GERRY SOLIMAN MISSES THE POINT ON THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON by Bro. Marwil Llasos, OP

GERRY SOLIMAN MISSES THE POINT ON THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

GERRY SOLIMAN MISSES THE POINT ON THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

This is the third part of my series of answers on Gerry Soliman’s “counterarguments” on the issue on the Woman Clothed with the Sun based on Mr. Soliman’s article “The Woman of Revelations 12 - responding to Atty. Marwil Llasos” in http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/01/woman-of-revelations-12-responding-to.html. As I already mentioned in my previous posts, my response shall be

based on the division of topics he made in that article. In this reply, I will put Mr. Soliman’s words in red, mine are in black and portions from other sources are in blue.

Mr. Gerry Soliman’s original article “Mary as the Woman Clothed with the Sun of Revelations 12: Symbolical or Literal?” found in http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2010/11/woman-clothed-with-sun-of-revelations.html ended in the following conclusion:

“Well if your head is aching already, so is mine. Here is the real score on the Roman Catholic Church on the woman of Revelations 12: They didn't have any official and infallible interpretation of it during the first 300 years of Christianity. In fact, none of the church fathers during that time ever interpreted the woman as Mary. Some of the church fathers referred the woman as Israel, the people of God but never on Mary. Mary as woman clothed with the sun is not an apostolic teaching.”

I already answered the part on the Church Fathers in my previous articles, latest may be found here: http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2011/02/gerry-soliman-falters-on-church-fathers.html. I will just limit my answer to the issue on the Canon of Scripture. As my readers may note, my article “GERRY SOLIMAN’S INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY” countered Mr. Soliman’s argument –

“Assuming arguendo that the Catholic Church did not have an official and infallible interpretation during the first 300 years of Christianity that the “woman” of Revelation 12 is Mary, so what? There was no need to officially and infallibly define it because there was no necessity for an interpretation as there was no controversy over that. And more importantly, there was no Christian canon of Scripture yet at that time! It is crazy for Gerry Soliman to demand for an official or infallible interpretation of the “woman” in Revelation 12 when the very canonicity of the Book of Revelation itself was being disputed!

In A Handbook of Christian Faith, John Schwarz stated that “[t]he final recognition and acceptance of the books of the New Testament cannot be dated precisely, as with the Old Testament, but it appears that as early as the middle of the second century there was already general agreement on twenty of the twenty-seven books – all except Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation” [John Schwarz, A Handbook of Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Bethany House Publishers), 2004]. (emphasis added)

In his obscene haste to discredit the Roman Catholic Church, Mr. Gerry Soliman conveniently forgot that the canon of Scripture, both the Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., under the authority of Pope Damasus I and was reaffirmed on numerous occasions such as the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in 405 A.D. in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. The second Council of Carthage in 419 A.D. reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to “confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church” [see: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm].

Given the foregoing historical background, Evangelical professor and author Dr. Tim Perry concluded: “It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Marian interpretation of Revelation 12 begins in the fifth century, after the New Testament canon is fixed. As part of the New Testament Canon, Revelation’s depiction of the heavenly woman completes the biblical Marian material” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006) p. 113. Gerry Soliman admittedly has not read this book].”

As usual, instead of meeting the issue head-on, Gerry Soliman once again used his much vaunted, now discredited, “divide-and-rule tactic” by pitting my statement against a fellow Catholic apologist and colleague in Defensores Fidei Foundation, Mr. Carlos Antonio Palad. Mr. Soliman’s article may be found here http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/01/when-was-canon-of-scriptures-finally.html. He quoted me-

“In his obscene haste to discredit the Roman Catholic Church, Mr. Gerry Soliman conveniently forgot that the canon of Scripture, both the Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., under the authority of Pope Damasus I and was reaffirmed on numerous occasions such as the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in 405 A.D. in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse.”

Soliman also quoted the response of Mr. Carlos Antonio Palad posted in http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2010/03/first-response-to-gerry-soliman-on.html -

“Like I said, it was the Council of Trent that gave dogmatic force to the Catholic Canon of Scripture. As any informed Catholic knows, this is the equivalent of stating – as the good ol’ New Catholic Encyclopedia, which I devoured during my college days, does – that it was Trent that gave final form, or “definitively settled,” the Catholic Canon of Scripture. Prior to Trent, Local Councils and Popes had identified and taught the Canon of Scripture, but not with dogmatic force, and not with anathemas or excommunications. Therefore, the Canon technically remained open, but historically and in fact – and this should give Mr. Soliman pause -- between Carthage III and Trent, between which there is a distance of more than 1,100 years, there is no difference regarding the Canon.”

Because I used “finally settled” and Mr. Palad used “definitively settled,” Gerry Soliman’s “tunog” system made him conclude that Mr. Palad and I contradicted each other. I pointed out that there is something terribly wrong with Mr. Soliman’s reading comprehension. What happened to “context, context, and more context” that Mr. Soliman is big about? He just doesn’t walk the talk.

Since I was the one who wrote the article, I am in the best position to explain what I exactly meant. By “finally settled” I meant that all the 27 books of the New Testament Canon were already in by the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. because from that time, no books were added or subtracted from what we now know as the New Testament. As I clearly stated in my article, the list was still later on “reaffirmed” on several occasions, thereby indicating that it was not yet “definitively settled” with the force and effect of a dogma. That came later in the Council of Trent. As everyone knows, the list of the 27 New Testament Books was there as early as 382 A.D. and it remained unchanged from that time on to the Council of Trent.

Similarly, Mr. Carlos Antonio Pala explained that “[p]rior to Trent, Local Councils and Popes had identified and taught the Canon of Scripture, but not with dogmatic force, and not with anathemas or excommunications” and so up until Trent, “the Canon technically remained open.” True enough, Martin Luther presumed to tinker with the New Testament canon and wanted to excise from God’s inspired word such “disputed books” as the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation of John (see: http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html). Worth quoting here is Luther’s infamous words calling the Epistle of James as “epistle of straw” and considered it to be “not of apostolic provenance” (http://www.lessonsonline.info/LutherandJames.htm). Yet, despite Luther’s vain attempt, the list 27 books remained the same as it was in 382 A.D. when we had that final list although disputes on some of these books continued to be raised up until its definitive settlement in the Council of Trent. Until Trent, the decision in the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. “was reaffirmed on numerous occasions such as the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in 405 A.D. in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. The second Council of Carthage in 419 A.D. reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to “confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.”

Despite my explanation, Gerry Soliman maintained his accusation of contradiction. Well, that’s prejudice at its best. Prejudice squints when it looks, and lies when it talks – so it goes. Besides, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. Maintaining his stand on this issue, Mr. Soliman referred his readers to the definition of terms from Merriam Webster:

Definite - free of all ambiguity, uncertainty, or obscurity

Final - not to be altered or undone

Open - containing none of its endpoints

Remain - to continue unchanged

Settle - to establish or secure permanently

The implication Gerry Soliman wanted to convey is that I don’t understand those terms. Excuse me? Is this the best argument that Evangelical apologetics has to offer? To hide behind mere semantics without taking into consideration the “context, context and more context” within which those terms are used. But just to indulge Mr. Soliman’s word game, please find here (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definitive) the meaning of the word “definitive” which I used. Among others, “definitive” means –

(1) serving to provide a final solution or to end a situation definitive victory>

(2) authoritative and apparently exhaustive definitive edition>

(3) serving to define or specify precisely <definitive laws> b : serving as a perfect example : quintessential definitive bourgeois>

(4) fully differentiated or developed definitive organ>

The meanings above support my expression “definitively settled” as when the Council of Trent provided a final solution or ended the situation of disputing or questioning when some of the books of the New Testament. Trent authoritatively and exhaustively passed upon the issue of the canon of scripture by giving its decision “dogmatic force” and by pronouncing “anathemas or excommunications” as what Mr. Palad had been saying all along. Finally, Trent defined and specified the canon of scripture authoritatively, once and for all, for the Catholic Church.

Gerry Soliman is correct in defining “final” as “not to be altered or undone” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/final). This poses no problem at all to my position. As one can note, the same books of the New Testament “finally settled” in the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. are the same books that we have now, despite the fact that some of the books were disputed by Reformers, hence the list has not been altered or undone.

Mr. Soliman gives the definition of “open” as “containing none of its endpoints.” Mr. Soliman is deceptive because he deliberately omitted this definition of “open”: “exposed or vulnerable to attack or question : subject <open to doubt>” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open). Despite the final list of the canon, it was nevertheless exposed or vulnerable to attack as we see in Erasmus’ and Martin Luther’s attack on some of the books as well as the doubts of some Christians on the apostolic provenance of those disputed books. You see, this definition fully supports my position. I wonder why Gerry Soliman did not state that.

The remaining two words also don’t pose any problem at all. “Remain - to continue unchanged” – Yes, because the New Testament canon remain or continue to be unchanged until now with precisely the same books as in 382 A.D. Does anyone dispute this? Mr. Soliman is clearly nursing a non-issue. “Settle - to establish or secure permanently” – Readers may check the wide range of meanings of “settle” here http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/settle. None of the definitions raise any threat to my position. The first definition of “settle” in the list is “to place so as to stay.” The 27 New Testament Books – from the Gospel of Matthew to the Book of Revelations – were placed precisely in the New Testament and so it stays today.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Better luck next time, Gerry.

Moving on …

According to Mr. Gerry Soliman, that due to the “lack of evidence” during the first 300 years of the Church, I made the amazing excuse that “the Book of Revelation has not yet been accepted into the canon in the early centuries of the Church. How could there possibly be an interpretation of the woman in Revelation 12 as Mary when the very inclusion of the Book of Revelation into the canon was itself being debated!” Thus said, Mr. Soliman argued, “Granting that there was no final canon before the 4th century, is Atty. Llasos telling here no one believes that the Book of Revelations were inspired?” This is a red-herring. I never said or ever claimed that no single individual at that time believed that the Book of Revelations was inspired. And Mr. Gerry Soliman is very much aware of that because he candidly admitted: “I'm sure he doesn't mean that.” If that is so, why raise the issue in the first place? Gerry Soliman doesn’t make any sense here!

He continued, “Whatever happened to the so-called infallible church?” Excuse me, what has infallibility of the Church got to do with this? The problem with Mr. Soliman is that he is throwing “infallibility” here and there without really understanding what we actually mean by it. To prove that Mr. Soliman is in the dark when it comes to the meaning of “infallibility,” here is his own question: “Is there no infallible bishop who is able to recognize the writings of the apostle John after 70AD?”

Mr. Gerry Soliman is barking at the wrong tree. He is shadow-boxing with an invisible opponent. As is his wont, Gerry Soliman is debunking something that we don’t teach. Where in Catholic teaching does it say that an individual bishop, save the Bishop of Rome, is infallible? We don’t teach that an individual bishop is infallible. So, Mr. Soliman’s question is senseless.

But, were there bishops who recognized the writings of the apostle John after 70 A.D.? If Gerry made his homework thoroughly, he would have not asked that. With a little research, he would have easily ascertained that there were bishops who recognized the writings of John, especially the Book of Revelation, after 70 A.D. They were Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria (b. 296) and Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (b. 130). Aside from Bishops, there were others who recognized the Book of Revelation. They were Origen (b. 185) and, if Mr. Soliman checked his own evangelical apologetics sources, the following:

A. Justin Martyr (150 AD) refers and quotes Revelation 20:

"And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue 81.4)

B. The Muratorian Canon (200 AD) includes Revelation.

C. Hippolytus (170-235) accepted Revelation as scripture.

(see: http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-disputed-books.htm).

Despite the ignorance shown by Mr. Soliman on the foregoing points, he nevertheless had the gall to jeer at me by asking –

Has it occur to Atty. Llasos that there is at least one writer during the 2nd and 3rd century, Hippolytus, who identified the woman as the church:

“Now, concerning the tribulation of the persecution which is to fall upon the Church from the adversary, John also speaks thus: “And I saw a great and wondrous sign in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun ...By the woman then clothed with the sun, he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father’s word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the “moon under her feet” he referred to her being adorned” (Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist).

Unknown to Mr. Soliman, and unlike him, I did research on this and I realized that his research is woefully inadequate. In addition to Hippolytus (c. 170 – c. 236 AD) who identified the woman as the Church: (1) Methodius (d. 311 AD) and (2) Victorinus (d. 303 or 304 AD) [see: Robert A. Sungenis, The Apocalypse of St. John (Goleta, CA: Queenship Publication, 2007) p. 238-239].

I already answered the point of Mr. Soliman here http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2011/02/gerry-soliman-falters-on-church-fathers.html. I replead my arguments herein.

In the last argument of Mr. Soliman, his common sense reached rock bottom. He said –

So if the canon is being debated, why are there people like Hippolytus who gave an identification of the woman?

So what’s the point? Even if the canon was being debated, it certainly didn’t mean that no Christian, like Hyppolytus, Methodius and Victorinus would not recognize the Book of Revelation as among the inspired writings. By the very nature of a debate, there are at least two sides in a controversy. And Hyppolytus, Methodius and Victorinus just happened to be on the side of the inclusion of the Book of Revelations and made an identification of the woman as the Church. As I explained in my previous article on the Church Fathers, the identification of the woman with the Church by some Church Fathers did not altogether exclude other Church Fathers from seeing a Marian referent in that woman insofar as the Fathers saw Mary in the Church and in the Church Mary. The Catholic Church holds this ecclesiological and ecclesiotypical Mariology then as now.

Posted by Bro. Marwil N. Llasos at 5:51 AM 0 comments

An Appeal to Gerry Soliman: Bro. Marwil Llasos, OP

An Appeal to Gerry Soliman: Bro. Marwil Llasos, OP

 

Our Lady, the Woman clothed with the sun

 Gerry Soliman of Solutions Finder Apologetics, also a moderator or the Bereans Apologetics Research Ministry, published an article in his blog pointing to a contradiction between Rev. Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS and myself regarding the identity of the woman in Revelation 12 as Mary is literal or not.

            Mr. Soliman capitalized on Fr. Abe’s statement that the woman in Revelation 12:1 is Mary literally and juxtaposed it to my statement that we don’t take Revelation 12:2 literally. He then concluded that there was a contradiction.

            In an article, I pointed to Gerry Soliman that there was no contradiction at all because Fr. Arganiosa and I were discussing different issues. Fr. Arganiosa’s statement which Mr. Soliman cited addressed the question of who is the woman of Revelation 12 (verse 1, to be exact). My statement on the other hand is focused on the interpretation of “birth pains” in Revelation 12 verse 2. Everyone can read my articles below and check the links on Gerry Soliman’s blog.

            Immediately after my article was posted, Mr. Gerry Soliman took issue with the part on the canon of scripture and promised to prepare a “counter-argument” on my article over the weekend. I was of course looking forward to Gerry Soliman’s article.

            I was sorely disappointed by Gerry Soliman’s answer. As a Christian, I expected him to own up to his mistake and apologize for something wrong. Instead, Mr. Soliman conveniently skirted the main issue and proceeded to delve on other points. 

I understand a person’s need to save one’s face and dignity. But admitting that one committed a mistake and apologizing for it would not make anyone a lesser person. Christianity does not think that way.

Despite the animosity between us, I believe that Gerry Soliman is capable of recognizing his mistake and apologizing for it. Rodimus did that. And we where deeply humbled by that truly magnanimous gesture.

I will respond to the points raised by Mr. Gerry Soliman, but I wish to focus first on this issue to that we will not be sidetracked from the real score.

The issue is: Did Fr. Abraham Arganiosa and I contradict each other based on our statements that Mr. Soliman quoted in his blog?

That issue was squarely raised in my previous articles. Although this issue stared at Mr. Soliman in the face, he cavalierly ignored it. Indeed, Mr. Soliman skirted it and went at great lengths to evade it.

This may be unsolicited, but let’s help Gerry Soliman appreciate the issue. I hope he will be open-minded and Christian enough to see his mistake. And we are Christian enough to accept an apology.

Mr. Soliman quoted precisely these words from Fr. Arganiosa:

“I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS.” (emphasis added)

And then he quoted me:

“To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally. I hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally. And so do we.” (emphasis added)

What was Mr. Soliman’s conclusion? A contradiction! What was his basis? Tunog system! Because Father Arganiosa’s statement said that the woman clothed with the sun refers to Mary literally and my statement mentioned that we don’t interpret it (Rev. 12:2) literally, there must be a contradiction, right? WRONG!

I already explained how Fr. Arganiosa and I were taken out of context. The specific statements Gerry Soliman quoted from us were discussing two (2) different issues. Fr. Abe’s statement was concerned about the identity of the woman in Revelation 12:1. My statement was concerned about the interpretation of “birth pains” in Revelation 12:2. I accused Mr. Soliman of “intellectual dishonesty” because he knew fully well that my statement was discussing “birth pains” because I was responding the very question that he asked me.

More than that, I would like to believe that as a “Bible Christian,” Mr. Soliman knows his Bible very well.

He knows that the expression “woman clothed with the sun” (which Fr. Arganiosa was identifying in the statement quoted from him by Gerry Soliman) is found in verse 1 of chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation:

 “A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head” (Rev. 12:1, NIV).

On the other hand, the verse I was specifically commenting on is verse 2, chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation:

“She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth” (Rev. 12:2, NIV).

And what did I say regarding that? Mr. Soliman quoted it, thus:

“To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally. I hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally. And so do we.”

Notice my dear readers that in the quoted statement of Mr. Soliman, I categorically stated NOT JUST ONCE BUT TWICE that what I don’t take literally is verse 2 of Revelation chapter 12. And what was that about?  The “birth pains” of the woman. I was not concerned in that statement, as Fr. Arganiosa was in his, about the identity of the “woman clothed with the sun.”

Gerry Soliman did not deny that I was responding to his query on the “birth pains” in Rev. 12:2. In fact, in his answer, he categorically admitted:

“I asked him if the birth pains in verse two would in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception since God punished Eve with increased birth pains due to sin. For those who don't know the issue yet, Revelations 12 is quoted by Roman Catholic apologists to support, among others, the Marian doctrines of her Assumption and Coronation. The problem with the chapter is on verse twowhere the woman is found to be in labor pains while giving birth to a child.” (http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/01/woman-of-revelations-12-responding-to.html) Gerry, Gerry, you knew all along that I was referring to birth pains in Revelation 12:2. Yet, why did you say that I contradicted Fr. Arganiosa’s statement (the one that you quoted) which was responding to a different question on the identity of the “woman clothed with the sun”? (cf. Rev. 12:1). Despite that knowledge that I was referring to birth pains in Rev. 12:2, why did you, Gerry, made an article on how, as you yourself said I “contradicted with a fellow apologist, Fr. Abe Arganiosa whether the woman is literal or symbolical.”  I would like to hear from you about this.

I appreciate Mr. Soliman’s other arguments and will gladly respond to them only after my good friend Gerry will face this issue squarely.

- Bro. Marwil Llasos, OP

THE BEREANS APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRY DROPS DR. ANTHONY PEZZOTTA LIKE A HOT POTATO!!! by Bro. Marwil Llasos, OP

The fate of Apostates

THE BEREANS APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRY DROPS DR. ANTHONY PEZZOTTA LIKE A HOT POTATO!!!

When the book Truth Encounter of Dr. Anthony Pezzotta made its debut in 1996, Filipino Protestant and Evangelical leaders enthusiastically acclaimed and endorsed it.

Dr. Anthony Pezzotta was a Salesian priest turned Baptist pastor. He loves to style himself as “Dr.” Pezzotta although he does not have an earned doctorate degree. What he has is merely an honorary doctorate in divinity from Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon. Since Dr. Pezzotta was a Catholic priest, Protestant and Evangelical leaders assumed he was such a prize catch. They are never more wrong.LIE ENCOUNTER: CATALOGUE OF REV. FR. PEZZOTTA'S LIES AND DECEPTIONS AGAINST THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

Commenting on Dr. Pezzotta’s book, Bro. Eddie C. Villanueva of Jesus is Lord Church stated Truth Encounter is “[t]he much awaited book on Bible-based revelations of truth that will set people free from ignorance and bondage.” The implication is clear. Catholics are ignorant and under bondage. This is the same hypocritical Evangelical leader who wooed Catholic votes in his (twice) failed quest for the presidency. The Filipino saw through his pretense and God did not bless his hypocrisy. He lost the presidential elections twice. I thought he was God’s anointed. I saw on TV how the imported Evangelical pastors and evangelists anointed Bro. Eddie during the JIL anniversary at Luneta last year – and they all prophesied about the victory of God’s anointed one. They all turned out false prophets.

Rev. Butch Conde of the Bread of Life Ministries trumpetedTruth Encounter by saying that ”[e]veryone who wants to be surely founded in the truth, the only truth, the Bible truth cannot afford to be without a copy of this book.” Thus, for Rev. Conde, Truth Encounter is equated the truth, the only truth and the Bible truth. I wonder if other Evangelicals will be comfortable with that assessment. The jury is still out if Rev. Butch Conde is well received in Evangelical circles outside his own church.

Dr. Luis Pantoja, Jr., Senior Pastor of the glitzy Greenhills Christian Fellowship concluded that Pezzotta’s book “offers a brief but well-documented overview of Catholicism for general reference.”I also wonder if Dr. Pantoja bothered to read the manuscript of Truth Encounter before he concluded that it is “well-documented.” How can a book be “well-documented” if it is has no reference materials?Truth Encounter does not even have a bibliography! And yet, Dr. Pantoja called it “well-documented”!

Dr. Isabelo F. Maralit, President of Asian Theological Seminary, highly commended the work of Dr. Pezzotta and acclaimed the apostate priest as “an expert on Catholicism.” What qualifies Dr. Maralit to pronounce Pezzotta as an expert on Catholicism? Credentials, please.

Finally, Dr. Agustin B. Vencer, Jr., International Director of the World Evangelical Fellowship considered the “former” Catholic priest as a Catholic “scholar and a theologian” and as one “who knew Catholicism from within” [Truth Encounter (Makati City: Church Strengthening Ministry, 1996) p. iii]. What is Dr. Vencer’s basis in calling Pezzotta as a Catholic scholar and theologian? He didn’t say – except that Dr. Pezzotta was a Catholic priest.IMAGE AN APOSTATE PRIEST: REV. FR. ANTHONY PEZZOTTA, SDB

What these Protestant and Evangelical leaders thought to be gold turned out to be garbage. When Filipino Catholic apologists exposed this “scholar” and “expert’s” factual, historical, theological and Biblical errors, Evangelical apologists in the Philippines conveniently dropped Dr. Anthony Pezzotta like hot potato. What an embarrassment Dr. Pezzotta has become to Evangelical apologists!

(For a critique of Chapters 11 and 12 of Dr. Pezzotta’s Truth Encounter, see:http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/search/label/Pezzotta).

The foremost aggrupation of Evangelical apologists in the Philippines is the Bereans Apologetics and Research Ministry (the BARM).

After I came out with my refutation of Chapter 11 of Dr. Pezzotta’s Truth Encounter, Filipino Catholic apologists challenged Berean apologists in their forum. None of them put up a defense of Dr. Anthony Pezzotta and his book, which Rev. Butch Conde equates with “the truth, the only truth and the Bible truth.” Poor, poor Anthony Pezzotta. None of his brothers in the Bereans took up his cudgels. They dropped him like a dung!

Kawawa naman si Pastor Anthony Pezzotta. Inilaglag ng mga kapatid niya sa Bereans!!! Ganiyan ba talaga sa mga Evangelicals, may laglagan ng kapatid?

In the Bereans Forum, the moderator Rodimus (who prefers now to use his real name Gerry Soliman) posted on November 11, 2008, this comment: “Justyn M. already has a statement that BARM doesn't endorse the book. Neither do I because I haven't read the book yet. However, please tell Atty. Llasos that he will expect an email response from me concerning the Perpetual Virginity. Nice to see everyone again.”

(See:http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/archive/index.php/t-43116.html).

In an email to me, Rodimus confirmed and reiterated that the BARM does not endorse the Pezzottas book: “… I would like to first inform you that BARM does not endorse the book of Mr. Anthony Pezzotta against Roman Catholicism...”

(See: http://marwil-n-llasos.blogspot.com/2009/03/bro-mars-answers-rodimus-of-bereans.html).

Of course, we can never trust the BARM, Rodimus or Gerry Soliman for that matter. They are obviously making a hair-splitting distinction between Dr. Pezzotta and his book. They say they do not endorse Dr. Pezzotta’s book, but do they approve of Pezzotta and his attacks against the Catholic Church?

Let’s see.

Webservant of the Bereans Forum commented: “please rest assured that we won't (and will never) appeal to any works regarding Alberto P. Rivera. We would, however, appeal to the life ofAnthony "Tony" Pezzotta, Italian ex-priest turned Baptist Minister.”

(See:http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?t=33239).

Oh, the BARM doesn’t endorse Pezzotta’s book but. BARM members (like its Webmaster) “appeal” to his life.

In an article questioning the Catholic dogma on Mary as the Mother of God, the BARM also quoted Pezzotta’s argument:

“Now let’s answer the question, is it proper and is it theologically valid to call Mary, as the Mother of God? The answer is no, because:

Jesus is unique… they don’t match because there is no one like Jesus, having 2 distinct natures, being both God and man. We can’t talk about my body and my soul? I am one, one nature…they are 2 integral part of me, but in Jesus the two natures are distinct. He is God and man and Mary is mother of Jesus only as man to call her “Mother of God” is to go against this.—Anthony Pezzotta, ex-RCC priest.”

(See: http://www.thebereans.net/rcc-mariology.shtml).

Oh I see. The BARM does not endorse Pezzotta’s book; but it approves of Pezzotta’s arguments and quotes it.

Also in the same page, the BARM cited Unbiblical Pillars of Roman Catholicism, from a taped seminar conducted by ex-RCC priest Anthony Pezzotta sponsored by the Bread of Life Ministries.

(See: http://www.thebereans.net/rcc-mariology.shtml).

Again, the BARM does not endorse Pezzotta’s book. It just cites his talks.

Gerry Soliman, or Rodimus, is on record stating that“Justyn M. already has a statement that BARM doesn't endorse the book” of Dr. Anthony Pezzotta. Yet, the same Justyn M. (or “Pastor Jun,” one of the moderators of the BARM and a “born again” pastor) made a review of the updated version of Truth Encounter and posted that review in this sitehttp://justynm.multiply.com/reviews. This is what Justyn M. says about Pezzotta (and his book):

“The author, a former Rector of a Salesian Community in the Philippines, left the Catholic Church in 1974 and joined a local Baptist Church. He eventually was ordained to the Gospel Ministry and returned to the Philippines as a Baptist missionary. He is a member of the Conservative Baptist Association of Southern California. This revised edition includes additional material of Sacramentalism and Ecumenicism.”

Well, if the BARM is not endorsing Dr. Pezzotta’s book, but what about Justyn M.? Is he endorsing it? I think so, otherwise he would not make a review of it and post the review in his website dubbed The Bible Says.

We can never trust the Bereans Apologetics and Research Ministry and its moderators like Rodimus or Gerry Soliman and Justyn M. They are a bunch of lying hypocrites.

A Short Catechism On Original Sin

Adam and Eve Banished at the Garden of Eden

   Our understanding of what is Original Sin and our acceptance of its existence are one of the basis for the sacrament of baptism. Original Sin as taught in our Catholic Schools and in Catechism Classes is the stain of sin that has been passed on to every generation of Adam and Eve's descendants as it was said:  "Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants. Human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holliness and justice"(CCC #417). The Sacred scriptures clearly supports this Catechism as it is written by King David: "True, I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me" Psalms 51:7 (NAB) and Job: "Can a man be found who is clean of defilement? There is none, however short his days." -Job 14:4 (NAB) and Saint Paul: "All of us once lived among them in the desires of our flesh, following the wishes of the flesh and the impulses, and we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest" Ephesians 2:3 (NAB).
   Clearly, both Doctrine of the Catholic Church and the Sacred Scriptures agree that there exist a sin which is marked from conception, a sin we have inherited from our ancestors because of their disobedience to the will of the Lord. The Lord had been generous to both Adam and Eve, had it not for the fallen state of human beings there would be no chaos and death "God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living....It was through the devil's envy that death entered the world" -Wisdom 1:13;2:24 (CCC#413) that is to say that everything death and man's misfortune has entered the world because of the devil's sly and deceiving offers which humans frail but with grace can overcome.
    It has been a sad fruit of the modern thinking to erase the existence of original sin because without original sin our Lord Jesus Christ would not have died on the cross, for which sin does he have to atone? is it the evil deeds of man as the fundamentalists believe. No! our Lord has died on the cross to purchase us from the bonds of the Evil one through his sacrament of Baptism. It is the ultimate resemblance of alms giving, burnt offerings and good deeds  for atonement of sin in the Judaic era. That's why we frequently hear lay minsters say it is the free gift of salvation from God, offered to you by the grace of God through baptism.

SOLUTIONS FINDER THAT CANNOT FIND SOLUTIONS: A Response to Gerry Soliman by Bro. Marwil Llasos, OP

SOLUTIONS FINDER THAT CANNOT FIND SOLUTIONS:

A Response to Gerry Soliman

Oops, Gerry Soliman did it again! With the habit that he is very much accustomed to, he pitted one Catholic apologist against another. This time he pits me against Mr. Carlos Antonio Palad on when the Canon of Scriptures was “finally” settled. While waiting for his “counterargument” that he said he’d work over the weekend and while he is enjoying the “funny stuffs” with regards to the Scriptures, let me just show how Gerry Soliman again falters in his “divide and rule” tactic. [http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/01/when-was-canon-of-scriptures-finally.html].

He quoted my obiter dictum in my article published in Mr. Isahel Don Alfonso’s blog http://catholiceternaltruth.blogspot.com/:

In his obscene haste to discredit the Roman Catholic Church, Mr. Gerry Soliman conveniently forgot that the canon of Scripture, both the Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., under the authority of Pope Damasus I and was reaffirmed on numerous occasions such as the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in 405 A.D. in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse.

He also quoted the response of Mr. Carlos Antonio Palad posted in http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2010/03/first-response-to-gerry-soliman-on.html:

Like I said, it was the Council of Trent that gave dogmatic force to the Catholic Canon of Scripture. As any informed Catholic knows, this is the equivalent of stating – as the good ol’ New Catholic Encyclopedia, which I devoured during my college days, does – that it was Trent that gave final form, or “definitively settled,” the Catholic Canon of Scripture. Prior to Trent, Local Councils and Popes had identified and taught the Canon of Scripture, but not with dogmatic force, and not with anathemas or excommunications. Therefore, the Canon technically remained open, but historically and in fact – and this should give Mr. Soliman pause -- between Carthage III and Trent, between which there is a distance of more than 1,100 years, there is no difference regarding the Canon.

And thereupon, Mr. Gerry Soliman danced in glee for what he termed as “an obvious contradiction.” He pointed out that I stated that the canon was "finally settled" in 382 AD but Mr. Soliman paraphrased Mr. Palad that the final form was made at Trent of the 16th century.

Here it must be pointed out that Mr. Soliman’s reading comprehension again failed him. I was saying that the canon was “finally settled” in 382 A.D. at the Council of Rome. Mr. Palad was saying that the Council of Trent gave the canon its final form or “definitively settled.” Again, where is the contradiction?

When I said “finally settled,” I meant that all the 27 books of the New Testament Canon  were already in, as in it was a final list because no books have been added thereto or subtracted therefrom. And this list or canon, as I stated was subsequently “reaffirmed” on numerous occasions; hence, implying that it was not yet “definitive” or, as has dogmatic force for Catholics. But the list was already there as early as 382 A.D.!  Mr. Palad said basically the same thing: “Prior to Trent , Local Councils and Popes had identified and taught the Canon of Scripture, but not with dogmatic force, and not with anathemas or excommunications.”

Mr. Soliman said that he did “think the phrase, the Canon technically remained open, from Mr. Palad is far different than the phrase, finally settled, from Atty. Llasos.” He went on to argue: “If it was technically remained open, then common sense will tell you that it is not finally settled.” Sorry, Mr. Soliman but your common sense failed you. My use of “finally settled” simply meant that the list of the 27 books of the New Testament were in by 382 A.D. in the Council of Rome. Finally settled because no other books would be added to it or deducted from it. The 27 NT books are the same books we have now.

Mr. Palad explained his statement that “the Canon technically remained open” in the sense that it had no “dogmatic force, and not with anathemas or excommunications.” I was aware that despite the final list (no more dagdag-bawas), questions continued to crop regarding the canon of Scripture until its definitive or authoritative settlement for Catholics once and for all in the Council of Trent. That is why I mentioned that the decision in the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. “was reaffirmed on numerous occasions such as the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in 405 A.D. in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. The second Council of Carthage in 419 A.D.  reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to “confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.” This went on until Trent definitively, authoritatively, dogmatically and infallibly put an end to it.

.My article was concerned with the New Testament canon of which the Book of Revelation is a part. I made the point that it is absurd to demand for an official or infallible interpretation of the “woman” in Revelation 12 when the very canonicity of the Book of Revelation itself was being disputed at that time (at least during the first 300 years of Christianity, based on Gerry Soliman’s timeline).

After the New Testament canon (which included the Book of Revelation) was fixed, Marian interpretation of Revelation 12 began to emerge. That was precisely the same point of Dr. Tim Perry, author of Mary for Evangelicals: “It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Marian interpretation of Revelation 12 begins in the fifth century, after the New Testament canon is fixed. As part of the New Testament Canon, Revelation’s depiction of the heavenly woman completes the biblical Marian material” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006) p. 113. Gerry Soliman admittedly has not read this book].