Wednesday, June 24, 2015

An Attack on Eric Hovind I don't agree with

Here is the attack:

Eric Hovind Exposed

My comments:

6:48 - I am sorry, but the text you are referring to as not mentioning Christ soon enough and hammering "you're a sinner" over and over again, might very well not be Eric's but Kent's.

He does believe in "faith alone", but he also believes that even the smallest sins will damn you if you are not saved (which we Catholics do not believe : lying for a joke is not bearing false witness against one's neighbour and stealing a train ride is not a mortal sin against the VII commandment - you would call it the VIII). AND he believes that if you ARE saved, yes, Christ's justice will cover up any sin for you, but He will also accept your submission as a cue to scrub every little tiniest stain of sin out of your soul before you die (if you don't believe in Purgatory, but believe, as Knet does, in the necessity of Purgatory, it follows you believe, as Kent does, every saved person has his Purgatory on Earth).

I respect Kent Hovind as a Creation Scientist, and even as an exegete when it comes to Creationist implications of Mark 10:6. But I do not consider him a great theologian. Except that by accepting any kind of necessity for Purgatory (in his version a Purgatory strictly on Earth before one dies), he has given a cue for at least considering the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.

However, some Orthodox agree with him there. They say that if the Church prays for a soul, the Church is really not praying for a soul in purgatory, but for how cleansed from all sin she should have become before dying, they say God hears those prayers retroactively.

8:01 In Roman Catholic theology, repentance means AT LEAST a complete rejection of all MORTAL sins (it is perhaps a bit harder for someone who denies the distinction between mortal and venial ones). A repentance which does not do that is in our view not salvific. Not all repentance is salvific. Antiochus, Haman and Judas Ischariot were sorry, but not in salvific ways.

Note, the turning away from all mortal sin is recognised as impossible without grace, which comes through ... here we get to your point : Christ.

10:05 or sth Yes, He rose again.

Now, there is sth about His Resurrection and Catholic Theology.

John 20:[21] He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. [22] When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. [23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Ten Apostles received, first of all "merely human" persons, except that an Apostle is as such (a priest is as such) united in person with Christ, the power, since then shared with Christ, enacted on behalf of Christ, to forgive sins.

This power extends to all sins, mortal or venial one is genuinely sorry for. One is usually told to avoid naming only venial sins in confession, because one might not be really sorry for them, so rather, confess a mortal sin from one's past life (if you have no recent ones you must confess) for which you know you are truly sorry.

The power of the priest to absolve you comes from Calvary and the Resurrection.

That applies to sins committed after Baptism.

11:00 You referred to Romans 11:6, right?

Here are two Catholic bishops (from the time of Penal Laws) commenting on that verse, cited by Haydock:

Ver. 6. It is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace. The election of God, and the first grace at least, are always without any merits on our part; but if we speak of works done in a state of grace, and by the assistance of God's grace, we co-operate with the graces given, and by thus co-operating, we deserve and merit a reward in heaven. (Witham) --- If salvation were to come by works, done by nature, without faith and grace, salvation would not be a grace or favour, but a debt; but such dead works are indeed of no value in the sight of God towards salvation. It is not the same with regard to works done with and by God's grace; for to such works as these he has promised eternal salvation. (Challoner)

Haydock Bible Commentary, Romans 11

Witham and Challoner are for the persecuted Catholics of their time in England what Voice of the Martyrs and Bibles for Russia was for Baptists in Communist tyrannies a little more recently.

14:10 I am for my part a continent away.

If I were in US, if visits were allowed me, I would definitely go and visit Kent Hovind. I'd like to see him become a Catholic, and if he doesn't want to talk about that, I'd love some chats on scientific and mathematic issues too.

I am not sure Eric and Mrs Hovind have been allowed to visit him. The prison authorities are after all trying to break him down.

14:20, when you say "there is no proof of God except the Holy Bible" you are contradicting part of the Holy Bible. Romans 1, inexcusable? Inexcusable for what? For having access to Bible and not reading it? Or for seeing proof of its God (different from their pagan gods) in the sky every day and not searching for it?

The latter, I would say, is what St Paul actually says.

No comments: