virginty of Mary just by a whatever-reason debate at the araneta. It is so huge huh...Discussions can go on here unless you needed to really talk publicly with each other.
ReplyDeleteThis is really informative post. well Im not saying my true religion here but I would like to say I am impressed to what you have here and I would like to extend my search about this topic. hope to hear you soon. thanks
ReplyDelete