Response to a Catholic Article

I was pointed to an article written by Mr. James Akin about the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura. Maybe one of these days I'll write a full article on why I support the doctrine of sola Scriptura, but I want to take this entry now to respond to this article.

This being my first entry written about Roman Catholicism, I just want to make it clear I am not "anti-Catholic," as I've known some Catholics to say. I can disagree with someone's philosophy or theology without wishing them any harm or ill will.

That being said, I'd just like to point out that no Scripture was used in writing this article to back up his thesis. I find this odd, since this article was written to combat the doctrine of sola Scriptura. If someone believes in Scripture alone as their authority, and you were writing an article to show why sola Scriptura is bad theology, shouldn't you include some Scriptures that prove it? If I have Scriptures to support my side and there are no Scriptures to deny it, how do you propose to convince me? But let's dig in. The words in the article will be italicized.

He begins by stating the following: "Simply stated, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone") teaches that every teaching in Christian theology (everything pertaining to "faith and practice") must be able to be derived from Scripture alone. This is expressed by the Reformation slogan Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum ("What is not biblical is not theological," cf. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, Richard A. Muller, Baker, 1985).

An essential part of this doctrine, as it has been historically articulated by Protestants, is that theology must be done without allowing Tradition or a Magisterium (teaching authority) any binding authority. If Tradition or a Magisterium could bind the conscience of the believer as to what he was to believe then the believer would not be looking to Scripture alone as his authority."

Let's make it clear: Sola Scriptura does not mean "if it's not in the Bible, it's not true." There are some obvious examples (i.e. gravity is never mentioned in the Bible). But when it comes to theology, to the revelation from God to man about spiritual matters, then I believe (as per sola Scriptura) that all truth God has for us has been revealed to us in the Bible. I consider the 66 books of the Protestant Bible to be the inspired word of God (which is a topic for another entry altogether).

Mr. Akin continues: "A necessarily [sic] corollary of the doctrine of sola scriptura is, therefore, the idea of an absolute right of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures. Each individual has the final prerogative to decide for himself what the correct interpretation of a given passage of Scripture means, irrespective of what anyone—or everyone—else says. If anyone or even everyone else together could tell the believer what to believe, Scripture would not be his sole authority; something else would have binding authority. Thus, according to sola scriptura, any role Tradition, a Magisterium, Bible commentaries, or anything else may play in theology is simply to suggest interpretations and evidence to the believer as he makes his decision. Each individual Christian is thus put in the position of being his own theologian.

Of course, we all know that the average Christian does not exercise this role in any consistent way, even the average person admitted by Fundamentalists to be a genuine, "born again" believer. There are simply too many godly grannies who are very devout in their faith in Jesus, but who are in no way inclined to become theologians.

Not only is the average Christian totally disinclined to fulfill the role of theologian, but if they try to do so, and if they arrive at conclusions different than those of the church they belong to—an easy task considering the number of different theological issues—then they will quickly discover that their right to private judgment amounts to a right to shut up or leave the congregation. Protestant pastors have long realized (in fact, Luther and Calvin realized it) that, although they must preach the doctrine of private judgment to ensure their own right to preach, they must prohibit the exercise of this right in practice for others, lest the group be torn apart by strife and finally break up. It is the failure of the prohibition of the right of private judgment that has resulted in the over 20,000 Christian Protestant denominations listed in the Oxford University Press's World Christian Encyclopedia."

Now Mr. Akin isn't exactly stating matters correctly. Sola Scriptura does not state that the Bible is open to interpretation. That's a modern concept unrelated to sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura just means that Scripture is our ultimate authority. I don't believe the early Reformers would have said that Scripture is open to interpretation, especially since the Holy Spirit is who interprets Scripture for us (John 14:25-26, 1 Corinthians 2:6-14, et al). We do not believe the Bible is open to interpretation.

It is true that there are way too many Protestant denominations. But that's because people can't agree, or even agree to disagree. It's not true that we have to agree with the teachings of the church or we're excommunicated from that church ("shut up or leave the congregation"). My theological leanings are Souther Baptist, but I currently play in the worship band at a Lutheran church. I have even discussed with the pastor my differences in theology. But it's not a matter of strife between us; we both respect each other and respect the fact that we disagree on a few matters (even seemingly important ones like the role of baptism). But I have been welcomed into this church, and I love and respect each of them as my brothers and sisters in Christ. I have never once been ordered to change my doctrines or leave the church. The very thought of that is ludicrous. Now of course, there are certain things which call for excommunication. But those are things that our Lord, Himself, has laid out. No one is excommunicated for holding a different theological position.

And let me also get this straight: Since some professing Christians are not willing to practice what they believe, this makes their belief wrong? That's not disproof of their belief; that just shows they don't truly believe it. I know many professing Catholics who never witness or talk about their faith. It happens in every faith.

Continuing on: "The disintegration of Protestantism into so many competing factions, teaching different doctrines on key theological issues (What kind of faith saves? Is baptism necessary? Needed? Is baptism for infants? Must baptism be by immersion only? Can one lose salvation? How? Can it be gotten back? How? Is the Real Presence true? Are spiritual gifts like tongues and healing for today? For everyone? What about predestination? What about free will? What about church government?) is itself an important indicator of the practical failure of the doctrine of private judgment, and thus the doctrine of sola scriptura.

However, there is a whole set of practical presuppositions that the doctrine of sola scriptura makes, every one of which provides not just an argument against the doctrine, but a fatal blow to it. Sola scriptura simply cannot be God's plan for Christian theology.

In fact, it could never even have been thought to be God's plan before a certain stage in European history because, as we will see, it could have only arisen after a certain technological development which was unknown in the ancient world. Before that one development, nobody would have ever thought that sola scriptura could be the principle God intended people to use, meaning it was no accident that the Reformation occurred when it did."

Yes, there are many theological issues that we disagree on. But we tend to focus on our similarities rather than our differences. That is how we, as Protestants, get along and believe that God would have us conduct ourselves. There are, of course, those who believe their denomination alone holds the truth and anyone opposed to them are crazy heretics. But those people will be surprised to see whom God will let into the Kingdom.

The examples given are not failings of the doctrine of sola Scriptura, they're the failings of those who believe in sola Scriptura to abide by their own beliefs. They allow their own interpretations to override what the Holy Spirit intended by the passages. This is why I believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture. That way you draw out what was intended rather than read into it your own interpretations. There are some exceptions to this (for instance, Jesus' parables were stories that didn't actually happen, but were used to illustrate a spiritual truth).

Sola Scriptura was always God's plan for Christian theology. The problem with allowing tradition to guide you in spiritual matters is that it only takes a few generations for stories to become distorted and exaggerated, so that the oral tradition bears little or no resemblance to how it did originally. With the Scriptures, we have an actual written, historical account of Jesus' teachings. And while we no longer have the original manuscripts, we have numerous copies. The manuscript evidence for the Scriptures we have is stronger than the evidence we have to support any other ancient work. We know withing a 99.95% accuracy what the original texts said.

The problem with allowing church leaders to guide you is the same as allowing "private interpretation." How do you know the church leaders aren't leading you astray? How do you know they're not allowing their own personal interpretation get in the way of what God actually wants to teach you? Catholic leaders used indulgences to sway people to fight in the Crusades. Catholic leaders run the same risk of misinterpretation as any other person does.

Continuing: "If God had intended the individual Christian to use sola scriptura as his operating principle then it would have to be something the average Christian could implement. We can therefore judge whether sola scriptura could have been God's plan for the individual Christian by asking whether the average Christian in world history could have implemented it.

Not only that, but since God promised that the Church would never pass out of existence (Matt. 16:18, 28:20), the normal Christian of each age must be able to implement sola scriptura, including the crucial patristic era, when the early Church Fathers hammered out the most basic tenets of Christian orthodoxy.

It is in this practical area that the doctrine comes crashing down, for it has a number of presuppositions which are in no way true of the average Christian of world history, and certainly not of the average Christian of early Church history."

Now the arguments just get ridiculous. The reverse can also be said about Church Tradition. Since Church Tradition had not been established yet (the early church fathers were hammering out the basic tenets of Christian orthodoxy), then Church Tradition wasn't being utilized by the early church. This means it is unreliable, and certainly not necessary to the Disciples and all the Christians before church tradition was established. All sola Scriptura means is allowing the Scriptures to be your final authority, and allowing the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture for you. This is something the average Christian can do. In fact, this is what the average Christian must do. This is what the average Christian was also capable of while church tradition was being "hammered out."

On we go: "First, if each Christian is to make a thorough study of the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean (even taking into consideration the interpretations of others) then it follows that he must have a copy of the Scriptures to use in making his thorough study (a non-thorough study being a dangerous thing, as any Protestant apologist warning one against the cults and their Bible study tactics will tell you). Thus the universal application of sola scriptura presupposes the mass manufacturing of books, and of the Bible in particular.

This, however, was completely impossible before invention of the printing press, for without that there could not be enough copies of the Scriptures for the individual Christians to use. Sola scriptura therefore presupposes the inventing of the printing press, something that did not happen for the first 1,400 years of Church history (which will be the almost three-quarters of it if the world ends any time soon).

It is often noted by even Protestant historians that the Reformation could not have taken off like it did in the early 1500s if the printing press had not been invented in the mid-1400s, and this is more true than they know, because the printing press not only allowed the early Protestant to mass produce works containing their teachings about what the Bible meant, it allowed the mass production of Bible itself (as Catholics were already doing; one does realize, of course, that the Gutenberg Bible and the other versions of the Bible being produced before Protestantism were all Catholic Bibles).

Without the ability to mass produce copies of the Scriptures for the individual Christians to interpret, the doctrine of sola scriptura could not function, since one would only have very limited access to the texts otherwise—via the Scripture readings at Mass and the costly, hand-made copies of the Bible kept on public display at the church. Thus sola scriptura presupposes the printing press.

This is a key reason why the Reformation happened when it did—several decades after the invention of the printing press. It took time for the idea of the printing press to make its mark on the European mind and get people excited about the idea of easily available books. It was in this heady atmosphere, the first time in human history when dozens of ancient works were being mass produced and sold, that people suddenly got excited with the thought, "Hey! We could give copies of the Bible to everyone! Everyone could read the Scriptures for themselves!"—a thought which led very quickly into sola scriptura in the minds of those who wished to oppose historic Christian theology, as it would provide a justification for their own desire to depart from orthodoxy ("Hey, I read the Scriptures, and this is what they said to me!")."

Sola Scriptura does not presuppose that every Christian must be able to get their hands on the Scriptures. After all, the men in Athens, Greece in the book of Acts 17:22-24 were worshiping the one true God, without even knowing who He is. Paul showed up and revealed Him to them, but that doesn't make their prior worship any less valid. This is also what is meant in Romans 1:20, when Paul wrote that anyone who rejects God is without excuse, because God has revealed Himself in nature itself. Those men in Athens knew it. If I lost the ability to read Scriptures tomorrow, there are people that I trust enough to ask them to read Scripture to me. People who wouldn't put their own interpretation into it, but would read it exactly as it appears. Having the Scriptures does not necessarily presuppose the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

It is true that the printing press really allowed the Reformation to take off. But the problem is the author here is looking at it wrong. Martin Luther left the church because there were doctrines that didn't sit well with him (hence the need for his 95 theses). Catholic priests who taught doctrines contrary to Scripture was the very reason Martin Luther and other Reformers felt the need to get the Scriptures into the hands of lay Christians so that they could see for themselves what the Scriptures actually teach.

It goes on: "Of course, the invention of the printing press does not itself enable us to give Bibles to every Christian in the world (as all the calls for Bibles to be sent to Russia illustrate), which leads to the next practical presupposition of sola scriptura...

Second, besides the printing press, sola scriptura also presupposes the universal distribution of books and of the Bible in particular. For it is no good if enough copies of the Bible exist but they can't be gotten into the hands of the average believer. There thus must be a distribution network capable of delivering affordable copies of the Bible to the average Christian.

This is the case today in the developed world; however, even today we cannot get enough Bibles into many lands due to economic and political restraints, as the fund raising appeals of Bible societies and their stories of Bible smuggling inform us. However, in the great majority of Christian history, the universal distribution of books would have been totally impossible even in the what is now the developed world. During most of Church history, the "developed world" was undeveloped.

The political systems, economies, logistical networks, and travel infrastructure that make the mass distribution of Bibles possible today simply did not exist for three-quarters of Church history. There was no way to get the books to the peasants, and no way the peasants could have afforded them in the first place. There just wasn't enough cash in circulation (just try giving a printer 5,000 chickens for the 1,000 Bibles he has just printed—much less keeping the chickens alive and transported from the time the peasants pay them to the time the printer gets them)."

I have already addressed the issue of distribution of Scriptures. So let's move on: "Third, if the average Christian is going to read the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean then he obviously must be able to read. Having someone read them to him simply is not sufficient, not only because the person would only be able to do it occasionally (what with a bunch of illiterates to read to), but also because the person needs to be able to go over the passage multiple times, looking at its exact wording and grammatical structure, to be able to quickly flip to other passages bearing on the topic to formulate the different aspects of a doctrine as he is thinking about it, and finally to be able to record his insights so he doesn't forget them and he can keep the evidence straight in his mind. He therefore must be literate and able to read for himself. Thus sola scriptura presupposes universal literacy.

Fourth, if the average Christian is going to make a study of what Scripture says and decide what it teaches, he must possess adequate scholarly support material, for he must either be able to read the texts in the original languages or have material capable of telling him when there is a translation question that could affect doctrine (for example, does the Greek word for "baptize" mean "immerse" or does it have a broader meaning? does the biblical term for "justify" mean to make righteous in only a legal sense or sometimes in a broader one?).

He must also have these scholarly support works (commentaries and such) to suggest to him possible alternate interpretations to evaluate, for no one person is going to be able to think of every interpretive option on every passage of Scripture that is relevant to every major Christian doctrine. No Protestant pastor (at least no pastors who are not in extreme anti-intellectual circles) would dream of formulating his views without such support materials, and he thus cannot expect the average Christian to do so either. Indeed! The average Christian is going to need such support materials even more than a trained pastor. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes the possession—not just the existence—of adequate support materials."

Again, the third point here is completely ridiculous. There are many people who could read Scriptures to someone who couldn't read. It wouldn't have to be one person. But again, this same person who couldn't read would have no idea if the Catholic priest who was teaching him doctrine was accurate because he couldn't search the Scriptures himself to make sure it was true (which, by the way, the Bereans in Acts 17:11 were considered of nobler character than the Thessalonians because they searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul taught was true, rather than simply taking his word for it). So this point is moot.

For the fourth point, I am actually somewhat in agreement. I have a Greek-English lexicon and a copy of the New Testament in Greek, and have been studying it. I haven't gotten around to the Old Testament and Hebrew/Aramaic yet, but I will probably get there eventually. I have long believed it is in every Christian's best interest to have at least a basic understanding of Biblical languages so that they can understand the Scriptures in greater detail, rather than settling on a superficial reading of the Scriptures. But again, we do have the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture for us. If someone reads the Scriptures without allowing their biases to cloud their interpretation, then the Holy Spirit can teach them what He wants them to learn.

Next: "Fifth, if the average Christian is to do a thorough study of the Bible for himself, then he obviously must have adequate time in which to do this study. If he is working in the fields or a home (or, later, in the factory) for ten, twelve, fifteen, or eighteen hours a day, he obviously doesn't have time to do this, especially not in addition to the care and raising of his family and his own need to eat and sleep and recreate. Not even a Sunday rest will provide him with the adequate time, for nobody becomes adept in the Bible just by reading the Bible on Sundays—as Protestants stress to their own members when encouraging daily Bible reading. Thus sola scriptura presupposes the universal possession of adequate leisure time in which to make a thorough study the Bible for oneself.

Sixth, even if a Christian had adequate time to study the Bible sufficiently, it will do him no good if he doesn't have a diet sufficiently nutritious to let his brain function properly and his mind work clearly. This is something we often forget today because our diets are so rich, but for most of Christian history the average person had barely enough food to survive, and it was almost all bread. "Everything else," as the British historian James Burke put it, "was just something you ate with bread"—as a condiment or side-dish. This means that the average Christian of world history was malnourished, and as any public school dietitian can tell you, malnutrition causes an inability to study and learn properly. That is one of the big motivating forces behind the school lunch program. If kids don't eat right, they don't study right, and they don't learn right, because they don't think clearly. The same is true of Bible students. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes universal nutrition.

Seventh, if the average Christian is going to evaluate competing interpretations for himself then he must have a significant amount of skill in evaluating arguments. He must be able to recognize what is a good argument and what is not, what is a fallacy and what is not, what counts as evidence and what does not. That is quite a bit of critical thinking skill, and anyone who has ever tried to teach basic, introductory logic to college students or anyone who had tried to read and grade the persuasive essays they write for philosophy tests can tell you (I'm speaking from personal experience here), that level of critical thinking does not exist in the average, literate, well-nourished, modern college senior, much less the average, illiterate, malnourished, Medieval peasant. This is especially true when it comes to the abstract concepts and truth claims involved in philosophy and theology. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes a high level of universal education in critical thinking skills (a level which does not even exist today)."

This post is getting kind of long, so I'll try to be brief with the next points. Sola Scriptura does not presuppose an excessive amount of free time to study. In fact, this is probably one of the reasons Paul says he wishes all Christians (or at the very least, the unmarried and widows he was writing to) could remain as he was (unmarried) in 1 Corinthians 7:8 so that they could have the most time to devote to God. But even so, studying the Scriptures is a life-long pursuit, no matter how much free time you have.

Really? Now you're saying it's impossible to understand Scripture without a healthy diet? First of all, while, of course, it's good to consume "brain food", it's not a requirement for understanding Scripture. Again, the Holy Spirit interprets Scripture for us and He is not limited by what kind of food we eat. Secondly, healthy eating is encouraged in Scripture.

Also, a Ph. D. is not a requirement for understanding Scripture (again, we have the Holy Spirit). In fact, the Scriptures were penned by uneducated men under the influence of the Holy Spirit. But this begs the question: Is every priest required to have a Ph. D. and take an education exam before becoming priests? (I honestly don't know the answer to this.) But my question would be how can you trust that every priest has these unfair qualifications you're laying on the shoulders of lay Christians who believe they can understand the Scriptures for themselves?

Finally: "Therefore sola scriptura presupposes (1) the existence of the printing press, (2) the universal distribution of Bibles, (3) universal literacy, (4) the universal possession of scholarly support materials, (5) the universal possession of adequate time for study, (6) universal nutrition, and (7) a universal education in a high level of critical thinking skills. Needless to say, this group of conditions was not true in the crucial early centuries of the Church, was not true through the main course of Church history, and is not even true today. The non-existence of the printing press alone means sola scriptura was totally unthinkable for almost three-quarters of Christian history!

All of this is besides the limitations we mentioned earlier—the fact that the average Christian, even the average devout Christian has no inclination whatsoever to conduct the kind of Bible study needed to become his own theologian and the fact that he is encouraged by many pressures from his own pastor and congregation (including the threat of being cast out) to fall in line and not challenge—especially publicly challenge—the party platform.

Christianity For The Common Man?

It is thus hard to think of sola scriptura as anything but the theory spawned by a bunch of idealistic, Renaissance-era dilettantes—people who had an interest in being their own theologians, who had a classical education in critical thinking skills, who had adequate nutrition, who had plenty of leisure time for study, who had plenty of scholarly support materials, who had good reading skills, who had access to Bible-sellers, and most importantly, who had printed Bibles!

The average Christian today, even the average Christian in the developed world, does not fit that profile, and the average Christian in world history certainly did not, much less the average Christian in the early centuries. What this means, since God does not ask a person to do what they are incapable of doing, is that God does not expect the average Christian of world history to use sola scriptura. He expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain his knowledge of theology in some other way.

But if God expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain the Christian faith without using sola scriptura, then sola scriptura is not God's plan."

As I have shown, the doctrine of sola Scriptura supposes none of those things (with the one possible exception being looking into what the original texts stated"). But again, the Holy Spirit can work through uneducated men to produce the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit can certainly teach even the uneducated about the truths of Scripture.

And again, Mr. Akin does not have his facts straight. A Christian will not be excommunicated for doctrinally differing with the official theology of the church he/she is attending. My theological leanings are closest to Southern Baptist, but I play in the worship band at a Lutheran church. I am in no threat of being cast out because of my Baptist ways.

You could think of it in the way described, or you could think of sola Scriptura as the springboard for men who couldn't take the Catholic Church's word that the doctrines they taught contrary to Scripture were what God would actually reveal, since God, being perfect, cannot contradict Himself. Sola Scriptura seems like it makes a lot of sense as God's plan.

Batman & Robin Comic Generator

So while reading another blog post here on this site, I discovered the following website: http://www.batmancomic.info/

It's pretty awesome. You can select from a few comics featuring Batman and Robin, and put your own text into the text bubbles. If anyone reads this and creates their own, feel free to post them in the notes and show them off. But please only post ones that are appropriate for all ages. Here are a few I came up with:

The True Christian Gospel

'Cause my humanity is my leprocy
I need a remedy for my disease
Wretched man I am, slave to sin
Someone in my condition needs the Great Physician
----
"Remedy" by According to John

Walk down the street and ask people at random how they believe one gets into Heaven. I bet the most common answer you'll get is: "I'm a good person. I've never killed anybody. God will let me in." Some may try to get in based on their success. But as we know, God is no respecter of persons (Romans 2:11; Acts 10:34, 35; Ephesians 6:9). God will accept anyone who calls on His name for salvation (Romans 10:9), and anyone who does not trust in Jesus for salvation will be condemned (Colossians 3:25), no matter who you are. Hell is a fearsome place, but this information should come as comfort to those of us the world looks down upon. You may be lowly or worthless to the world, but to God you mean more than the world. After all, the Scriptures are called the Gospel (Matthew 4:23; Matthew 9:35; Romans 1:1; Romans 1:16, et al). The word Gospel in the original Greek means "good news," and that's exactly what God's message is. Good news to those of us who are perishing. And all of us are perishing before coming to Christ (Hebrews 9:27).

Anyone who thinks they can earn their way into Heaven has no idea what this good news is. Paul makes it clear that works do not save us, only God's grace which comes through our faith. This is not from us, it comes from God; not of works, so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9). Works cannot save us, no matter how good we live our lives. Do you know why? Because God tells us that on our best days, we are as filthy rags before Him (Isaiah 64:6). Isaiah, himself, was even chosen to be God's prophet, to proclaim God's message to His people, and yet when faced with God himself Isaiah shouted out: "Woe is me for I am undone! I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell in the midst of a people with unclean lips! For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts." (Isaiah 6:4-6). No one could ever be good enough to enter into Heaven. Our good deeds could never outdo our bad deeds. The only way for us to be good enough to enter Heaven is to be forgiven of our sins and proverbially washed clean of them by the blood that Christ shed on the cross. Once this is done, God sees us as holy. He has forgiven and forgotten our sins and made us worthy to enter the Kingdom (Ephesians 2:13; Hebrews 9:14; 1 Peter 1:18-19, et al).

But, then, what does James mean when he says, "But do you want to know, oh foolish man, that faith without works is dead?" (James 2:20). The answer to this is found a few verses down in James 2: (remember that in order to properly interpret Scripture, it must be accepted as a whole and not by picking and choosing a verse and taking it out of context): "You see then that a man is justified by by works, and not by faith only." We are justified by our works, but we are saved by our faith. James uses the example of Abraham, who was commaned by God to kill his only son, Isaac. This is a largely misunderstood passage by non-believers, and understandably so. They tend to over-react and look at this action as the action of a madman. But in reality, it was the action of a man who placed total faith in God and knew that God would not have him go through with killing his son (God supplied a ram instead). Anyway, James used the example of Abraham, who trusted God completely, and his works were accounted to him for righteousness. Abraham had been selected by God to be the father of His chosen nation, Israel. But this action displayed his faith in God and made him worthy to fulfill God's plan of fathering His chosen nation. He wasn't chosen because of his good deeds, but his good deeds resulted from his faith in God. He would not have taken Isaac to Moriah to be slain without faith in God. He had the faith first, and his works justified him.

In a previous verse, James 2:18: "But someone will say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Show me your faith without your works and I will show you my faith by my works." The whole meaning of this passage, from verse 14 through 26, is that faith and works go hand in hand. We are saved by faith, not by works (Eph. 2:8-9), yet if we are truly saved our works will follow (James 2:18, 20). We are saved unto good works, not by our good works.

What, then, of 1 Peter 1:17, which says each man will be judged according to his works? For this, one needs to recognize that after death, there are two kinds of judgments. The first is the judgment of the unredeemed (those who never sought repentance and forgiveness from Jesus). We see this in Revelation 20:11-15, which is known as the Great White Throne Judgment (from the fact that God will be sitting on a great white throne -- naturally). In this, unbelievers will be judged according to how they lived their lives. And as I mentioned before, all our good deeds are as filthy rags before God. They can never overcome the evil that we do.

There is also another judgment. For those whose name is found in the Lamb's Book of Life (the redeemed), there is a trial by fire. Read 1 Corinthians 10:10-15. This is the judgment that the redeemed will have to endure. All of our works will be cast into a fire and we will receive reward or loss depending on which of our works endure the fire. But we will still be saved, regardless of how much reward or loss we suffer. This is the Christian's judgment, and in this way our works will be judged. Not to save us, but for our ultimate reward in Heaven.

So what does this mean? Since we are saved by faith and not by works, does this give us a license to sin? Certainly not! If there is a Christian who does not believe in doing good or does not feel compelled to do good, help others, love, etc., then that person may not be a Christian in the first place. When one is saved, the Holy Spirit dwells within him/her and guides that person. And as Christians, we have two purposes in life: That's to please God (by doing His will), and to proclaim His Gospel (aka the "good news") to those who are perishing. Those are the most important things that we, as Christians, are to do on our short time here on Earth. So my question to you: Is your faith dead, or do you seek to be justified by your works and be a pleasing witness for God here on earth?

Gary Coleman and Dennis Hopper

In the last week we lost two icons in the field of acting, Gary Coleman (who was 42) and Dennis Hopper (was was 74).

I remember watching Gary Coleman on Diff'rent Strokes when I was a kid. He played numerous roles as a guest star on many different shows. One that I remember fondly was a guest role he had on the short-lived science fiction sitcom Homeboys in Outer Space.

Dennis Hopper, on the other hand, I'll always remember as Bowser from the 1993 Super Mario Bros. movie. I know many people hated the movie and consider it one of the worst movies ever made. But truthfully, I kind of like it. And you have to admit, the acting was superb in that movie. They had big names filling the roles, and Dennis Hopper was no exception.

That being said, hey, I've got a follower. Welcome to the blog, "windbag," and I hope you enjoy reading my entries. Feel free to leave responses once in a while.

Another beloved franchise I may give up on...

I've learned two things recently. Number one: Michael Bay is shameless and only cares about lining his pockets with cold, hard cash. There's no franchise he won't ruin all in the name of getting richer. Number two: It's useless to get into any movie franchises because after just two or three films, Hollywood will reboot it (or in rare cases such as The Hulk, one movie).

I've just learned that a new live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie is in the works. That got me excited. That got me very excited. I am still a fan of the live-action Turtles movies (the animated TMNT, though it follows the three live-action films, I wasn't too keen on -- but I still liked it). Apparently Viacom has purchased the rights to the Turtles. They will be producing an animated show, slated for 2012, and a new live-action movie, also in 2012.

When I heard that TMNT was going to be animated, I was disappointed. I loved seeing them live-action. But I wasn't too disappointed since the animated film followed the first three. But now, as I mentioned about reboots, this new live-action Ninja Turtles movie is going to reboot the franchise. There is no reason to do this. The only actual Turtles villain who was in the movies was The Shredder. None others (we got Tokha and Razar instead of Bebop and Rocksteady, even). There are plenty of villains from the Ninja Turtles franchise that the Turtles could fight. But of course, Hollywood doesn't care about the fans. They just care about making money. And they know that us die-hard fans will go see the movie, no matter what garbage they produce. And this is where Michael Bay comes in.

I really want to like this movie, and I really hope it's good. But Michael Bay ruined the Transformers franchise, and I fear he will ruin the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise, also.

Demo Review #1: Green Day: Rock Band

A free demo of the upcoming video game, Green Day: Rock Band, was just released on XBox Live today for anyone with a gold membership. Being a huge Rock Band fanatic, I went ahead and downloaded it. Two full songs are available to play on the demo, Boulevard of Broken Dreams and Welcome to Paradise. The former I was very familiar with, having heard it countless times on the radio. The latter I was not familiar with at all.

It's no secret that I do not think Green Day deserves to have their own Rock Band game. The Beatles did. Green Day is nowhere near as influential as The Beatles were and still are. They certainly don't have the diversity of catalogue behind them, and they obviously have not been around as long. Still, Green Day is a household name so it's a game that will sell well. And Harmonix, at the end of the day, is a business.

The game comes in three editions: plain old Green Day: Rock Band, which is just the game and all the bells and whistles that come with it for $60. You'll have 47 songs to play, including two full albums: Dookie and American Idiot. On top of that, all the songs export into the Rock Band platform for $10.

There's the special edition, which includes six additional songs (songs that are already available as DLC in the Rock Band platform) for $70. With the addition of these six songs, you'll have a third full album by Green Day on the disc, 21st Century Breakdown. Additionally, you can export all 53 of the songs onto your hardrive for free. This is obviously the better deal, especially for someone like me who doesn't have any of the Green Day DLC.

Finally, there's the special edition which comes with every major release of Rock Band, which includes the game and the peripherals (one guitar, the drum set, and mic) so the game is fully playable to someone new to Rock Band right out of the box (and is made collectable by someone who already has the peripherals). The peripherals, like with The Beatles game, comes with the Green Day logo.

Unfortunately, only two songs come with the demo. Which is fine, it's still two free new songs to play. But I do wish the demo could have come with at least a couple more new songs. But I will say this: the game looks great. I mean, The Beatles: Rock Band looked great, but this game looks, at least in my opinion, better. Which you would expect from a later release.

As for the difficulty, it was pretty much where I expected it to be. There will be two- and three-part harmones in the game (like there were with The Beatles: Rock Band).

Boulevard of Broken Dreams -- This song, as you might expect, was very easy. I got a full combo on this song on vocals, drums, and bass -- which is the closest I've ever come to a one man band full combo. Plus, this is the first song I've ever gotten a sight read full combo on drums. I would have full comboed the guitar but a part during the solo kind of took me by surprise. All in all, this one won't give anyone any trouble.

Welcome to Paradise -- This one is very easy on vocals (as I expect most of the songs in the full game to be). Guitar is not too bad. However, drums will give you a lot of trouble. The trouble comes mostly from how fast the song is. There are some fills that might give you trouble, but their simple sixteenth note fills that you just need to practice with. And the bass on this song was a pleasant surprise. Much more fun than Boulevard of Broken Dreams.

All in all, I think Green Day: Rock Band is shaping up to be another great entry in the Rock Band catalog. I don't expect the game to be insanely difficult (though a little more difficult than The Beatles was). And even though I'm not a fan of Green Day, I think the game will still be quite enjoyable.

The A-Team and Evolution

No, these are not related topics.

First of all, I saw a trailer for the upcoming A-Team remake for the first time. It seems they kept the premise the same (a group going to jail for a crime they didn't commit, they escape and become guns for hire). They even found a Mr. T lookalike to play B.A. Barracus. I haven't been a fan of Hollywood lately because of the extreme lack of originality. All Hollywood's been good for has been remakes (and most of them have been just plain awful), reboots (and most of them have been just plain unneccessary -- I'm looking at you, Spider-Man), sequels, or movies based off an alternate medium (such as books). I feared the upcoming A-Team movie was going to be bad, but it looks as if my fears may be unfounded. It remains to be seen.

Besides having Mr. T, the original A-Team show also had Dwight Schultz (playing H.M. Murdoch), who went on to a recurring role as Lieutenant Reginald Barclay on Star Trek: The Next Generation. Just one more reason to love the show.

But my thoughts of been on Evolution lately. Now, there's a difference between micro- and macro-Evolution. Micro-Evolution is change within a species, such as how humanity at the beginning of civilization was not nearly advanced as humanity is now. Yet through learning about the world and the universe we have been able to create new and better technology.

However, macro-Evolution is what is more commonly thought of when mentioning the term. That is the change from one species into a brand-new species. Now, there's a lot more to it than that and I certainly don't have the room to go into everything about it. In fact, I don't even know a whole lot about the current nuances of Evolutionary theory. Now, for the most part it's not my fault. The problem is that Evolution theory is constantly changing. I've had to unlearn a lot about what I did learn in elementary and high schools about it. When I was growing up, the "missing link" was basically the holy grail of Evolutionary theory because scientists "knew" it was out there, yet they could never find it. Now I hear that the term "missing link" is outdated and they're not searching for one anymore. I even picked up a copy of On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin in an attempt to learn more about it, yet now I hear that most of what Darwin proposed has been thrown out in favor of new discoveries.

They say that macro-Evolution is observable. I'd like to ask how? If the process supposedly takes millions or billions of years, how on Earth can we observe it? Civilization, it is said, is only about six-thousand years old. There's no way we could observe an evolutionary change in our lifetime, or even since humanity has started keeping records. Perhaps it's because they'd claim there are some species in a transitionary stage. Well, how do you know they're in transition? Be honest. Isn't it just as possible that the species began life that way rather than in the course of Evolution?

It seems that at the heart of Evolution, which seems to be the very backbone of science (because if a scientist rejects Evolution as being false, he/she would be ostracized and would not be taken seriously as a scientist despite being otherwise qualified), is a very unscientific statement: "Given enough time, anything is possible." Yes, I've heard that one quite a few times. But I fail to see how a species can become something other than what its DNA makes it out to be. There's a difference between adapting and evolving.

Anyway, those were just some thoughts I've had on the subject. Feel free to leave a note and we can talk, but be respectful. Please keep it clean, as well.

Movie Review #1: Mega Man (Independent Fan Film)

I've been wanting to write a review for a long time now, and since I started this blog I figured now was the perfect time to do so. Since my favorite video game franchise is Mega Man, I said to myself, "Self, what better movie to write a review on than a movie based on my favorite video game franchise?" To which I replied, "What a splendid idea!" (No, I'm not British.) So here we are. Eventually I will probably review other movies/video games/shows, etc, but Mega Man being recent this would probably be a good choice.

Before I begin, you should definitely go and watch the film yourself. I mean it. Go! Here is the link: http://screwattack.com/videos/Mega-Man .

Did you watch it yet? The bottom line is, I loved this movie. And in this review will be many spoilers so I recommend going to watch the film first. Even before I saw it, I knew I was going to want to write a review on it. So I watched it twice; once as purely a Mega Man fan, to get the best experience possible. Then again, with a more critical eye for the review. The movie is Mega Man by Eddie LeBron. But let's dig in!

Plot

To be honest, this is the best video game movie out there. Even better than Hollywood has given us. Now keep in mind that this is a completely independent film, meaning they didn't have a huge Hollywood budget to work with. From what I understand, they filmed this movie with almost no budget at all. So while the effects aren't competely convincing, for an independent, fan-made movie, it looks fantastic. While Hollywood would bring in a big-name producer who knows nothing of the franchise to film a video game movie, because their most important goal is making money and they want the film to appeal to as many people as possible, Mega Man is a film made by Mega Man fans for Mega Man fans.

First, let's talk about the plot. One of the reasons this movie is so great is because it stays true to the subject matter. And every Mega Man fan knows basically what's going to happen. Dr. Light and Dr. Wily, two geniuses, create a series of robots (first Blues, Rock, and Roll), then the robot master series. Along the way, Dr. Wily grows tired of Dr. Light getting all the credit so he decides to enter the spotlight, reprogramming the six robot masters to do his bidding. Realizing that the local police and even the military won't be able to stop them, Rock volunteers to receiving an upgrade into a fighting robot known as Mega Man.

I genuinely became excited as soon as the film started and the very first thing we see are the words: "In the year 20XX..." When I saw those words, my fears about the film were calmed. I knew this was going to be good, and respectful to the Mega Man franchise. One thing that is puzzling, however, is that a number of plot points were taking from the PSP remake Mega Man Powered Up (such as the robot masters being reprogrammed to believe they're fighting for justice when in fact they are wreaking havoc on the city). This begs the question: Why didn't they use the two robot masters that were retconned into the franchise in the game, Oil Man and Time Man. Possibly due to time constraints and the fact that originally there were only six robots, so most people would be more familiar with them. This is a little puzzling considering that most Mega Man fans don't considered Powered Up to be part of canon.

Additionally, one plot point comes from Mega Man: The Power Battles (the whole thing about Proto Man's core). One last plot point to mention is that once Mega Man destroys a robot, he gains the robot power (which matches the video games). This is in stark contrast to the animated series in which all Mega Man had to do was touch the robot's arm to gain his weapon. In the animated series, Proto Man was a bad guy (when in the video games, he is a good guy). So again, this film is closer to the video game franchise than the animated series ever was.

Even though they were respectful of Mega Man's story, a few liberties were taken with the plot. For instance, Proto Man wasn't inroduced into the Mega Man franchise until Mega Man 3, and even then he disguises himself as another robot, Break Man, in order to train Mega Man for entering Dr. Wily's third fortress. This is the first he learns about Proto Man. However, Proto Man (known by his Japanese name Blues) is in this film and Rock first meets him while wandering about in the city with Roll. And for further information, it seems Mega Man and company live in a place called Fujiwara City (which I don't think was ever established in the games).

In the movie, Dr. Light was once married to a woman named Aiyaka. She was pregnant with twins when she and the twins all died (though I don't remember if how was ever explained). This was never in the video games but was the reason Dr. Light decided to create Rock and Roll. He wanted to fill the void in his life left when his children died.

There were a few more liberties taken, but I don't want to analyze the film to death. I will say that even though there were some liberties taken with the plot, they were all pretty much necessary. So I don't fault them for it at all.

Soundtrack

The soundtrack, composed by Daniel James, was really quite good. Considering that the music used in the trailer was taken from other films, I didn't expect this movie to have an original soundtrack. I thought the soundtrack really helped to capture the moods in the film.

Now, I would have liked to hear more tunes from Mega Man, especially from the very first game (although Mega Man 2's soundtrack is more recognizable, the first Mega Man game still had some very solid tunes). If you listen closely, you will hear two Mega Man tunes that were arranged orchestrally. In the flashback scene describing the construction of Blues, you hear a lone, haunting trumpet playing the familiar whistle tune from Mega Man 3. Then we hear an orchestrated version of Whistle Concert (heard at the end of Mega Man 3) plays. And one thing that should make any Mega Man fan smile: As Mega Man approaches Wily's Fortress, the most popular Mega Man tune, Wily's Fortress from Mega Man 2 (also known as Okkusenman) plays.

Ethics

Something that science fiction is known for is not only great, imagintive storytelling but to express an ethical standpoint. I love the fact that Eddie LeBron doesn't leave Mega Man a shallow story about good vs. evil. Mega Man actually goes through a time where he questions why he was created, and what his purpose was in life. And the added touch of being created to fill the void left by the loss of his wife and children was nice. It added a little bit more depth than simply being created to help in a lab and to fulfill his destiny of saving the world.

There was also the issue of free will, which Proto Man was unintentionally given due to a faulty core. The faulty core will probably one day result in his death, but he won't allow Dr. Light to fix his core because doing so will also take away his free will.

There were a couple of problems I had with the robot masters. Dr. Light explains to the reporter at the beginning of the film that the robots would never harm humans. But it's never explained why. Most science fiction fans are familiar with Isaac Asimov's robot series. They can't harm humans because of the Three Laws of Robotics: 1) A robot may not harm a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm; 2) A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law; 3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. To the best of my knowledge, the robots in Mega Man abide by these three laws. But again, it's never explained in the movie why they would not harm humans.

The other problem I had was this: Why would the robots have to be reprogrammed to believe that doing evil is enacting justice? Again, this was a plot point in the Powered Up remake so it wasn't LeBron who came up with this. If you were trying to convince a human to do evil, then you would have to convince them that doing evil were the right thing to do. But these are robots. Why not just reprogram them to do evil instead of doing good? Robots don't need a reason; they just do whatever they're programmed to do. Perhaps explaining why the robots couldn't harm humans would have answered this question, as well.

Characters

The characters in this movie definitely lived up to how we have come to know them from the video games. There wasn't much character development in the robot masters, but there didn't have to be considering they were simply programmed to do evil and they were going to be destroyed in the movie, anyway.

Rock/Mega Man (played by Jun Naito) -- The robot created by Dr. Light to help out in his lab. I thought he did a convincing job of Mega Man, although there really wasn't much of a difference in any of his lines. They were all played the same, which I guess is really all the script called for. But he didn't really seem any different, even after things became personal when Wily kidnapped Roll.

Roll (played by Jeanie Tse) -- Mega Man's "sister," a robot created to do general housekeeping. She was real...perky, for lack of a better word, and pretty light-hearted in the movie. I suppose this is okay, considering the first thing that comes to mind when I think of Roll is her line from Mega Man 8: "Good luck, Mega Man!"

Blues/Proto Man (played by Sung-Mo Cho) -- The first robot created by Light and Wily (hence the name Proto Man). He was a real tough guy in the movie. Personally, I think Cho did a great job as Proto Man. He's one of my favorite characters in the movie, and he was a great addition to the franchise in Mega Man 3. I feel he was a bit overpowered in this movie, though. Elec Man completely beat the tar out of Mega Man, yet his thunder beam did no damage to Proto Man.

Dr. Thomas Light (played by Edward X. Young) -- The genius partner of Dr. Wily, instrumental in creating several human-like robots. I thought he did a very good Dr. Light, very gentle. But I thought he was too gentle at times. He didn't sound very convincing when he was supposed to be angry, and the profanity they gave him really just seemed out of place; almost like they threw it in because they felt it would be more convincing. I also didn't understand why, when Mega Man was almost killed by the Yellow Devil, Dr. Light didn't shed any tears. Mega Man was supposed to fill the void left by the son who died. It just feels like Dr. Light didn't emote properly, and that he wouldn't be the type to just bottle his feelings up inside.

Dr. Albert Wily (played by Dave Maulbeck) -- The genius partner of Dr. Light who becomes tired of living in Dr. Light's shadow. He reprograms the six robot masters to try and take over the world. It seems to be the general consensus that Dr. Wily stole the show in the movie. Dave Maulbeck did a great job as Wily. I did feel, though, that the scenes at the beginning of the film where they were establishing Wily's character were a little overplayed. Such as when he tried to force himself into the interview and then argued with Roll afterward about it. Also, a new character created for the film, Olga 5000 (played by Elizabeth Lee), was introduced. She's apparently a robot companion for Wily that he leaves behind to take his place in his fortress.

Two of my favorite scenes in the film were with Dr. Wily. The first being the scene in which Wily turns evil. He didn't just become evil because he's he antagonist. He went through the thought process of why he actually wants power. The second scene I loved was after Wily kidnapped Roll and gloats over her. Also, my favorite line in the movie comes at the end, where Mega Man says to Dr. Wily: "Now it is you who serves no purpose."

The movie also features Alan Fung as Elec Man, Hugo Salazar, Jr. as Fire Man, Wayne Chang as Ice Man, Sonicmega as the voice of Guts Man, Andrew Decrescenzo as the voice of Bomb Man, and Daniel William Clark as the voice of Cut Man. On top of the six robot masters, the Yellow Devil and the Mega Man clone also make an appearance in this film.

Battles

Bear in mind this is an independent film without a big Hollywood budget. The fight scenes, it is generally felt, could have been much longer and grander. But that probably would have required a larger budget. For being an independent film, it's really a good looking one. My favorite battle scenes are the first battle where Mega Man takes them all on, then the battle with Ice Man.

One thing I did find amusing is that no one walking around the city was concerned about the robots walking around. Also, it was kind of disappointing that the minor enemies seen in the game weren't in the movie. Sniper Joe was mentioned but not shown. It also would have been nice to see some Metools (Hard Hats to the American gamers).

Easter Eggs

Keep an eye out for the many easter eggs scattered throughout the movie. A few that come to mind are: Rock and Roll playing Contra on the NES, Mega Man's pixelated face appearing in a couple of spots, and the robot master select screen when Mega Man is deciding whom to tackle first.

Overview

Mega Man is not a perfect movie (for instance, at about 20:00 into the film, it seems that Edward Young actually flubs his line). But for an independent film, it's really quite spectacular. It stays true to the subject matter, and there are some genuine laugh out loud moments in the film. Every Mega Man fan should watch this movie, and if you're not a Mega Man fan, you should still check it out.

Overall, I'd give this film a 9/10.

Greetings

Hello! This is my first time on Blogger, but this is not my first blog. Hopefully my posts will be enjoyable to read through and at the very least thought-provoking. I hope to open some interesting dialogues.

Let's see...

A little bit about myself, then. I am a Christian, and a classically-trained musician. Clarinet and piano are my main instruments, but I dabble in a few others. I play in several ensembles, both classical and jazz, as well as in a worship band at my church. I also play as a solo musician around town, and sometimes out of town.

My theological leanings are conservative, leaning towards the Southern Baptist side of things. I absolutely love to think about things. I read a lot of books by theologians and philosophers, as well as by scientists. I just enjoy experiencing as much as I can in life.

I am also a nerd, as the title of my blog suggests. I am a major Trekkie, and despite that I also enjoy the Star Wars series. Wait...did I just hear someone yell blasphemy?

Anyway, I enjoy science fiction in general. I am also a gamer. My favorite franchises are most of the major ones: Mario, Sonic the Hedgehog, Mega Man (probably my favorite), Final Fantasy, etc. I love RPG's. As much as I love to read books and watch television/movies, RPG's hold a special appeal to me because you not only control the story, but you become a part of the story. I love the interactive nature of RPG's.

Well, that's about it for now. If anyone stumbles across my blog, then I welcome you. Feel free to comment on it, let me know you're out there. Take care.