The Accuracy of Scripture

The Catholic blogosphere was recently set on fire by word of a document issued by the bishops of England, Wales, and Scotland entitled The Gift of Scripture.

The firestorm was triggered by an October 5 article in The Times of London carrying the inflammatory headline "Catholic Church no longer swears by the truth of the Bible."

The Times article contained a number of errors and distortions, but it also contained a number of quotes from the British bishops' document that were of concern to faithful Catholics.

For example, the document is quoted as saying that "we should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision" and that, while the Bible is reliable when expressing truths connected to salvation, "we should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters."

Such statements are common these days from catechists, theologians, and biblical scholars. They are trying to express something important — that there are certain things we should not expect from Scripture — but they have not used the right language in expressing these facts.

The Traditional View

Scripture presents itself to us as the very word of God, and the Christian Church has always honored it as such. Historically, Christians have held that the Bible is absolutely free of error, or inerrant.

Yet it has also been clear that there are many difficult and perplexing things in the Bible. This has led some to entertain the idea that Scripture may be protected from error in a way different than previous generations of Christians have held. Instead of being totally free of error, these thinkers have said, perhaps it is only free from error on certain matters.

For example, some have said that the Bible is meant for teaching us faith and morals, so perhaps it is inerrant on faith and morals but not on other matters. Other have suggested that Scripture is oriented toward our salvation, so maybe it is inerrant only on matters of salvation.

This might be called the limited or restricted inerrancy view, as opposed to the total or unrestricted inerrancy position.

As attractive as limited inerrancy may be, it faces significant problems.

Some Problems

It does not seem that the Bible understands itself in these terms. When the authors of Scripture quote each other, they speak in a way that suggests that every single word is authored by God.

The authors of the New Testament, for example, regularly quote the Old Testament with introductions such as "The Holy Spirit says" (Heb. 3:7), and Jesus himself said that "not an iota, not a dot" would pass away from the law of Moses before it was fulfilled (Matt. 5:18).

In the last couple of centuries the Church has weighed in on this question and rejected limited inerrancy. The First Vatican Council taught:

"These books [of the canon] the Church holds to be sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author" (De Fide Catholica 2:7).

Pope Leo XIII stated that "it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred" and condemned "the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond" (Providentissimus Deus 20).

Pius XII stated that the Vatican I passage cited above was a "solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the 'entire books with all their parts' as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever." He repudiated those who "ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 1).

And then came Vatican II.

Vatican II

The Vatican II decree Dei Verbum taught:

"In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things that he wanted. Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth that God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation (DV 11).

The last phrase of this passage — "for the sake of salvation" — has become a sticking point, and many have argued that it restricts the scope of scriptural inerrancy to just those things that have to do with our salvation.

There was actually an intense behind-the-scenes controversy at Vatican II over this clause, which ended up being appealed to Pope Paul VI, and there is no doubt that some at the Council wanted the phrase understood as allowing restricted inerrancy. In fact, some wanted a formula that would even more clearly allow for restricted inerrancy.

But ultimately this position did not prevail. The text as it stands continues to affirm that the Bible contains all and only what God wanted written — that everything asserted by the human authors is asserted by the Holy Spirit.

There are countless instances where Scripture is clearly making an assertion that is neither of faith and morals nor connected in any direct way with our salvation. For example, the Bible clearly asserts that Andrew was the brother of Peter in some accepted first-century understanding of the word brother.

Dei Verbum thus teaches the unrestricted inerrancy of Scripture, and the "for the sake of our salvation" clause is thus most plausibly read as a statement of why God put his truth into Scripture, not a restriction on the scope of his truth.

What to Do?

That leaves us with the problem of how to explain the limits of what Scripture can be expected to do and how we can go wrong if we approach it the wrong way. How can these limitations be explained to the faithful in a way that does not charge Scripture with error?

Dei Verbum has given us an important tool for doing this. The Council spoke of those things "asserted by the inspired authors" as asserted by the Holy Spirit and thus protected from error. So we need to determine what the inspired author is trying to assert, for that is what is protected from error.

What a person asserts is not the same as what he says. Suppose someone says, "It's raining cats and dogs out there today." What he has said is perfectly obvious, but he is not asserting that cats and dogs are falling from the sky. Instead, he is asserting that it is raining hard.

His assertion may well be true. It may indeed be raining hard, and if so then he should not be charged with error.

Native English-speakers are familiar with the phrase "raining cats and dogs" and recognize what is meant. But non-native English-speakers could be perplexed by the statement. It's the same with Scripture.

The Example of Genesis

We don't come from the same culture that authored Scripture. We aren't ancient Israelites, and we don't have a native's feel for how their literature works. When people from our culture read the Bible they are particularly liable to miss symbolism that the text may be using. We know that God can do amazing, miraculous things, and if we don't know how ancient Hebrew literature worked, we can read perplexing things as miracles rather than symbols.

Throughout history many have taken the six days of creation in Genesis as six literal twenty-four-hour periods, but there are clues that this may not be what is meant. For example, the sun is not created until day four, though day and night were already in existence on day one. The ancients knew that it's the sun that causes it to be day as well as we do, and so this may mean that the passage is not to be understood literally.

By asking ourselves what it does mean — what the inspired author is asserting — then we see that he is asserting that the whole of the material world was created by God — the true God and not a bunch of pagan deities.

One could look at the passage and conclude that the inspired author is not trying to give us a scientific account of the creation of the world. The magisterium has recently favored this view (CCC 337, 283).

So would it be right to say, as The Gift of Scripture does, that "we should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy"?

Finding the Right Words

Because Genesis is not making scientific assertions, it is wrong to charge Genesis with scientific error. If someone draws erroneous scientific conclusions from a misreading of Genesis, the error belongs not to Genesis but to the person who has misread it.

Therefore we should not say that Genesis does not have "full scientific accuracy" — a statement that is bound to disturb the faithful and undermine their confidence in Scripture. Instead we should say that Genesis is not making scientific assertions and that we will draw erroneous conclusions if we treat the text as though it were.

The same applies to statements such as "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible." In fact we should, for everything asserted in Sacred Scripture is asserted by the Holy Spirit, and he does not make mistakes.

The burden is on us to recognize what the Spirit is and is not asserting, and we may stumble into error if we make a mistake in doing this.

This applies to science or history or faith or morals or salvation or any other subject. The error belongs to us as interpreters, not to the Holy Spirit and not to the Scripture that he inspired.

I will give you another chance: where does God say in the Bible "You must believe in me"?

Why are you judging me by the standard of sola scriptura? Are you sure you're Orthodox?

Yet Jews know that chickens are committed.

Eew! Did I type "committed" instead of "permitted?" My bad!

Well, judging from the above, you have pretty much used up that "knowing" card. But I am sure there is a convoluted reason or maybe it's just a game you are playing and there is no reason. If the reason is religious, it's an assumption.

The answer is that Jews know that they may eat chicken because their parents ate chicken, and their parents ate chicken, and their parents ate chicken, and THEIR parents ate chicken, and so on, "all the way back." There has never been a generation that did not eat chicken. Thus the eating of chicken could not have been erroneously introduced at any time.

As for me "pretending" to be Eastern Orthodox, I was baptized Eastern Orthodox as an infant and raised in the Orthodox faith. So, where is the pretense? If I have my doubts does that nullify my baptism? And how would you know anyway? And, yes, Orthodox Christianity is not only real but the purest Christianity of all. It's a historical issue, not a value judgment. Eastern Orthodoxy remains liturgically unchanged more than other branches of Christianity.

Why does this mean anything? If it's a fraud, it's a fraud. The "purest form" of a fraud is still a fraud. I'm sure islam and b*ddhism have their "most unchanged" versions as well. Big whoop.

No I don't know if Jesus ever existed. That doesn't mean one cannot believe he did. How do you know Moses existed? How do you know Exodus happened when there is no trace of it? And how could over a million people (if one can trust biblical figures) roam around a patch of land the size of West Virginia for 40 years—"lost" when the whole place can be covered on foot in five days' time? And how can such multitude leave nothing behind, not even their garbage? I am sure there is some numerological, mystical, kabbalistic explanation for that as well that I would just love to hear along with your chicken story, but don't expect me to readily believe it.

Where on earth did you ever get the idea that the Israelites "wandered around lost for 40 years?" That you would think this does not speak well of your attention to the Biblical text.

The chronology of the Torah from the Book of Exodus through Deuteronomy is as follows:

1)The year prior to the Exodus
2)The first year after the Exodus
3)Thirty-eight years camped at Qadesh-Barne`a after the sin of the spies (during which time they performed the sacrificial service in the Tabernacle and studied Torah systematically as elucidated in great detail by Maimonides)
4)the Final year.

So much for "wandering around lost for forty years." And was their garbage supposed to fossilize?

My pay is the same, no matter what you call me. I guess I should be flattered that you spend so much time finding labels that would fit your idea of me, and memorizing my posts. Sounds a little obsessive to me that I am that important in your life? I am sorry, I don't care about you nearly as much.

You know something? This is not an easy world for "rednecks." The liberals hate them (while praising every other primitive superstitious ethnic group to the skies for not "giving in" to "Western" modernity) and war against them as the one and only thing blocking the way to Utopia. If only those awful people weren't around! Then atheist liberals and Australian aborigines and snake-handling COGIC churches in the Mississippi Delta and homosexuals and moslems could all join hands and make this world a paradise. And with Barry's "civilian police force" on the way, who is to say that one day the "ends justify the means" mentality won't take that ultimate step?

In this crazy, redneck-hating world places like Free Republic are supposed to be a refuge. This is where "the people who cause all the trouble in the world" can gather with their own kind to vent and feel at home. It's a tiny little refuge. And in this refuge they can proclaim their devotion to the Nazarene "messiah" who supposedly loves them so much and "his" Bible, and complain about how the American Civil Liberties Union wants to outlaw chr*stmas.

And then, kosta, the snake crawls into this little garden: "authentic chr*stians" who belong to "ancient, unchanging" churches who pour more scorn on the simple rednecks than the ADL and the ACLU put together. They flaunt their belief in anti-scientific impossibilities like transubstantiation and the "virgin birth" while scolding the rednecks for believing that silly stuff in Genesis which "embarrasses" them so. In fact, if it weren't for "you awful people," they tell them, the entire world would convert. Once again, the redneck is the only thing standing in the way of paradise!

And they are so malicious. Calling them "Cletus," "brain dead Bibliolators," making snide references to "Billy Bob's Glory Barn," etc. Do you know why they do it? Cruelty. Pure, unadulterated cruelty. They get an almost sexual pleasure from coming into the redneck's supposed "safe haven" in the "conservative movement" and attacking him and everything he has ever believed or held dear in the name of "authentic chr*stianity" and telling him how "alienated" he is from this "authentic chr*stianity." "You'll never be a real chr*stian. You aren't Greek/Russian/Irish/Armenian/Filipino/Ukrainian/Mexican/Polish/East Timorese. You are the offspring of a heretical race. You are doomed to be forever inferior, second class chr*stians because through no fault of your own you were born into the wrong ethnic group and grew up with a devotion to Genesis instead of to Mary." My, how that must tickle you and your buddies. It's like pulling the wings off flies, isn't it? And how fun it must be to see their puzzlement and even outrage when you adapt pagan holidays and totem poles and "baptize" them while maintaining that the Book of Genesis is inherently un-chr*stian and can never be so adapted!

But you know, you're an honest person. I give you that. I appreciate it. But what to make of your more "orthodox" Orthodox and Catholic colleagues who know your eccentricities and, aside perhaps from an occasional private admonition, treat you like family, finding not the slightest thing wrong with your admitted outrageousness. You I can in a way understand. They I cannot. You have an excuse . . . you believe what you believe and can't help it (just as we all do). Their refusal to reprove you, their implicit endorsement of your idiosyncrasies (while scolding rednecks for believing the Biblical Adam was a real person) makes them much more culpable, much less honorable, and much lower.

At the risk of this post being deleted (perhaps I should save it), such people, when they come onto conservative forums and give rednecks the ACLU treatment, are the scum of the earth.

Wrong. You fail to discern between a situation slightly out of normal (someone is killed) with a situation well outside our common experience (the Creator taking obvious acts in His creation)

Someone killed is a verifiable fact. The Creator (how do you know it's the Creator?) taking obvious (obvious?) acts in His (how do you know that?) creation is a chock-full of unjustifiable assumptions. You are comparing apples and oranges.

This is the sort of mistake that kills people in the wild - they think they are inside their experience, but they are not.

That is probably much more applicable to someone who depends on assumptions than on someone who thinks and acts rationally.

It also is what the folks I mentioned think about - what happens when the probability isn’t 10% or 1%, but 0.00001%. Yet the latter events do happen...0.00001% of the time.

And what is the probability of a talking donkey? Of all the donkeys that ever lived, only one was "witnessed" talking! I call that probability zero for all practical purposes, yet people of assumptions believe in it 100%!

You define improbable as impossible

And people of assumptions define improbable as 100% certain!

With training, if it is sufficiently probable, you can overcome these. However, if highly improbable, you won’t have that option

We can't control the circumstances and we can only do the best we can, using reason and skills and experience learned. It's better than doing nothing or assuming some divine hand will do the trick. The probability of that is much, much smaller even if you trust in it 100%.

Learn English before you criticize me for doing what all of us do.

So, that makes it right?

NO ONE uses language with complete precision, nor would anyone waste time listening [SIC] to you if you did.

Of course not, especially when we speak. But when we write, that's a different story. Precision is much more important in written communication. Of course, that will be obsolete in another 30 years from now when text-messaging style, grammar and spelling become the norm.

Why are you judging me by the standard of sola scriptura? Are you sure you're Orthodox?

Because you said the Jews know they must believe in God because God told them so, and you used a Biblical reference to "prove" it. Trouble is, your reference doesn't prove it. It cites supposedly God introducing himself to Moses.
But when I ask you to provide Biblical proof where God actually says to the Jews they should believe in him you pull the sola scriptura excuse. Make up your mind. You can't use scripture to prove your point and refuse scripture when you can't.

Eew! Did I type "committed" instead of "permitted?" My bad!

Given that "p" is on the opposite end of the keyboard from "c", and so are "e" and "o", and "r" and "m" are diagonally opposite...some typo, like dog ate my homework. Try again.

The answer is that Jews know that they may eat chicken because their parents ate chicken, and their parents ate chicken, and their parents ate chicken, and THEIR parents ate chicken, and so on, "all the way back." There has never been a generation that did not eat chicken. Thus the eating of chicken could not have been erroneously introduced at any time

I thought you'd have a much better rationalization. This is quite disappointing. Interestingly, the Orthodox use the same line of "reasoning" to ascertain tradition, which is, just as in the case of the Jews, obviously fallacious.
The reason it is fallacious in your example is because (a) you don't know that; someone told you and you accepted it blindly because there is no proof.
But, how many people were separated from their parents or lost their lineage, were sold into slavery or adopted? (b) the Jews were not always or consistently observant, nor did they always consistently worship the God of Abraham, so claiming "all thew way back" may sound really neat but it is obviously sophism.
Obviously, eating chicken could have been introduced at any point in those "off" periods for several generations and made into a tradition "all the way back."

Why does this mean anything? If it's a fraud, it's a fraud. The "purest form" of a fraud is still a fraud. I'm sure islam and b*ddhism have their "most unchanged" versions as well. Big whoop.

But you have not proven that it is a fraud, nor have you proven that Judaism is one true faith. So, the finger you use to accuse is accusing you back. I think all religions are somewhat of a fraud in their organized, matter-of-fact approach because they operate on unprovable assumptions and often skillfully say.

Where on earth did you ever get the idea that the Israelites "wandered around lost for 40 years?" That you would think this does not speak well of your attention to the Biblical text

Well, they were on their way to the promised land and didn't get there in over 40 years. It's a heck of a detour no matter what you call it. I think they were lost one way or another.

Thirty-eight years camped at Qadesh-Barne`a after the sin of the spies (during which time they performed the sacrificial service in the Tabernacle and studied Torah systematically as elucidated in great detail by Maimonides)

Studied the Torah for 38 years? What Torah? You mean Moses wrote all five books before they got there? (actually all evidence seems to show that he didn't write a single one of them)
And how does Maimonides know all that? What reference does he use? Or is it yet another tall tale based on assumptions?

So much for "wandering around lost for forty years." And was their garbage supposed to fossilize?

I doubt it would fossilize in 3,000 years, but a huge garbage dump made by over a million people over 38 years would be a formidable "contribution" to historical science and pretty hard to miss archaeologically speaking.
Then there would be pottery, artifacts, graves!, and a slew of other things the Israeli scientists could not find at or near Qadesh-Barne`a (or anywhere else on the Sinai) for the last 40-plus years, so much so that one prominent Israeli archaeologist stated "there never was an Exodus," and he is not alone among Israeli scientists to make such a statement.
But they found plenty of Egyptian artifacts, and garbage dumps of the same period and in the same area. You are more than welcome to consult Israeli sources lest others be accused of "anti-Semitism."

You know something? This is not an easy world for "rednecks.

I believe the topic was "I have no labels" and you saying that you had some for me, even if I didn't care to know them, and I said "My pay is the same no matter what you call me," and you respond with this "article" on rednecks!?!
Okay, I will just let that one slide, because it is completely unrelated to my comment, and quite hateful. It seems to me that you were just looking for an opportunity to let everyone know what you think and we thank you very much for that, although coherent it is not, and certainly has very little to do with the subject matter of proving that God told his people they must believe in him.

Shalom!

It didn't seem to jibe with his bio in Surprise by Truth. Did you use his words, or yours or someone else's interpretation of it?

My summary, his words. Here's James Akin, in his own words from the thread A TRIUMPH AND A TRAGEDY:

He was born in 1965, and attended a Church of Christ congregation until "five or six" (1970-71).
"I was born in 1965 in Corpus Christi, Texas, and grew up in Fayetteville, Arkansas. My mom and dad took me to a local Church of Christ until I was five or six, but then quit going."

Started reading "end times" parts of the Bible at "thirteen or fourteen" (1978-79, age 13 or 14).
"When I was thirteen or fourteen, I started reading the Bible, but only those parts I thought dealt with the "end times.""

Turned to the New Age Movement for "about five years", but broke from them in his "first year of college" (1983-4, age 18 or 19).
"As a result of what I read in the Bible, I got scared, seeing terrifying visions of God's wrath and judgment without having them balanced by the message of his wondrous grace and mercy. This helped drive me into the next phase of my religious development: the New Age movement....I was a New Ager for about five years. But in my first year of college I broke with the New Age movement...."

"Some time later" he starts listening to Dr Gene Scott, and "six months later" he joins Scott's televised church (approx. 1986, age 21).
"It was not until some time later that I found a preacher who acted enough like a non-Christian for me to be able to listen to him. He was a hum-dinger. Dr. Gene Scott was a late night TV preacher and end-times guru based in Southern California. I discovered him on my television late one evening after work and was entranced....After listening to him for about six months, I called up and joined his church—the first one I had ever been a member of."

[It is worth pointing out here that at this time Akin is in Arkansas, and Dr Scott's "Faith Center" church was in Glendale, California. Thus, Akin's "membership" was of the mail-order variety, not one of actual baptism, church attendance and communion].

Decides on life goal of becoming "a pastor or...a seminary professor." (1986, age 21)
"After becoming a Gene Scott devotee, I voraciously read books on theology. My greatest desire was to enter full-time Christian ministry, either as a pastor or as a seminary professor, but something intervened: my marriage."

Akin claims his wife's Catholicism stopped his career goals (1986, age 21)
"I suffered the disappointment of giving up my career because of Renee's Catholicism."

Meets future wife, who converts from New Ageism (back) to Catholicism (1986, age 21)
"I met my future wife, Renee Humphrey, at a party shortly after I became a Christian. Although she was a Catholic who held many New Age beliefs, I dated her anyway....Before we could be married, there were a couple of issues I had to get settled with Renee: her New Age beliefs and her Catholicism....I was pleased at having convinced her not to be a New Ager; now all I had to do was to convince her to not be a Catholic."

Akin says that J Leon Holmes' family, and others, became Catholics at the PCA church he will later attend (approx 1986, age 21)
"....some of the groundwork had been laid when Leon's family and a number of other people from my church had become Catholics."

tries convincing future wife to quit Catholicism, she becomes Anglican (approx. 1987, age 22)
"I decided to try this strategy again and loaned her a book which tried to put the Vatican in a bad light. After reading it she quit identifying herself as a Catholic and began to speak of herself as an Anglican."

Changes "religious affiliation" from Gene Scott to the Presbyterian Church in America. (approx 1988, age 23)
"My fascination with Gene Scott lasted for some time, but when his organization fell on hard times and his program was taken almost completely off the air in my area, I decided to find some other religious affiliation. I settled on a conservative denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)."

A "former attendee" of his PCA church sends a Catholic article to friends in his home town (approx 1988, age 23)
"Leon wrote a paper on Mary and sent it to friends in Fayetteville; I was one of the people who read it....Leon used to attend the Protestant church where I worshiped, but some time before I started attending there he and his family had moved away."

[Note: "Leon" here is Federal Judge J. Leon Holmes. At the time of Holmes' supposed PCA attendance, he was an attorney with Wright Lindsey & Jennings LLP in Little Rock, AR, and president of Arkansas Right To Life. Holmes was and is a staunch Catholic, and has never been a Presbyterian.]

Marries his wife in a non-Catholic ceremony (approx 1989, age 24)
"During Renee's Anglican period, she and I were married"

Akin reads more Catholic materials (approx 1989-90, age 24-25)
"A year or two after reading Leon's paper on Mary, I read a book by a Catholic author who gave a long quote from Matthew 16 in his section on the pope."

Akin begins having "problems" with the fundamental doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura (approx 1989-90, age 24-25)
"I also began to have problems with the two fundamental doctrines of Protestantism: sola fide, the claim that we are saved by faith alone, and sola scriptura, the claim that Christians are to use only the Bible in matters of doctrine and practice."

wife converts back to Catholicism (approx 1989, age 24)
"shortly after our wedding Renee reverted to Catholicism."

Akin leaves the PCA, and begins attending a Catholic parish (approx 1991, age 26)
"...over the next year I began reading Catholic doctrine intensively. During this time I softened my stance on Catholicism. I began taking my wife to Mass and also became willing to be married in the Church. "

they later remarry in a Catholic ceremony (1991, age 26).
"On December 1, 1991, she and I were married by Fr. Mark Wood, the priest of the parish Renee and I attended."

Akin considers converting to Catholicism (1991, age 26).
"As far as Renee knew, my view of Catholicism had softened but I still remained opposed to the Church on theological grounds. I decided to keep hidden from her the fact I was actually thinking about converting."

A month after their re-wedding, Akin announces his thoughts, says seeds planted back at PCA church (1992, age 27)
"In January 1992 I let Renee in on the secret I had been keeping and told her I might be joining the Catholic Church....some of the groundwork had been laid when Leon's family and a number of other people from my church had become Catholics."

Six months later, wife takes ill (1992, age 27)
"In late June 1992, shortly after her twenty-seventh birthday, Renee became ill. "

Akin formally converts to Catholicism (1992, age 27)
"I called my parish and left a message for the priest, who came to our hospital room that night. He and I talked about Renee's condition and about my coming into the Church. A week or so earlier I had told him I was virtually ready to join. I had been more or less ready intellectually for some time....The next morning I spoke to Scott Hahn on the phone about 10:30 a.m. The two of us had become phone friends during my conversion process. "

In summary, Akin was associated with Dr Gene Scott's "Faith Center" church for about two years. Church attendance did not begin until he joined a local PCA church, where he attended for another two years or so. Akin began his move towards Catholicism around 1988, after reading J. Leon Holmes' Catholic apologetics letters to the members of Akin's PCA church, some of whom are Holmes' relatives. So Akin (according to his own autobiography) had been a Christian for at most four years, the most influential of those years being those when he was not in attendance at a local church. Akin's conversion is not that of a stable, mature Protestant who decides to become Catholic. Akin's story is more that of a spiritual drifter who ends up joining his wife's faith.

Akin wrote "A Triumph and a Tragedy" prior to April 1995, when it was published in Catholic Answers' "This Rock". Any discrepancies between this and Akin's biography as found in Surprised By Truth are his to explain.

Gentlemen: I cannot go to bed tonight before I apologize to all of you. Unfortunately, my temper and my excuse of it as "righteous wrath" gets out of hand quite often. But I think this time I absolutely took the cake.

Kosta . . . of all the people I lashed out against the past few days I have wronged you most of all. My post #122 is probably the most shameful thing that's ever been posted on this forum, at least by someone who's been here as long as I have. I was angry at you and I did everything in my power to hurt you. And now that the deed has been done and I cannot untype the things I said . . . I've been ashamed of my behavior here before, but I don't think I've ever been as ashamed, or so deserved to feel that way, as I do now after having it sink it after all this time the terrible things I wrote in that post and in previous ones.

I'm studying a book on Noachide law right now, two pages a day. One of the things I read this morning was that G-d's Providence covers everything that happens to us (something I thought I knew already), the good and the bad (ditto), and even the people who interact with us. Even the people who interact with us do so providentially for our good in G-d's Good Will and instead of being angry we are to thank Him. For many years now I have said a prayer before retiring at night that begins by stating that I forgive everyone who has wronged me. What a hypocrite I have been. What damage I have done. And what a desecration of G-d's Great Name I have committed.

To ask you at this point for forgiveness for the things I have said, not only during this current debate but in the past also, seems smug and flip. To promise to never do so again, knowing my terrible temper, seems futile. But nevertheless, compelled by G-d's Commandment and my own feelings of shame and guilt, I must ask you for forgiveness and I must promise to do my best not to do this again in the future.

I ping your co-religionists here only because in my anger and bitterness I said the same terrible things about them for no other reason than that I was angry and wanted to do as much damage to you as I could. That is why I must ask their forgiveness as well.

Bdeaner . . . Mark . . . though I haven't been anything like as savage to you (hard to believe, I admit), I've nevertheless let our arguments of the past few days get way out of hand. No, I'm not changing my theological position or opinions, but please forgive me. I'm sorry. Yes, that does sound flip.

SolidWood, my apologies to you also for insulting you on the other thread (though again, I'm afraid I can't change my religious beliefs).

ET, sorry for my brusqueness with you as well.

Every so often I feel like I need to just log off Free Republic for a week or so merely for my own sanity and the sanity of my opponents there. This may be one of those times.

With G-d's help, tonight when I tell Him that I forgive everyone who has wronged me, I will try to really mean it.

Be well, all of you, and may G-d in His Infinite Power heal the wounds I have inflicted and glorify His Name which I have profaned.

ZC, forgiveness was never in question, as far as I was concerned. I just kept wondering what I have done in your eyes to deserve so much scorn. Your closing paragraphs really could not be answered with any degree of acceptable cynicism or bitter-sweet humor, and I frankly did not have it in me to try for parity, so I let it go, believing that maybe we all learned a lesson from it, for which I mustered enough frankness to thank you, even if it came across as sarcasm. It wasn't sarcasm.

I know that you think my coreligionists should hang me out to dry the way you feel they have been doing with "rednecks," but I am sure that, while they are pained to see one of their own wonder off so far in his thinking outside the box, they also know that my Orthodox upbringing left on me at least something we attribute to our faith in Christ, as our model and guide; they know that, regardless what I say, I have never renounced believing with all my heart what he stands for in our Church, and that living in imitation of his teaching is the only right thing to do. I have no doubt that one can be a Christian at heart even if he is not super religious, just as a non-observant Jew is still a Jew and can, even as an atheist, be righteous among nations and be acceptable to God.

³⁷"Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? ³⁸'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? ³⁹'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' ⁴⁰"The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.' [Matthew 25]

I harbor no ill feelings towards you, and never have, even if what you said was irritating. But I am glad that you mustered the courage and character to publicly confess what you could have done via PM, out of sight of everyone else, just as you could have asked the RM to inconspicuously remove the offensive post.

In my previous post I to you I did not remember, after all these years, a single post of yours because they did not impress me. But you did something this time which I will forever remember, in fact the only thing you ever wrote that I will have a memory of, because it was impressive and I salute you for it.

Shalom.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.