Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

AP: Man Bites Dog

Really! No kidding! I’m not making this up! An actual, real-word instance of a proverbial “Man Bites Dog” story!

Excerpt:

BEND, Ore. – A man suspected of assaulting his girlfriend set two fires and bit a dog on the head as he tried to escape from police, the authorities said. . . .

“He was given several opportunities to come out of the pipe and he basically signaled with his middle finger,” Stone said.

A police dog named Amor was sent in to retrieve Sernett and bit the suspect in the leg.

Sernett responded by lifting the dog off the ground and biting him on the head, Stone said.

Speaking of Lurch . . .

addams_familyI don’t know if anybody out there gets the cable network TVLand (a spinoff of Nick at Night). I suspect that I am one of about six people who do get it.

Well, if you’re one of the lucky six, this weekend they’re having an Addams Family marathon. That show is SO cool.

As a boy I loved it, though I could seldom catch it in syndication. I infinitely preferred it to The Munsters, which struck me as a gaudy, less creative knockoff of The Addams Family. In the years since, I’ve decided that I *do* like The Munsters, but The Addams Family still has a kind of sophistication and subtlety that the Munsters didn’t.

The Munsters were all established types of monsters: Hermann was a Frankenstein monster, Lily and Granpa were vampires, and Eddie was a werewolf. Then there was Cousin Marilyn, the drop-dead gorgeous ugly duckling of the family.

The Addamses, by contrast, defy categorization. Morticia is vaguely Vampira-like, but she isn’t a vampire. Lurch is vaguely Frankenstein monster-ish, but he isn’t a Frankenstein monster. Gomez and the children aren’t monstrous in appearance at all, and Uncle Fester, Cousin Itt, and Thing defy classification. The only Addams that approximates an established stereotype is Grandmama, who is a hag.

The humor on The Addams Family also is more subtle than that on The Munsters. The writers didn’t go for as many predictable jokes. Thus, for example, in one episode this weekend Morticia offered a visitor to the house a dish of brazed giraffe whereas Lily Munster might have offered a wolfsbane casserole or something. Brazed giraffe is odd and exotic without being predictable and invoking a cliche.

That seems to be the main difference between the two oddball families (both of whom got their serieses in the same year: 1964). The Munsters are a fun romp through established monster motifs (mostly derivative of the 1930s and ’40s Universal monster movies), while The Addams Family is a quirky, understated, never-quite-predictable look at a family from The Twilight Zone.

One thing both shows have going for them is wicked cool main title sequences. The Munsters’ theme has those hard-driving (for 1964) electric guitars and saxophones, while The Addams Family has the lively harpsichord and finger snapping.

Both families also are functional, despite their oddballness. The family members care about each other, the mother and father in each are in love, and everbody has a kind of quirky zest for life. Gomez Addams (played by John Astin, father of Sean Astin or “Samwise Gamgee” from The Lord of the Rings movies) in particular seems to be thoroughly enjoying life with a passion that sometimes borders on mania.

When I was a boy, one of my favorite aunts (who reminds me of a non-spooky, Texas-accented version of Morticia, if that makes any sense) once compared my sense of humor to that of Charles Addams, the cartoonist on whose work the series is based. Maybe that’s why I like the show so much.

Now if they’d just put it out on DVD. It only ran two seasons, so it wouldn’t take much work to put the whole thing out. Just two, one-season volumes. Since TVLand has started releasing DVD sets of the shows it broadcasts, maybe it’ll put this one out. If so, I’ll get my copies pronto!

Septuagint & Other Greek Resources

A reader writes:

Jimmy, I noticed that there are no books concerning the Septuagint. Do you know of any interlinear versions? While it’s use will naturally bring up the issue of canonicity with non-catholics, wouldn’t it be usefull in establishing contextual usages? An example that comes to mind was when I was trying to establish the usage of Trogos in John 6 as literal to a friend of mine. I found only two other occurances in the N.T. external to John 6. I gave up on the only online version I found when I realized it was universally translated every word for “eat” as Estheo. (I don’t know greek but as an engineer I recognized enough of the letters to get suspicius when the letters were spelling Phegos.)

Putting together an interlinear is a very difficult thing, and they don’t sell that great to begin with. I am not aware of anybody who has put together a Septuagint interlinear in book form. Normally it is either published with straight Greek text or as a diaglot (i.e., a work with two languages on the same page or on facing pages, but not woven together line by line in interlinear fashion). Here’s an example of a Septuagint-English diaglot.

There’s also an NIV Hebrew-Greek-English triglot Old Testament that Amazon has available from their used bookstore contacts.

Though there is no print interlinear of the Septuagint, there is one available in .pdf form, which you can get from www.ApostolicBible.com. It can be ordered on CD-Rom for sixty bucks or downloaded it for forty three. Here’s a peek inside it:

lxxinterlinear

Now, you may notice that there’s something odd here. The words in the English lines are not strictly lined up under the corresponding Greek words. In Gen. 1:1, for example, the Greek line has “epoiesen h theos,” which in literal word order is “[he] made the God” (putting the verb before its subject) but which the English line has rendered idiomatically as “God made.” The same thing happens in 1:3 with “God said.”

This is not standard practice for an interlinear, and since I can’t find adequate online statements about who made this interlinear, what their agenda was, and how rigorous they were in doing it, there may be imperfections or biases in the thing, so fair warning.

Another way to accomplish the same effect (and which would be far better than buying the Septuagint in .pdf form) would be to use Bible software, opening a Septuagint window and linking it to an English window with corresponding words highlighted.

It sounds like, though, that what you’re after may not require a Septuagint at all (interlinear or otherwise). If you want to do primary source research, you would need the text of the Septuagint–for it is quite useful in fleshing out our knowledge of how words were used–but there’s probably a much simpler way to get the info that you’re after. A good Greek dictionary will tie together not only word usages from the Greek NT and the Septuagint but also from extra-biblical sources, and it’s *much* easier (and more reliable) to figure out a dictionary entry than to do your own primary source research. A professional Greek scholar might need to do the latter, but for a normal person’s purposes, a good dictionary is the way to go.

Though there are more detailed dictionaries available, the Abbott-Smith lexicon is a fairly simple one to use that includes data from the Septuagint, extra-biblical sources, and the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Old Testament. Little Kittel would be a step up in detail from Abbott-Smith, but it isn’t comprehensive and you have to be careful with it since the authors of the work it’s based on had an agenda (they were trying to write a theological encyclopedia disguised as a Greek dictionary). It still can be useful; you just have to be careful. There are also more detailed dictionaries, but they’re probably more than what you’re looking for.

If you need an English-Hebrew/Greek dictionary (i.e., one organized by English word order) so you can see what different words are translated as a particular English term, a good basic one is Vine’s Expository Dictionary. It’s not exhaustive (and the scholarship is a bit out of date), but it’s a place to begin. Bible software also frequently can perform this function.

P.S. The verb you’re after in John 6 is trogo, not trogos.

Septuagint & Other Greek Resources

A reader writes:

Jimmy, I noticed that there are no books concerning the Septuagint. Do you know of any interlinear versions? While it’s use will naturally bring up the issue of canonicity with non-catholics, wouldn’t it be usefull in establishing contextual usages? An example that comes to mind was when I was trying to establish the usage of Trogos in John 6 as literal to a friend of mine. I found only two other occurances in the N.T. external to John 6. I gave up on the only online version I found when I realized it was universally translated every word for “eat” as Estheo. (I don’t know greek but as an engineer I recognized enough of the letters to get suspicius when the letters were spelling Phegos.)

Putting together an interlinear is a very difficult thing, and they don’t sell that great to begin with. I am not aware of anybody who has put together a Septuagint interlinear in book form. Normally it is either published with straight Greek text or as a diaglot (i.e., a work with two languages on the same page or on facing pages, but not woven together line by line in interlinear fashion). Here’s an example of a Septuagint-English diaglot.

There’s also an NIV Hebrew-Greek-English triglot Old Testament that Amazon has available from their used bookstore contacts.

Though there is no print interlinear of the Septuagint, there is one available in .pdf form, which you can get from www.ApostolicBible.com. It can be ordered on CD-Rom for sixty bucks or downloaded it for forty three. Here’s a peek inside it:

lxxinterlinear

Now, you may notice that there’s something odd here. The words in the English lines are not strictly lined up under the corresponding Greek words. In Gen. 1:1, for example, the Greek line has “epoiesen h theos,” which in literal word order is “[he] made the God” (putting the verb before its subject) but which the English line has rendered idiomatically as “God made.” The same thing happens in 1:3 with “God said.”

This is not standard practice for an interlinear, and since I can’t find adequate online statements about who made this interlinear, what their agenda was, and how rigorous they were in doing it, there may be imperfections or biases in the thing, so fair warning.

Another way to accomplish the same effect (and which would be far better than buying the Septuagint in .pdf form) would be to use Bible software, opening a Septuagint window and linking it to an English window with corresponding words highlighted.

It sounds like, though, that what you’re after may not require a Septuagint at all (interlinear or otherwise). If you want to do primary source research, you would need the text of the Septuagint–for it is quite useful in fleshing out our knowledge of how words were used–but there’s probably a much simpler way to get the info that you’re after. A good Greek dictionary will tie together not only word usages from the Greek NT and the Septuagint but also from extra-biblical sources, and it’s *much* easier (and more reliable) to figure out a dictionary entry than to do your own primary source research. A professional Greek scholar might need to do the latter, but for a normal person’s purposes, a good dictionary is the way to go.

Though there are more detailed dictionaries available, the Abbott-Smith lexicon is a fairly simple one to use that includes data from the Septuagint, extra-biblical sources, and the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Old Testament. Little Kittel would be a step up in detail from Abbott-Smith, but it isn’t comprehensive and you have to be careful with it since the authors of the work it’s based on had an agenda (they were trying to write a theological encyclopedia disguised as a Greek dictionary). It still can be useful; you just have to be careful. There are also more detailed dictionaries, but they’re probably more than what you’re looking for.

If you need an English-Hebrew/Greek dictionary (i.e., one organized by English word order) so you can see what different words are translated as a particular English term, a good basic one is Vine’s Expository Dictionary. It’s not exhaustive (and the scholarship is a bit out of date), but it’s a place to begin. Bible software also frequently can perform this function.

P.S. The verb you’re after in John 6 is trogo, not trogos.

Possible CNN Interview

Yesterday I did a phone interview with a reporter from CNN. She wasn’t clear, but I got the impression that it was essentially a pre-interview to decide if they want to do a real interview with me. What was clear is that they are doing a story on the denial of Communion to supporters of abortion and homosexuality. If they decide to use me for it, they’ll let me know. Should happen in the next few days if it does. I’ll let y’all know.

Mr. Misdirection

James White has replied again. His latest reply is pure misdirection. It contains two paragraphs, the first of which consists of jellied sarcasm and the second of which is a renewed attempt to misdirect the audience by reissuing challenges as to what he’d like me to talk about instead of his recent errors.

These errors, one will recall, were the following:

1) White referred to “the biblical definition of a saint,” implying that there is such a thing.

There’s not.

There are several different biblical uses of the terms corresponding to “saint” (Gk., hagios, Ar. qaddish, Hb., qadhosh), and we must be sensitive to these uses.

2) White said that “in Roman Catholicism a saint is a person who has more merit than temporal punishment upon their soul at death, so that they do not need to pass through purgatory for cleansing, but are fit for the presence of God immediately.”

This is not only false, it is preposterous. In common Catholic speech, the term “saint” means either “someone who is in heaven” or “someone who has been canonized.”

The closest White comes to admitting he was wrong is when in his first reply he says:

Obviously, the term “saint” is then used of those who have been cleansed and “left” purgatory at a later time, but I wasn’t addressing that usage in explaining the basics of the Roman position [emphasis in original]

This is not an admission of error because it implies that there is a usage of the term “saint” that corresponds to the one White proposed. He thus remains in the wrong.

Suppose that I said:

In Evangelical Protestantism, a minister is a person who has more fervor than he has book learning, so that he does not need to pass through seminary for education but is fit for preaching in the pulpit immediately.

White would rightly object to this characterization, and it wouldn’t be much of a defense for me to say:

Obviously, the term “minister” is then used of those who have been eduated and “left” seminary at a later time, but I wasn’t addressing that usage in explaining the basics of the Evangelical position

There is simply is no established Evangelical usage reserving the term “minister” for those who have not gone through seminary (there might be among certain extra-snarky Fundamentalists, but I’m not talking about them), and in the same way there is no Catholic usage reserving the term “saint” for those who have not gone through purgatory. White is simply wrong and trying to hide it behind huffing and puffing and misdirection.

The reason this stings White so much is that he thought he was safe here. If you read his original post, he’s setting up a classic sneer–as he so often does–between his own “biblical faith” and “man-centered religion.” The first horn–or perhaps we should say, nostril–of the sneer is when White introduces “the biblical definition of a saint.” Here he is setting up the “biblical faith” element, with which he wishes to identify himself. The second horn–or nostril–is when he introduces his nonsense about what a saint is in Catholic theology. The content of this nonsense is meant to make Catholicism look bad as being a “man-centered religion” of “works.”

Thing is: A person only tends to sneer at others when he thinks he is on safe ground. It is thus very surprising and upsetting to have it suddenly turn out that he is wrong. The effect is like having a door pop open and bop you in the nose.

Unable to say “Oww! Okay, I was wrong in what I said, and I shouldn’t have been sneering,” White thus turns to misdirection.

Michael Eisner Enters The Tower Of Terror

The last few weeks we here in California have been bombarded by ads for the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror at Disney’s California Adventure theme park.

Don’t know if you’re seeing these ads in the rest of the country, but they’re all over the place here.

Now, as this photo essay, it’s Disney head Michael Eisner’s turn in the Tower of Terror, the ultra-expensive ride he has been backing to bring bucks into Disney’s latest lackluster theme park.

Apparently, the California Adventure is a cost-cut, trimmed-down version of what was originally envisioned to be a much larger park, but the reaction of the public has been “ho-hum.” That’s my reaction, too. The concept of “California” just doesn’t send me, and it hasn’t been paired conceptually with the concept of “Adventure” since the 1890s.

In any event, the photo essay–taken this past Memorial Day–shows very few people seem to have the park resonating for them, either.

Terror time for Michael Eisner.

"Time, Time, Time, What Has Become Of You?"

I may (or may not) post a few thoughts on White’s rant-response later, but I thought I’d take a moment to answer something a couple of commenters touched on: my answering “challenges” White has issued soliciting responses on particular subjects.

My schedule is extremely busy, and I don’t have time to do a lot of things. One thing I don’t have time to do is read James White’s blog very often. As a result, I am blissfully unaware of many of the “challenges” I suspect he has made to me. Most have probably quietly gone off into the nether regions of his blog archives without me ever seeing them. The same goes for his webcast, which I don’t listen to. If, as he said in his reply, he recently played comments of mine from a debate years ago and asked for clarification of them, I wouldn’t know it, ’cause I don’t listen to his show. Neither, for that matter, do I read his books. He apparently thinks that I ought to respond to something that he wrote about James 2, but as I don’t own a copy of the book in question and haven’t read it, I wouldn’t know what it is he’s referring to.

The world is a big place, and the world of ideas is even bigger. I simply don’t have the time to monitor James White’s activities on a daily basis. Since (despite my open invitation to do so) he seems unwilling to pick up the phone and actually talk to me, it’s a very hit or miss thing whether I will even be aware of challenges he may toss my way. I suspect that, for the vast majority of such challenges, I never hear about them.

So that’s one way time enters the equation.

Another has to do with my ability to respond. At any given moment, I usually have several major writing projects I’m working on for work or for myself (this blog being one of the latter), and thus even if I become aware of one of White’s challenges, there’s a real question I have to face of whether at the moment it would be responsible of me to take time away from something else just to respond to whatever it is he’s demanding a response on.

Consider, for example, his latest challenge. He wants me to respond to something that was said in a debate the two of us had something like eight years ago. In order to justice to this request, I would need to:

1) Go find a copy of the debate in question.

2) Listen to it to see what was actually said (and thus make sure it isn’t being misrepresented).

3) Try to figure out wherever it may be that White has previously explained his concern (since he doesn’t explain it here; he just alludes to having made the demand in the past).

4) Go look up and read that place.

5) Compose a response.

6) Polish and revise it to avoid the foreseeable criticisms White will make.

7) Publish it.

8) Interact with him over it later, since no matter what I say it will provoke another vehement, densely-worded, triumphalistic exposition from him about why he isn’t satisfied with the response and how this one again illustrates the inferiority of Catholic apologists (and me in particular) and the superiority of Calvinism (and himself in particular).

9) Get tired of dealing with him.

10) And, finally, quit responding again–in the knowledge that he is likely to begin demanding further clarifications on the loose ends of this exchange for the next eight years.

His demand regarding James 2 is even worse since the performance of the above steps would be complicated by the fact that, even after I located the book, I would have to read it and try to determine what in it he is referring to. That’s a very dicey proposition, and he would be almost certain to accuse me of not responding to the thing he wanted me to respond to, or not responding in the depth he wanted, or not responding with the attitude he wanted, or not responding with a proper understanding of the context in which he had written, or not responding to all the other things he’d like me to respond to.

A third way time enters the equation involves the question of prudence. Since he won’t ever be satisfied (and, as his latest response continues to illustrate, he is incapable of admitting publicly that he’s simply wrong), there’s a risk that by dropping everything just in order to respond to the latest demand by James White that you will habituate him to this kind of treatment and thus encourage a repetition of the behavior in the future, leading to a further consumption of time as the cycle repeats itself in the future.

There are also considerations besides time. One is the general frustration factor in dealing with White’s attitude. Another is the fact that responding at this juncture would reward him in his efforts at misdirection.

That is, after all, what his huffing and puffing about John 6:44 and James 2 is. He brings those up to try to misdirect the reader from the fact that I have pointed out several howling errors on his part. A responsible person would say something like, “Well, yeah, it looks like I was wrong” or even “Well, yeah, I may be wrong, so I’ll check into this more” or “I phrased myself sloppily, so I’ll try to write more clearly.” But, since White seems unable to ever admit error on his part, he huffs and puffs about context (which wasn’t in or linked in the entry) and who he was writing for, and he throws demands around about why don’t I respond to what he’d like me to respond to and thus take attention away from the errors in what he wrote.

I’m very disinclined to reward such behavior, though time is still the primary factor.

Having said all that, I’m not averse to answering specific questions if White can summon up the wherewithal to pose his questions politely and concisely, in a way that doesn’t require me to go look up lots of sources.

For example: “It seems to me that John 6:44 means THIS, but you one said something that gave me the impression that it means THAT. Did I understand you correctly, are you still of that view, and if so, why do you prefer your interpretation to mine?”

That would be a nice, reasonable way to ask. As opposed to:

So let’s compare things: I have pointed out the glaring incapacity of James Akin as a biblical exegete regarding comments he has made in public debate on John 6:44. His erroneous comments are available on the web. In comparison, Akin chooses to focus upon three sentences in a blog entry, and even then, can only ignore the offered context and insist upon fuller definitions. I’d think one of the chief figures of Catholic Answers could produce a little better effort in light of the three dozen debates we offer on Roman Catholicism and the numerous books in print relevant to the topic. Maybe Mr. Akin would like to comment on the exegesis of James 2 in The God Who Justifies that directly refutes his own claims on that passage? Let’s call Mr. Akin to a little higher standard, shall we?

Perhaps we should call Mr. White to a little higher standard as well.

“Time, Time, Time, What Has Become Of You?”

I may (or may not) post a few thoughts on White’s rant-response later, but I thought I’d take a moment to answer something a couple of commenters touched on: my answering “challenges” White has issued soliciting responses on particular subjects.

My schedule is extremely busy, and I don’t have time to do a lot of things. One thing I don’t have time to do is read James White’s blog very often. As a result, I am blissfully unaware of many of the “challenges” I suspect he has made to me. Most have probably quietly gone off into the nether regions of his blog archives without me ever seeing them. The same goes for his webcast, which I don’t listen to. If, as he said in his reply, he recently played comments of mine from a debate years ago and asked for clarification of them, I wouldn’t know it, ’cause I don’t listen to his show. Neither, for that matter, do I read his books. He apparently thinks that I ought to respond to something that he wrote about James 2, but as I don’t own a copy of the book in question and haven’t read it, I wouldn’t know what it is he’s referring to.

The world is a big place, and the world of ideas is even bigger. I simply don’t have the time to monitor James White’s activities on a daily basis. Since (despite my open invitation to do so) he seems unwilling to pick up the phone and actually talk to me, it’s a very hit or miss thing whether I will even be aware of challenges he may toss my way. I suspect that, for the vast majority of such challenges, I never hear about them.

So that’s one way time enters the equation.

Another has to do with my ability to respond. At any given moment, I usually have several major writing projects I’m working on for work or for myself (this blog being one of the latter), and thus even if I become aware of one of White’s challenges, there’s a real question I have to face of whether at the moment it would be responsible of me to take time away from something else just to respond to whatever it is he’s demanding a response on.

Consider, for example, his latest challenge. He wants me to respond to something that was said in a debate the two of us had something like eight years ago. In order to justice to this request, I would need to:

1) Go find a copy of the debate in question.

2) Listen to it to see what was actually said (and thus make sure it isn’t being misrepresented).

3) Try to figure out wherever it may be that White has previously explained his concern (since he doesn’t explain it here; he just alludes to having made the demand in the past).

4) Go look up and read that place.

5) Compose a response.

6) Polish and revise it to avoid the foreseeable criticisms White will make.

7) Publish it.

8) Interact with him over it later, since no matter what I say it will provoke another vehement, densely-worded, triumphalistic exposition from him about why he isn’t satisfied with the response and how this one again illustrates the inferiority of Catholic apologists (and me in particular) and the superiority of Calvinism (and himself in particular).

9) Get tired of dealing with him.

10) And, finally, quit responding again–in the knowledge that he is likely to begin demanding further clarifications on the loose ends of this exchange for the next eight years.

His demand regarding James 2 is even worse since the performance of the above steps would be complicated by the fact that, even after I located the book, I would have to read it and try to determine what in it he is referring to. That’s a very dicey proposition, and he would be almost certain to accuse me of not responding to the thing he wanted me to respond to, or not responding in the depth he wanted, or not responding with the attitude he wanted, or not responding with a proper understanding of the context in which he had written, or not responding to all the other things he’d like me to respond to.

A third way time enters the equation involves the question of prudence. Since he won’t ever be satisfied (and, as his latest response continues to illustrate, he is incapable of admitting publicly that he’s simply wrong), there’s a risk that by dropping everything just in order to respond to the latest demand by James White that you will habituate him to this kind of treatment and thus encourage a repetition of the behavior in the future, leading to a further consumption of time as the cycle repeats itself in the future.

There are also considerations besides time. One is the general frustration factor in dealing with White’s attitude. Another is the fact that responding at this juncture would reward him in his efforts at misdirection.

That is, after all, what his huffing and puffing about John 6:44 and James 2 is. He brings those up to try to misdirect the reader from the fact that I have pointed out several howling errors on his part. A responsible person would say something like, “Well, yeah, it looks like I was wrong” or even “Well, yeah, I may be wrong, so I’ll check into this more” or “I phrased myself sloppily, so I’ll try to write more clearly.” But, since White seems unable to ever admit error on his part, he huffs and puffs about context (which wasn’t in or linked in the entry) and who he was writing for, and he throws demands around about why don’t I respond to what he’d like me to respond to and thus take attention away from the errors in what he wrote.

I’m very disinclined to reward such behavior, though time is still the primary factor.

Having said all that, I’m not averse to answering specific questions if White can summon up the wherewithal to pose his questions politely and concisely, in a way that doesn’t require me to go look up lots of sources.

For example: “It seems to me that John 6:44 means THIS, but you one said something that gave me the impression that it means THAT. Did I understand you correctly, are you still of that view, and if so, why do you prefer your interpretation to mine?”

That would be a nice, reasonable way to ask. As opposed to:

So let’s compare things: I have pointed out the glaring incapacity of James Akin as a biblical exegete regarding comments he has made in public debate on John 6:44. His erroneous comments are available on the web. In comparison, Akin chooses to focus upon three sentences in a blog entry, and even then, can only ignore the offered context and insist upon fuller definitions. I’d think one of the chief figures of Catholic Answers could produce a little better effort in light of the three dozen debates we offer on Roman Catholicism and the numerous books in print relevant to the topic. Maybe Mr. Akin would like to comment on the exegesis of James 2 in The God Who Justifies that directly refutes his own claims on that passage? Let’s call Mr. Akin to a little higher standard, shall we?

Perhaps we should call Mr. White to a little higher standard as well.