Shawn C. Madden

Any writer, even the apostolic writers, are just commentators, no more inspired of insightful than commentators today. They have their strengths and their weaknesses. Modern commentators have the advantage of having all previous writers at their disposal. And, this is very often forgotten, they didn’t all address every subject and they did not all agree. Scripture is the only body of writings that are inspired. None of the church writers are. They may have good (and erroneous) things to say but they all have to be evaluated for veracity or error.

Ok….👏 bravo sir.

I left Alabama. I am in Georgia now. At 3 a.m. I saw a yellow sign glowing beside the highway. Waffle House. I went in. The parking lot was full. At 3 a.m. I asked the waitress when they close. She looked at me the way you look at a child who has asked when gravity ends. She said, "We don't close, baby." Two things happened in that sentence. One: I learned Waffle House has never closed. Not at night. Not on Christmas. Not during hurricanes. Two: she called me "baby." I am a grown man. I have a mortgage. It repaired something in me I did not know was broken. I ordered hash browns. She said, "Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked, diced, peppered, capped, or topped?" I did not understand a single word in that sentence. I said, "Yes." She nodded and wrote it down. Apparently that was a correct answer. Then I learned something, and I need you to know I did not invent this. The United States government measures the strength of hurricanes by whether the Waffle House is open. Open: the storm is fine. Limited menu: the storm is serious. Closed: evacuate. It is over. This is called the Waffle House Index. FEMA uses it. FEMA. The disaster agency. Japan built earthquake satellites. America watches a diner. Both systems work. At 3 a.m., the Waffle House contained: two truck drivers. A nurse still in scrubs. Four teenagers in prom clothes. One man who had clearly made several mistakes that evening. And one Japanese man with a notebook. Nobody asked anybody why they were there. At Waffle House, being there is the answer. Then a man at the counter noticed my Alabama shirt. It was a gift. Long story. He did not speak. He pointed at the shirt and shook his head slowly, the way you correct someone in church. Then he said, quietly: "Go Dawgs." I panicked and used the only word I own. "Roll Tide." Every fork in the building stopped. The cook looked up from the eggs. The waitress said, "Baby, no." I understand now. Every state here has its own word. My word is from one state ago. The man bought my waffle anyway. He said, and I am quoting him exactly: "You didn't know. Bless your heart." I have been told that phrase has two meanings. I believe I received the gentle one. I believe.

John 10:27-28 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

@FrankLets78822 Bingo. Amen!

"So are you saying obedience doesn't matter?" Not at all. Obedience is the fruit of salvation, not the root of it. We don't obey to become God's children. We obey because we have become God's children through faith in Christ. The apostles never preached, "Obey so God will save you." They preached, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." (Acts 16:31)

Actually, it is not dead. What is dead is what the pharisees did to it. Read the text of Exodus and Deut. The Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments and still intact. The Sabbath is a rest day - not a day of worship. The New Covenant difference is that it is now observed as a reflection of the LORD’s will and not as a ticket to gain entry to heaven. Observing the Lord’s day as a day of corporate worship while also observing a day of rest is good. In many ways some ‘traditions,’ like the pharisees, have loaded regulations onto the Lord’s day that carry mortal sin level violations for missing it while also making other ‘holy days of obligations’ required.

I just thought of something. If the Sabbath was already dead, done away with, nailed to the cross, and not part of the New Covenant and thus completely irrelevant to Christians, why did Rome feel the need to tamper with it at all? Why try to repeal it? You don't replace or repeal something that no longer exists or that is no longer there. You don't claim authority over something that has no authority. You certainly don't boast about changing something that God already abolished Himself. Make it make sense.

@yipopov @ShamelessPopery @leahtrell Nothing anti-catholic. I read the verse in its context. Easy enough to read and understand what it said.

We aren’t dismissing you, on the contrary, we’re acknowledging you and your experience. You said it yourself, you weren’t brought up reading the Bible, so when you first discovered Matthew 23:9 in isolation the Protestant interpretation seemed quite reasonable. It’s no coincidence that it’s one of the go-to verses for anti-Catholic apologetics, it clearly works on a lot of people.

Plenty of smart Protestants go to (Protestant) seminary and are confirmed in their views. Plenty of smart Catholics go to seminary and are confirmed in our views. Neither of these facts is surprising or particularly persuasive. But there are also many smart and seemingly holy, devout Protestants who study theology and Church history and they realize they have to become Catholic. This happens with enough frequency that entire books have been written about the phenomenon, as well as collections of testimonies. I personally know several former Protestant pastors who are now Catholic. I don't know of anysmart and seemingly holy, devout Catholics who study theology and Church history and realized they needed to become Protestant. To be clear, I know plenty of former Catholics (most of them now non-religious, some of them now Protestant), but invariably they didn't know or believe Catholic teaching even *before* they left the Church, and most will tell you that. I think this should be cause for reflection on both sides. On the one hand, there's clearly a problem within Catholicism of not forming the next generation well enough (this is improving, but there's a lot of work to do). And I think if I was a Protestant I would be alarmed by the fact that the more people look at the evidence, the more likely they are to conclude that Protestantism is false and Catholicism is true.

Your last question first. No, I have seen similar lengthy arguments over the years. And therein lies a big part of the problem. Jesus’s command is an easy one to observe and to violate it and justify the violation usually, as you do here, lengthy arguments are enjoined. (1) If it was hubris for the Jewish leaders to insist on being called “rabbi,” how in the world is it not hubris on the part of Catholic leaders to be called “father,” (especially "Most Holy Father" and have their ring and hand kissed) in light of Jesus’s clear command. That is the clear context that is violated. (2) Where is anyone called and given the title of “father” in the NT? When in the NT is anyone called “father” or shepherd, or teacher, in the sense of Matt 23? (3) Please don’t explain what “perhaps” I will do. Wait for my response and deal with that. It is a mistake, in mehumble opinion, to present first what you think someone will say. You are trying to create a straw man. Bad practice. To repeat, where is anyone called and given the title of “father” in the NT? When in the NT is anyone called “father” or shepherd, or teacher, in the sense of Matt 23? Does Paul insist on being called “Father Paul”? Is there a record of anyone calling him Father Paul? What is the Greek word used by him that you translate as “became your father”? What does it mean? (4) I very much disagree. It is clear and from the mouth of Jesus that you are to not call or address anyone as “father” as a title, yes, in a spiritual sense. The use of father for Abraham is to designate him as a physical and spiritual progenitor. Do you guys talk about him as Father Abraham in your church? (5) Dealt with in (4). No. The critique of the practice by anyone to entitle someone as “Father” is a direct and obvious violation of the teachings of Jesus in Matt. 23. That teaching is simple enough that I could easily recgonize it while a young man. In Eph 3.14-15, whom do you think Paul is referring. If you recognize God as the Father then we agree, but there is no connection there to the Matt. 23 point. The Romans and John and 1 Peter citations do not bear on this issue. Semitic way? Odd. What makes it semitic? Paul noted his role in bringing someone to the Lord but he never insisted that he be called “father” and he was never called “father.” If you are going to make what you think is Paul’s argument, are priests (there’s a whole issue) only to be called “father” by those whom they led to the Lord?

I would be happy to. (1) Start by putting the passage back in context. In Matt. 23:8-9, after criticizing the hubris of the Pharisees, Jesus says, “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.” (2) Jesus talks here about there’s one Father, but also one teacher, just as elsewhere he talks about how there “shall be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16). Difficulties immediately jump out. After all, there are plenty of fathers, teachers, and shepherds in this world, and the Bible acknowledges this fact repeatedly. (3) Perhaps you’ll explain this away by saying that “Jesus doesn’t mean that literally, he’s just talking about SPIRITUAL fathers, teachers, and shepherds.” That still doesn’t work. As you may know, “pastor” means “shepherd” (poimēn in Greek). So when St. Paul says that God’s “gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,” he’s literally saying “shepherds and teachers,” and he’s clearly talking about their being multiple SPIRITUAL pastors and teachers. But what about spiritual fathers? Listen to his words to the Corinthians: “though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” (1 Cor. 4:15). (4) So at this point, it should be clear that Matthew 23:8-9 cannot be read to literally prohibit calling someone a father (or teacher) in either an earthly or spiritual sense. At this point, some people pivot to a third interpretation: you can have spiritual fathers, but you aren’t allowed to use Father as a TITLE. The problem here is the use of “Father Abraham” as a title for Abraham in the New Testament. We see him addressed twice as “Father Abraham” in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:24, 30), as well as references to “our father Abraham” or “your father Abraham” in places like Luke 1:73, John 8:53-56, Acts 7:2, and Romans 4:12. (5) I’ve heard people attempt to distinguish this by saying that Abraham is just their father in the sense of being a distant ancestor, but that’s obviously bad exegesis. Jesus says that “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do what Abraham did” (John 8:39), making clear that Abraham’s fatherhood is spiritual rather than biological. As St. Paul says in Romans 4:16, “it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants—not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all…” So Father Abraham is our father in faith, if we do what he did. At this point, it should be clear that the Evangelical attack on “Father” as a spiritual title is based on a shallow and misguided misreading of Matthew 23:8-9. But that still leaves a question: if Jesus ISN’T literally banning the word “father” or the title “Father,” what is He teaching? He’s teaching that there is no fatherhood and no pastoral authority apart from its sole origin in God. St. Paul again: “For this reason I bow my knees before the Father (Patēr), from whom every family (patria) in heaven and on earth is named” (Eph. 3:14-15). Elsewhere, we’re told the same thing about other types of authority, like civil authority: “for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Romans 13:1; see also John 19:11; 1 Peter 2:13-17). What Jesus is saying in a Semitic way in Matthew 23 – that the only true authority is God’s authority, the only true teacher is God, the only true Father is God – is the same thing expressed in a more literal way by the New Testament authors elsewhere. So a pastor or spiritual father who builds themselves up rather than God/the Gospel is sinning, but it’s not wrong to say (as St. Paul does) that you’re someone else’s spiritual father through the Gospel. If I may ask you a question in return... is this your first time hearing a Catholic explain the passage in this way?

@Fparrhesia Old Marine Corps adage.

"Zor iş için tembel birini seçerim; çünkü en kolay yolu o bulur." —Bill Gates

I left in my 20s. It doesn't take much erudition and study to see that "call no man father" goes counter to what the Holy Father said. So, erudition and study - by your argument I should have returned by now. Show me your erudition and study. Justify calling every priest father and why Jesus is all for that. Simple issue, simple question.

You're missing a pretty simple distinction. Those guys came to Catholicism in no small part BECAUSE of their erudition and study. That was clearly not the case for you since you left as a kid. Nobody is insulting you or the nuns or priests, etc. But it's not like your journey (even by your own telling) was the result of some kind of careful research. You'd just never read the Bible.

@OnDisasters That movie was the first date with my future (52 years now) wife! Gotta love a gal that watches war movies with you!

@Majormadd I am sure the Union pushed for that 🤣

This one was for real... Scene from "Tora, Tora, Tora", depicting the attack on one of Pearl Harbor´s airfields. This was "for real"; as the R/C prop aircraft built for the movie went out of control, so the extras are really running for their lives.

Deflection. Insult to the nuns and priests. The only attraction of Beckwith and Hahn for you guys is that they are Catholic. I have the same credentials and a member of the same societies (ETS, SBL) but I am dismissed out of hand because I crossed the Tiber in the other direction.

@Majormadd @ShamelessPopery @leahtrell It didn’t call for one. You didn’t add anything new to the conversation. It’s just one more example supporting OP’s point.

So, resort to insult - calling me a liar or dismissing my experience. Baptized, First Confession and First Communion, Confirmation, Marriage by a priest. Faithful mass attendance even after serving as a Latin Mass Altar boy. Learn a little history and find out that in the 50, 60s, 70s Bible reading was actively discouraged among Catholics - it was down right proverbial. When I did pick up begin reading our family Bible, my Jesuit trained father (Xavier College in Cincinnati) and my cousin, who was studying for the priesthood, told me not to read the Bible but to rather study philosophy. I have my father's religion books from Xavier and their main focus is philosophy. So, can you only do ad hominems or can you actually discuss an issue?

@leahtrell @EListCath @ShamelessPopery @Majormadd He does indeed have a terrible understanding of Catholic teaching. He has a D-R Bible that was never opened? There is a STANDING plenary indulgence for reading the Bible with your family frequently. Was he really "raised Catholic"? Or just Catholic-ish vibes?

@yipopov @ShamelessPopery @leahtrell That is a non-answer.

@Majormadd @ShamelessPopery @leahtrell Yes, this is exactly what he is talking about. It’s a typical path from Catholicism to Protestantism and a testament to our embarrassing failure to teach the next generation even when a lot of the externalities were still in place.

Jessica, Post death purification for a Christian is done through the Blood of the Lamb – complete and thorough – nothing more required as the price and penalty was completely settled on Calvary’s hill. Nothing unclean will indeed enter into the New Jerusalem because those who enter do so by their faith which is in the once and finished sacrifice on the cross. To look to or argue that more is required is the deny the efficacy of Christ’s work at Calvary. Very often reference is made to 1 Cor. 3.13-15 – I listened to Patrick Madrid yesterday on his take on 1 Cor and purgatory using this passage. What he and every other catholic apologist do with it is to ignore what Paul said. He said the works are burned by fire but the person is saved. He will suffer loss in that what he thought would be credited to him as jewel were found to be wood hay and stubble. His loss is the reward good and righteous works that he set aside for his worthless endeavors. But that person is saved. Matthew 12 speaks of one sin for which there is no forgiveness, that of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. There is no hint in any way of purgatory there. The sin of 2 Macc. 12.38 is a violation of the first two commandments (1. Worship no other gods 2. Make no idols) which, if memory serves from my days as a Catholic, are mortal sins, which, despite Judas’s bad theology, there is no forgiveness without confession to a priest. They died in a state of mortal sin, according to Catholic teaching. Maccabees is a good historical work, I have used it myself in historical research, but it is not in the Bible used by Jesus and the NT authors. Malachi and Zechariah speak, not of post mortem fire but fire while alive. Philipians speaks of perfecting good work (ἐργον ἀγαθοω), not sin. Jessica, the power of the work on Calvary precludes any idea or thought of need for post mortem cleansing. It really is a lack of confidence in the completeness of Christ’s work to think otherwise. textandtelescope.com/2023/08/26/the…

Respectfully Lizzie, there is quite a bit to back up the doctrine of post death purification. As a Protestant I believed in it. Logic requires it. But, since I know you appreciate scripture I will supply that. It's important to remember that purgatory is the process, not a place. It is not a second chance. It is only for those justified, or "saved". It's our final sanctification, a final mercy to be removed from the sin we remain attached to. Without it, we would drag into Heaven the sins we hang on to now. And the Bible is clear that nothing impure will enter heaven (Revelation 21:27), and although we are saved by Christ’s work on the cross, many believers still die with attachments to sin. Logically, if we are sinning or attached to sin at our last breath, and we wake in Heaven without those sins and attachment to sins, something must have changed. Catholics just give it a name. In 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, Paul speaks of this purification process after death. He says that a person’s works will be tested by fire, and even if their works are burned up, they themselves will be saved, but only as through fire. This is not a punishment but a purification. The fire is not to destroy but to refine, removing what is unworthy of entering the presence of God. We see this kind of cleansing in Isaiah 6:6-7. Isaiah cries out that he is a man of unclean lips. Then a seraphim takes a live coal from the altar, touches his mouth with it, and says, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.” It’s a purifying fire that makes him ready for God’s presence. Jesus Himself speaks of purification after death in Matthew 12:32, where He says there are sins that can be forgiven in the “age to come.” This suggests that there is room for further purification after life on earth. In 2 Maccabees 12:38-46. Judas Maccabeus prays for the souls of fallen soldiers who had sinned by wearing pagan amulets. If your prayers can’t help those in Hell, and those in Heaven don’t need them, where are the prayers going? This is seen as an act of intercession, suggesting that there is a state after death where souls can benefit from the prayers of the living. We also see God’s pattern of purifying His people like a refiner’s fire (Malachi 3:2-3; Zechariah 13:9). And Philippians 1:6 promises that He who began a good work in you “will carry it on to completion.” If that completion isn’t fully done by death, it makes sense God finishes it in His mercy before we enter His perfect presence. Historically, the early Church Fathers, including Tertullian, Origen, and Augustine, all spoke of the purification of souls after death, often in the form of prayers for the departed. Ancient Christian tombs are covered in inscriptions like “Pray for us, holy martyr,” or “Peter, remember us,” showing that early Christians believed in prayer for those who had died.

@NervousWinter @ShamelessPopery @EListCath @leahtrell Notice that the "Quantum Physics" is for dummies!

@Majormadd @ShamelessPopery @EListCath @leahtrell You have books on astronomy and quantum physics too—way above my pay grade 😁

I am a liberal arts major but very interested in the intersection of Genesis and the Big Bang. I am reading to fill in what gaps is sadly lack. I can handle the narrative but when it comes to the math, think of the adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon! My hobby is astrophotography. My blogs is used to witness using the pictures I have taken. textandtelescope.com/2023/08/26/the… Again, thanks brother.

Books closest to hand. I grew up on the Baltimore Catechism and the nuns were thorough, despite those who claim otherwise. This is the latest catechism and it is well worn and book marked. My Bibles for research and devotion. I have been handwriting Genesis and the Gospels in Hebrew and Greek as well. On top of the Septuagint is my parent's family Bible which I have reported as having been received by them on my birth day in 1954. It is a CCD Doctrine text with some books in the Challoner/Douay text. On top of it is the missal I had saved up for and bought in the 3rd grade. It has been rebound. To the right of them is a Catholic work by Stephen Ray as well as the Apostolic Digest sitting next to the Catechism. Concerning my PhD. I earned it from the University of Texas at Arlington (short horns). My dissertation was the Use of Daniel By Josephus, and my dissertation committee was comprised of five professors, one of which was a Cistercian monk residing on the campus of the University of Dallas, and another was a Jesuit priest then living as a married layman. As Catholics will attest, once a priest, always a priest. Say what you will about me but it would be a mistake and a lie to say that I am not read up and knowledgeable of the issues. Thanks for the post nervous-winter.

@ShamelessPopery @Majormadd @EListCath @leahtrell He has a PhD. It is mentioned above. He also seems to be well catechized—probably more accurate to say that he doesn’t believe the Catechism is true.

Actually, you are pointing to their state, a state that led to their abominations, abominations which Jude described as "sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire (Jude 1:7 ESV)" Actually, you are pointing to their state, a state that led to their abominations, abominations which Jude described as "sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire (Jude 1:7 ESV)

Everyone thinks they know what Sodom's sin was. Most people can name only one thing. But when the Bible itself looks back and explains why Sodom fell, it names something most people never associate with the story at all. The real account is bigger, more sobering, and hits far closer to home than the version most of us were handed. A thread. 🧵