Dreams, Longing, And The Eternal Quest For Meaning

I spent my Saturday nights in New York because those gleaming, dazzling parties of his were with me so vividly that I could still hear the music and the laughter faint and incessant from his garden and the cars going up and down his drive. One night I did hear a material car there and saw its lights stop at his front steps. But I didn’t investigate. Probably it was some final guest who had been away at the ends of the earth and didn’t know that the party was over. 

On the last night, with my trunk packed and my car sold to the grocer, I went over and looked at that huge incoherent failure of a house once more. On the white steps an obscene word, scrawled by some boy with a piece of brick, stood out clearly in the moonlight and I erased it, drawing my shoe raspingly along the stone. Then I wandered down to the beach and sprawled out on the sand. 

Most of the big shore places were closed now and there were hardly any lights except the shadowy, moving glow of a ferryboat across the Sound. And as the moon rose higher the inessential houses began to melt away until gradually I became aware of the old island here that flowered once for Dutch sailors’ eyes—a fresh, green breast of the new world. Its vanished trees, the trees that had made way for Gatsby’s house, had once pandered in whispers to the last and greatest of all human dreams; for a transitory enchanted moment man must have held his breath in the presence of this continent, compelled into an aesthetic contemplation he neither understood nor desired, face to face for the last time in history with something commensurate to his capacity for wonder. 

And as I sat there brooding on the old, unknown world, I thought of Gatsby’s wonder when he first picked out the green light at the end of Daisy’s dock. He had come a long way to this blue lawn and his dream must have seemed so close that he could hardly fail to grasp it. He did not know that it was already behind him, somewhere back in that vast obscurity beyond the city, where the dark fields of the republic rolled on under the night. 

Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that’s no matter—tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther…. And one fine morning—— 

So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby, p. 192-193

Faith Alone, Facts Optional?: Setting The Record Straight On Sola Fide

• Defining the Issues:

          The purpose of this article is to answer various objections to the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), particularly as presented in arguments that highlight the ambiguity of good works, the assurance of salvation, and distinctions between justification and sanctification. These arguments frequently rely on a misunderstanding of Sola Fide's theological foundation, conflate key biblical concepts, and introduce complexities absent in biblical teaching. Each bolded excerpt represents a claim or challenge, followed by critical commentary in the sections that follow:

• Claims of Ambiguity of Good Works in Protestantism:

          "What exactly are the good works that accompany true faith? Please be specific in your answer."

          The forensic framework of justification before God does not rely on a rigid, exhaustive list of "good works" to accompany true faith. Scripture itself places emphasis on the heart's transformation rather than a checklist of actions. Good works flow from faith rather than defining it.

          Horn’s critique assumes that a lack of specificity undermines the coherence of Sola Fide, but this reveals a misunderstanding of its theological foundation. The Protestant focus is not on prescribing specific works but on the believer's relationship with Christ, which produces good fruit (Matthew 7:17). The ambiguity pointed to is intentional, as Scripture recognizes that good works are contextual and diverse, reflecting the uniqueness of each believer’s calling.

• Anxiety about Salvation:

          "They may not be worried about doing enough good works to earn salvation, but now they’re worried about whether they do enough good works to show whether they were saved in the first place."

          This argument conflates sanctification (the process of becoming more like Jesus Himself) with justification (being declared righteous before God). Salvation is fully secure in Christ alone (John 10:28-29). Assurance of salvation is grounded in God’s promises, not human performance.

          Any struggle with assurance arises not from Sola Fide, but from the natural tension of living in a fallen world while pursuing sanctification. Instead of creating anxiety, this doctrine directs Christians to rest in the finished work of Christ on the cross. The desire to produce good works is not a burden but a joyful response to God's grace, as seen in 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, which emphasizes that love for Christ compels us to live for Him.

          Trent Horn's critique ironically creates a parallel concern within Roman Catholic theology: if sacraments and mortal sins determine salvation, how can Catholics avoid anxiety about whether they have fulfilled all necessary conditions or missed confession before death? His claim that Sola Fide produces worry thus mirrors a similar problem within his own framework.

• Defining the Line Between Good Works and Sins:

          "Where do we draw the line?...What standard do you use to determine to draw the line?"

          The standard for distinguishing between good works and sin is found in Scripture. True faith is accompanied by the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).  Habitual sin can be a sign of spiritual immaturity rather than the absence of salvation (1 Corinthians 3:1-3). Trent Horn’s demand for an explicit, universally applicable "line" misunderstands the relational nature of Christianity. The focus is not on meeting a numerical threshold of good deeds or avoiding a specific number of sins, but on abiding in Christ (John 15:5), which naturally produces righteousness.

          Furthermore, Horn’s critique risks undermining human accountability. Scripture is clear that justification is a work of God, not man (Titus 3:5). By suggesting that believers need a rigid metric to gauge their salvation, Horn implies a dependence on human effort that Sola Fide explicitly rejects. His reasoning here inadvertently reinforces a works-based paradigm that is inconsistent with the gospel message.

• Catholic Sacraments and Assurance of Salvation:

          "If you are validly baptized, then you are a part of the body of Christ...The trueness of your faith does not depend on people being able to see you perform good works."

          While Roman Catholic sacraments aim to provide assurance, Scripture places assurance in faith alone, not sacramental participation. Romans 4:3 states: "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality, but it is faith, not the act of baptism itself, that justifies. Acts 16:31 simplifies salvation to: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved."

          Trent Horn's argument introduces a potential circularity: If one's faith is built on the practice of sacraments, then these external rituals become essential for faith. A loop is created where faith requires sacraments, and the sacraments are needed to have faith, reducing the emphasis on Christ’s atonement. Hence, the sacraments, rather than Christ’s work alone, are seen as essential to one's salvation. 

• Clarity of Catholic Teaching versus Sola Fide:

          "The Catholic view seems to just describe reality as it is, whereas the Protestant view of sola fide has to add a bunch of ad hoc qualifications in order to preserve that doctrine."

          The assertion that Sola Fide requires "ad hoc" qualifications misunderstands its theological grounding. The simplicity of this teaching lies in its adherence to Scripture: salvation by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). The supposed "qualifications" are not ad hoc, but responses to the natural tension between justification and sanctification, tensions that Scripture itself acknowledges (James 2:14-26).

          In contrast, the Roman Catholic view of salvation introduces its own set of complexities, such as distinctions between mortal and venial sins, purgatory, and the need for repeated acts of reconciliation. These additions lack biblical support and create unnecessary theological layers. Sola Fide, by focusing on Christ’s sufficiency, avoids these entanglements while remaining faithful to the gospel.

• The Principle of Parsimony and Justification by Faith Alone:

          "I followed the principle of parsimony and I went with the simpler explanation, which overall tends to be the correct one."

          The principle of parsimony (or Occam's razor) favors simplicity, but only when the simpler explanation adequately accounts for the evidence. Sola Fide is the simpler framework because it aligns with Scripture’s clear teaching of justification by faith alone. The Catholic system, with its reliance on sacraments, distinctions between sins, and the infusion of grace through works, adds theological and practical complexities.

          Moreover, Horn's appeal to parsimony inadvertently undermines Catholicism’s reliance on tradition and extra-biblical doctrines. If simplicity is the guiding principle, then Sola Fide, grounded in the direct teaching of Scripture, emerges as the more parsimonious and biblically faithful explanation.

Refuting Pseudo-Scholar Trent Horn On Sola Fide And Early Church History

• Defining the Issues:

          The purpose of this article is to address Trent Horn's critiques of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), particularly his interpretations of early church fathers and related theological concepts. He often misrepresents key Protestant ideas and selectively interprets sources to fit with his agendas. Each bolded excerpt represents a key statement or claim made by or associated with Trent Horn, followed by a critical assessment under various sections.

• Lack of Support for Sola Fide in Early Church Fathers:

          "They [Protestant scholars] admit sola fide was fairly or even entirely unknown in the early church."

          "For the first 350 years of the history of the church, her teaching on justification was inchoate and ill-defined."

          Horn says that Protestant scholars like Alister McGrath admit the concept of justification by faith alone is not overtly articulated in the early church. However, this does not disprove Sola Fide as a biblical doctrine. It highlights that the doctrinal language of the time was still developing. Many Protestant scholars argue that foundational principles of Sola Fide are present in Scripture and reflected indirectly in early writings, even if not systematically articulated.

          For instance, Clement of Rome (cited by Horn) writes in 1 Clement 32: "We are not justified by ourselves... or by works which we have wrought in holiness of heart, but by that faith through which from the beginning Almighty God has justified all men." While Horn attempts to harmonize this with later texts emphasizing good works, Clement's affirmation of justification apart from works aligns closely with Paul's teaching in Romans 4:5.

          Further, it is anachronistic to expect the early church to use later Reformation-era terminology like "imputed righteousness." The New Testament itself, however, uses language consistent with Sola Fide, such as Paul’s declaration in Romans 3:28: "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." These principles were embedded in Scripture, even if they lacked systematic expression in early writings.

• On Claims of Early Writers Emphasizing Works as Part of Salvation:

          "The Shepherd of Hermas makes salvation contingent on good works."

          "Clement seems to be exhorting believers to do these things because... not doing them would jeopardize their justification."

          Horn's interpretation of Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas reflects a misunderstanding of the Protestant framework of Sola Fide. Good works are essential to the Christian life, not as a means of justification, but as evidence of saving faith. James 2:26 explicitly states, "Faith without works is dead." However, this does not contradict Sola Fide, as the role of works is evidential rather than causative. Paul and James are complementary: true faith naturally results in works, but works are not the basis of our justification (Ephesians 2:8-10).

          When Clement urges believers to perform good works or avoid sin, this can be understood as exhortation toward sanctification, not justification. Sanctification, the process of growing in holiness, is distinct from justification, which is a one-time, declarative act of God. Trent Horn conflates these two categories, creating a false dichotomy where none exists.

          Moreover, Horn's reliance on texts like The Shepherd of Hermas and The Didache, which are not doctrinally authoritative even within Roman Catholicism, raises questions about their use as rebuttals to Protestant soteriology.

• Good Works Are Necessary to Maintain Salvation?:

          "In First Clement, one gets in by faith, but one stays in through works."

          "Blessed are we beloved if we keep the commandments of God in the harmony of love, that so through love, our sins may be forgiven us."

          The idea of "maintaining" salvation through good works creates a works-based system contrary to the gospel's message of grace. While Clement and other patristic authors may stress the importance of obedience, such exhortations align with sanctification—the outworking of faith—not the maintenance of justification before God. The Apostle Paul’s admonitions to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12) emphasize this same dynamic while affirming in the next verse that it is God who works in believers.

• Contradictory Assertions in Catholic Interpretation:

          "Catholics must perform an arbitrary number of good works to get to heaven, which is not true. The only good work a Catholic must do to get to heaven is to just not die in a state of mortal sin."

          This claim introduces an internal contradiction within Roman Catholic soteriology. While Trent Horn denies the necessity of "arbitrary good works" for salvation, he affirms that avoidance of mortal sin (i.e. a form of obedience) is required. This raises the question: how does one avoid mortal sin apart from works, which involve human effort?

          Furthermore, the Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sin lacks biblical support. James 2:10 states, "Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it." This underscores the impossibility of achieving righteousness through any kind of works, pointing instead to the necessity of Christ’s imputed righteousness.

• Admissions of Sola Fide Being Absent from the Early Church?:

          "A strain of moralism is quite apparent in that man was taught to depend for salvation on faith and good works."

          "Early Christian writers did not choose to express their soteriological convictions primarily in terms of the concept of justification."

          The claim that Sola Fide—justification by faith alone—was “fairly or even entirely unknown” in the early church relies on a selective and overly pessimistic reading of Protestant scholarship. While it is true that early Christian writers did not articulate justification in the precise forensic terms later used by the Reformers, this does not mean the concept was absent or rejected. Rather, the early church expressed its soteriology in different theological idioms—union with Christ, participation in divine life, and resurrection hope—all of which are compatible with, and often complementary to, the doctrine of sola fide.

          Thomas Torrance’s 1948 dissertation, The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers, is often cited to support the idea that the early church lacked a robust understanding of gospel grace. Torrance does lament that the apostolic fathers had a “feeble understanding” of the gospel’s great truths, but this critique is aimed at their lack of theological precision, not a denial of grace or faith. Torrance’s concern is that the Fathers emphasized ecclesial unity and moral exhortation at the expense of Pauline clarity. However, this pastoral focus does not negate the presence of faith-based soteriology—it simply reflects the historical context in which these writings emerged, often under persecution and without the luxury of doctrinal systematization.

          Louis Berkhof’s observation that early Christian writings contain “very little respecting the doctrine of sanctification” and that a “strain of moralism” is apparent should also be read carefully. Berkhof does not claim that the early church taught salvation by works. Rather, he notes that moral exhortation was prominent. This is unsurprising given the church’s need to distinguish itself ethically from pagan society. Importantly, Berkhof’s critique is about emphasis, not theological error. Even the Reformers taught that good works follow justification as its fruit—not as its cause. The presence of moral instruction in the fathers does not contradict Sola Fide. It reflects the lived reality of discipleship in a hostile world.

          Alister McGrath’s Iustitia Dei is one of the most comprehensive studies on the doctrine of justification. While he notes that the early church’s teaching on justification was “inchoate and ill-defined,” he does not suggest that justification by faith was absent. Rather, McGrath points out that early Christians did not use “justification” as their primary theological framework. Their soteriology was expressed more often in terms of transformation, healing, and participation in Christ. Yet McGrath also acknowledges that Pauline themes of grace and faith were present, even if not fully developed. His analysis is descriptive, not dismissive.

          Horn's quote from Geisler and MacKenzie that “scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness or forensic justification” between Paul and the Reformation is a statement about terminology, not theology. The concept of being declared righteous by faith is present in Scripture and echoed in early Christian thought, even if the language of “imputation” was not yet formalized. Similarly, James White’s admission that only a few valid citations can be found in the fathers regarding justification by faith alone is a methodological caution, not a theological concession. White is acknowledging the difficulty of finding explicit formulations, not denying the presence of the doctrine in seed form.

          Moreover, this pessimistic view is challenged by a growing body of Protestant scholarship. Nathan Busenitz’s Long Before Luther documents numerous patristic affirmations of salvation by faith apart from works. Nick Needham’s article on justification in the early church fathers shows that forensic themes are present, even if not dominant. Jordan Cooper’s The Righteousness of One argues that early patristic soteriology is compatible with the Reformation’s understanding of justification. Brian Arnold’s dissertation-based book explores second-century writers like Justin Martyr and Theophilus, demonstrating that they held nuanced views of justification that placed faith at the center.

          In short, the claim that Sola Fide was unknown in the early church collapses under scrutiny. The early fathers may not have used Reformation-era terminology, but they affirmed salvation by grace through faith. Their writings contain the theological DNA of Sola Fide, even if not its full articulation. The Reformers did not invent the doctrine. They recovered and clarified a truth that had long been present, albeit in embryonic form. To dismiss the early church’s soteriology as incompatible with Sola Fide is to mistake historical development for doctrinal discontinuity. The early church was primarily preoccupied with Christological and Trinitarian debates. The doctrine of justification, while biblical, became a central issue only later in response to specific theological challenges.

• Present Justification by Faith Alone vs. Final Justification by Works (Clement of Rome):

          "Present justification is received as a gift by faith apart from our own works... and final justification is in accordance with the believer’s subsequent works."

          Horn’s bifurcation of justification into "present" (by faith alone) and "final" (in accordance with works) creates unnecessary theological complexity and undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. Scripture teaches that justification is a completed act of God that cannot be altered or supplemented by human effort (Romans 5:1: "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.").

          Clement’s statement, "We are not justified by works which we have wrought in holiness of heart, but by that faith through which from the beginning Almighty God has justified all men" (1 Clement 32*), clearly aligns with Sola Fide. Horn’s attempt to reconcile this with statements about works jeopardizing justification misreads Clement’s exhortations as addressing justification rather than sanctification. Scripture consistently urges believers to pursue holiness (Hebrews 12:14) without implying that justification itself depends on their success in doing so.

• Immortality Through the Eucharist and Works (Ignatius of Antioch):

          "Breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality in the antidote to prevent us from dying."

          "Let your works be the charge assigned to you that you may receive a worthy recompense."

          Ignatius’ language about the eucharist as the "medicine of immortality" reflects the sacramental theology of his time, but does not rule out Sola Fide. Protestants can affirm the value of the sacraments as means of grace (e.g., baptism and the Lord's Supper) without ascribing to them a causal role in justification. John 6:35 describes Christ Himself as "the bread of life," emphasizing faith as the key to eternal life, with the eucharist serving as a reminder of Christ's sacrifice.

          Ignatius' use of metaphors like "works as recompense" can be understood in light of rewards in heaven rather than justification (1 Corinthians 3:14). Paul speaks of believers receiving rewards for their service, but this is distinct from justification, which is wholly dependent on faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). Trent Horn conflates these categories by implying that Ignatius equates works with justification rather than obedience as part of sanctification.

• Synergism in Salvation (Polycarp of Smyrna):

          "Knowing that by grace you are saved not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."

          "He who raised Him from the dead will raise us up also if we do His will and walk in His commandments."

          Polycarp’s affirmation of salvation "by grace" and "not of works" mirrors Ephesians 2:8-9, a cornerstone of Sola Fide. His later exhortation to "do His will and walk in His commandments" aligns with the biblical principle that faith results in obedience (James 2:17). Polycarp does not suggest that works contribute to justification before God, but underscores the inseparable relationship between true faith and good works as evidence of salvation.

          Horn cites the Princeton theologian Michael Holmes, who describes Polycarp's soteriology as synergistic. However, synergy in sanctification, believers acting on God’s grace in growing in holiness, is distinct from justification. Horn’s failure to distinguish between these doctrines leads to an apparent contradiction that does not exist in Protestant theology.

• Personal Righteousness and Commandment-Keeping (Justin Martyr):

          "Each person shall be saved by his own righteousness."

          "Everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions."

          While Justin Martyr emphasizes righteousness and obedience, his statements about faith and the Law do not negate Sola Fide. Protestants would argue that Justin’s apparent focus on works reflects an ethical framework where true faith manifests itself in righteous living. However, it is crucial to distinguish between justification (a legal declaration of righteousness) and sanctification (the believer’s moral transformation).

          Justin’s statements about obedience align with passages like Philippians 2:12, which exhorts believers to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling." This is not a denial of justification by faith, but an acknowledgment of the transformative power of faith in a believer's life. When Justin states that salvation is "according to the value of his actions," he likely refers to the believer’s participation in sanctification and the resulting rewards, not the basis of their justification.

• Faith and Works in the Moral Law (Irenaeus of Lyons):

          "The Lord did not abrogate the natural precepts of the law by which man is justified."

          "Faith and obedience and righteousness... justify us."

          Irenaeus’ emphasis on the moral law and obedience reflects the reality that faith produces a life of holiness. However, this does not mean that the moral law itself is the means of justification. Romans 3:28 states unequivocally that "one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." Irenaeus’ insistence on obedience can be understood as a reflection of sanctification rather than justification.

          Trent Horn’s interpretation of Irenaeus relies on a conflation of categories. The "faith that empowers us to do the works that justify us" is better understood as the process of sanctification, where believers grow in righteousness through the indwelling Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). This does not undermine Sola Fide but rather affirms that justification leads to sanctification as its necessary consequence.

• Conduct After Baptism Determines Standing Before God (Irenaeus):

          "After baptism, our conduct has a direct connection to our standing before God."

          "Those then are the perfect who have had the spirit of God remaining in them and have preserved their souls and bodies blameless."

          While Irenaeus emphasizes holy living and obedience, Horn’s reading assumes this conduct affects justification rather than sanctification. Protestants distinguish between justification—a once-for-all declarative act based on Christ's atonement—and sanctification, the believer's growth in holiness. Irenaeus' discussion of post-baptismal conduct aligns more with the biblical view of sanctification than with an argument against Sola Fide.

          For example, Ephesians 4:22-24 speaks of believers "putting off the old self" and living in righteousness after salvation, without suggesting these works contribute to or maintain justification. Irenaeus’ focus on faith-directed works indicates the fruit of salvation, not its cause.

• Baptism as Transformative Justification (Odes of Solomon):

          "He uncovered my inward being toward him and filled me with his love and his circumcising became my salvation."

          Horn interprets the language of the Odes of Solomon as teaching transformative justification linked to baptism. However, Protestants affirm baptism as a sign of salvation and a means of grace while maintaining that justification is a forensic (legal) act. The reference to circumcision as salvation in Colossians 2:11-12 highlights baptism as a symbolic identification with Christ’s death and resurrection, not as the mechanism of justification itself.

          Romans 4:11 describes circumcision as a "seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised," separating the act from justification. The Odes can be understood similarly, with transformative language emphasizing sanctification rather than altering the basis of justification.

• The Epistle of Diognetus and the Sweet Exchange:

          "The wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous one and that the righteousness of one should justify many transgressors."

          "Faith... is only mentioned four or five times, and none of them talk about salvation through faith in Christ."

          Trent Horn argues that the Epistle of Diognetus does not explicitly teach Sola Fide, claiming the "sweet exchange" reflects transformative rather than forensic justification. This interpretation, however, overlooks the profound Christ-centered atonement described in the text. The "sweet exchange" echoes 2 Corinthians 5:21: "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." The passage strongly supports the concept of substitutionary atonement and imputed righteousness, core elements of Sola Fide.

          While the epistle does not employ Pauline terminology like "reckoning" (logizomai), its themes are consistent with Paul's teachings on justification. The absence of explicit language about faith’s role in justification does not negate the doctrine, as the epistle assumes the salvific work of Christ is received by believers. The focus on God's righteousness covering human sin aligns with Sola Fide’s emphasis on grace rather than human effort.

          Horn’s insistence on transformative justification rests on ambiguous textual inferences rather than definitive evidence. Protestant scholars like Michael Byrd and Brandon Crowe acknowledge the epistle’s forensic elements, which Horn minimizes. Even if the text allows multiple interpretations, it does not undermine the broader biblical basis for Sola Fide.

• Imputed Righteousness as an Assumption (Diognetus):

          "Imputed righteousness at best is a possible corollary of the text, not part of its content."

          Horn dismisses imputed righteousness in Diognetus, arguing the text describes Christ’s righteousness as enabling transformative salvation rather than being legally imputed to believers. However, the forensic understanding of justification is deeply rooted in Scripture. Romans 4:6-8 explicitly states that God counts righteousness apart from works, and Philippians 3:9 emphasizes a righteousness that comes "not from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ—the righteousness from God that depends on faith."

          The Epistle of Diognetus’ depiction of Christ assuming humanity's sin and offering His righteousness supports this forensic view. Even if imputation is not explicitly defined, the text’s emphasis on divine substitution and grace aligns with the core tenets of Sola Fide. The insistence on an exclusively transformative interpretation imposes an unnecessary limitation on the passage’s theological richness.

• The Epistle's Lack of Influence:

          "The work is never quoted again by any church father, even early medieval writers."

          Trent Horn argues that the Epistle of Diognetus lacks historical significance because it was not widely quoted. However, the weight of a theological idea does not depend on its historical popularity but on its fidelity to Scripture. The early church lacked the doctrinal development and systematic theology seen in later periods, but this does not disqualify implicit or underdeveloped expressions of biblical truth.

           Moreover, Horn's critique is inconsistent with Catholic reliance on tradition, as many early texts—including some cited by Horn—are not universally authoritative yet are treated as evidence. Doctrine must be judged by Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and the principles in Diognetus resonate strongly with biblical teaching.

• Roman Catholics Reject the Great Exchange:

          "Christ was not literally punished on the cross for sin, but he underwent a punishment sinners deserve so they would not have to endure it."

          Horn rejects the Protestant understanding of the "great exchange," dismissing the imputed guilt of sin to Christ and the imputed righteousness of Christ to believers. Yet this view is supported by Scripture: Isaiah 53:5 declares, "He was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities." This language depicts Christ bearing the penalty of sin on behalf of believers.

          The legal framework of justification is evident throughout Paul’s epistles. Romans 5:19 says, "For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous," demonstrating the representative nature of Christ’s righteousness. Horn’s analogy of Christ paying a debt without bearing guilt diminishes the depth of substitutionary atonement and fails to account for the full biblical witness.

• Forensic and Transformative Justification Coexist:

          "Justification necessitates a forensic change in status from lawless to righteous, so too is a change implied in moral state from godlessness to being worthy of life and from corruption to a fitness to receive immortality."

          While Horn claims that justification implies both a forensic and transformative aspect, Protestants hold that these two changes are distinct processes: justification is a declarative act, while sanctification is transformative. Romans 5:1 declares, "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." This peace is a result of a settled, legal status before God, separate from the ongoing moral renewal of sanctification described in passages like Romans 6:1-4.

          Equating justification with moral transformation risks conflating the objective, finished work of justification with the subjective, lifelong process of sanctification. Protestants maintain that the imputed righteousness of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21) is the sole ground for justification, while the transformative work of sanctification flows as its necessary fruit.

• Second-Century Fathers on Works of the Law:

          "The second-century church fathers saw that works of the law in Paul, i.e. what we are not justified by, they’re primarily works of the Mosaic law, not good works in general."

          Horn leans on Matthew Thomas’ interpretation that "works of the law" in Paul refer primarily to Mosaic ceremonial practices. However, Paul’s teachings transcend the Mosaic Law to address the futility of any works, including moral ones, as a basis for justification. Romans 3:20 states, "For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." Paul further emphasizes in Galatians 2:16 that justification is "not by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ."

          Even if second-century fathers focused on Mosaic distinctions, Paul’s broader argument against works-based justification remains central to Sola Fide. Patristic reflections on works in sanctification do not invalidate the Protestant understanding of justification by faith alone.

• Transformative Exchange as Exemplified by the Unforgiving Servant:

          "Even though he was given the opportunity to be transformed by this gracious gift, he was not and so then he suffers the consequences because his works did not follow what he graciously received by faith."

          Horn’s analogy of the unforgiving servant assumes that transformation (works) is an intrinsic aspect of justification. However, the parable illustrates the fruitlessness of hypocrisy and ingratitude, not a theological formula for justification. The servant is condemned not for failing to merit forgiveness but for his lack of genuine repentance, evident in his actions.

          Protestants would argue this parable aligns with James 2:18-26, showing that true faith produces evidence in works. It does not suggest that works are the basis of justification but underscores their role as indicators of a heart transformed by grace. Horn’s interpretation conflates salvation’s evidence (works) with its cause (faith).

• Diognetus and Transformative Grace:

          "This is an incredible passage and a really great example of the inconceivable gift and the transformation it brings, that while humanity apart from Christ is unable to enter God’s kingdom, it is now possible by the sweet exchange of grace."

          While Trent Horn highlights the transformative language of the Epistle of Diognetus, this does not negate the forensic nature of justification. Grace transforms believers’ lives through sanctification, but justification is based solely on Christ’s imputed righteousness.

          The "sweet exchange" described in Diognetus aligns with 2 Corinthians 5:21, where Christ takes on sin so that believers might become the righteousness of God. This exchange focuses on substitutionary atonement rather than personal moral transformation as the means of justification. Sanctification, the evidence of justification, naturally follows, but does not contribute to the believer’s standing before God.

• Critique of Faith Alone in the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant:

          "The gift is meant to be transformative in the servant’s life... but he suffers the consequences because his works did not follow what he graciously received by faith in the king."

          The parable of the unmerciful servant illustrates the importance of forgiveness and the responsibility of believers to reflect God’s mercy. However, it does not undermine Sola Fide, as the servant's condemnation stems from hypocrisy, not a failure to merit justification. The parable warns against presuming on grace without evidence of transformation. Horn’s interpretation imposes a works-based paradigm inconsistent with the biblical emphasis on faith as the sole instrument of justification (Ephesians 2:8-9).

• Fitness to Receive Immortality Requires Transformation:

          "From corruption to a fitness to receive immortality."

          Horn interprets "fitness to receive immortality" as requiring transformation beyond forensic justification. However, Protestant theology asserts that believers are made fit for eternal life solely through Christ’s righteousness, imputed at the moment of justification (Philippians 3:9). While sanctification conforms believers to Christ’s image (Romans 8:29), it does not enhance their legal standing before God.

          The phrase “fitness” reflects the sanctification that flows from justification, but does not imply that such transformation is necessary to secure salvation. Scripture consistently affirms that eternal life is a gift, not a reward for human effort (Romans 6:23).

When Worship Walks: The Prophets' Critique Of Eucharistic Idolatry

          The Old Testament, particularly in the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah, portrays idols as lifeless objects. In Jeremiah 10:5, idols are described as being "like a scarecrow in a cucumber field," incapable of movement or action, and entirely dependent on human intervention. Similarly, in Isaiah, idols are critiqued for being man-made and their need of being carried in processions (Isaiah 46:7). This underscores their lack of divinity and inherent power. Such descriptions highlight the distinction between the true, living God and man-made idols, which serve as reminders of human frailty and the misguided worship of physical objects.

          Eucharistic processions involve the physical carrying of the consecrated host, which Roman Catholics believe to be Christ Himself following the transformation of the bread and wine during the mass. Parallels exist between this practice and the descriptions of the idols in Isaiah and Jeremiah. The Catholic eucharist, like the idols, requires human action for its movement, display, and veneration. If the eucharist is treated as a sacred object and yet depends on being carried in order to be honored, it is akin to the lifeless idols denounced by the prophets. The eucharist appears as dead as can be. It does not walk. It does not talk. The eucharist does absolutely nothing on its own initiative, just like the idols condemned by God through the prophets.

          Transubstantiation, the belief that the bread and wine are transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ, adds another layer of complexity to this argument. While the Roman Catholic Church holds that this transformation is a profound mystery, the physical elements of the bread and wine retain their appearance, taste, and tangible qualities. This reliance on the physical objects mirrors the dependency of idols on their human creators, particularly when the eucharist must be physically handled and carried in order to facilitate acts of devotion such as processions.

          Furthermore, the practice of elevating and revering the eucharist during processions involves seen placing undue emphasis on a tangible object, aligning it with the warnings against idolatry found in Scripture. Isaiah and Jeremiah strongly condemn the worship of man-made objects, critiquing the human tendency to ascribe divine attributes to physical creations. The eucharist, even if viewed as spiritually transformed, falls into the category of idolatry as its physical form becomes the focal point of worship. It being carried in monstrances is like the idols in the Old Testament that had to be carried because they could not move.

          If eucharistic processions are acts of reverence rather than idolatry, then the distinction is not clear in practice. While the intention behind the processions is to honor Christ, the emphasis on the physical host as the centerpiece of worship conflates reverence with veneration of a tangible object. The critique from Isaiah and Jeremiah warns against elevating physical objects to a status that could detract from pure, spiritual worship of God. The practice of carrying the eucharist in processions blurs this line, making the same concerns raised against idolatry in the Old Testament.

          While the Roman Catholic perspective views the eucharist as a sacred mystery and an expression of Christ's real presence, its reliance on physical elements and processional practices parallels the idolatry condemned by the prophets. The tension between physical expressions of faith and the potential for them to become idolatrous invites us to reflect on the true nature of worship and the importance of focusing on the spiritual essence of faith, rather than physical manifestations.

A Critical Evaluation Of Teresa Of Avila’s Nine Levels Of Prayer

          Teresa of Avila’s Interior Castle has long been celebrated as a spiritual masterpiece, offering a detailed map of the soul’s journey toward union with God. Her nine levels of prayer—ranging from vocal prayer to mystical union—have influenced generations of mystics, theologians, and seekers. Yet despite its poetic depth and historical significance, Teresa’s framework presents serious theological concerns when measured against the teachings of Scripture. Her model introduces a rigid hierarchy of spiritual progression, elevates emotional experiences as markers of divine intimacy, marginalizes communal and vocal prayer, and risks fostering spiritual elitism. These elements, while perhaps well-intentioned, ultimately distort the biblical understanding of prayer as immediate, sincere, communal, and universally accessible.

          At the heart of Teresa’s model lies a structured ascent through increasingly “advanced” stages of prayer. This linear progression—from vocal prayer to infused contemplation—suggests that communion with God is contingent upon spiritual achievement. Such a framework implies that divine intimacy is reserved for those who successfully navigate a mystical staircase, thereby introducing a merit-based spirituality. This stands in stark contrast to the biblical witness, which affirms the immediacy and universality of access to God. “Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you” (James 4:8) speaks not of stages, but of sincere approach. The gospel does not present prayer as a reward for spiritual advancement, but as a gift of grace available to all who call upon the Lord (Romans 10:13). Teresa’s model, by structuring prayer as a progressive attainment, risks obscuring the radical accessibility of God’s presence—a truth central to the New Testament.

          Teresa’s higher levels of prayer are often characterized by ecstatic experiences—visions, raptures, and spiritual transports. While these may reflect genuine encounters, her framework implicitly elevates emotional intensity as a sign of divine favor. This emphasis can mislead believers into equating spiritual maturity with mystical phenomena, fostering doubt and discouragement among those whose prayer lives are marked by quiet faithfulness rather than dramatic experiences. Scripture, however, consistently prioritizes the heart’s posture over emotional display. “The LORD looks on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7) reminds us that God values sincerity, not spectacle. Jesus Himself warned against performative spirituality (Matthew 6:5–6), emphasizing secret, humble communion with the Father. By framing emotional highs as indicators of spiritual depth, Teresa’s model risks cultivating a spirituality of comparison, where believers measure their worth by subjective experiences rather than objective faith.

          In Interior Castle, vocal prayer is treated as the entry point to spiritual life—a necessary but inferior stage to be transcended. This categorization subtly diminishes the value of spoken prayer, implying that it is merely preparatory rather than enduring. Yet Scripture affirms vocal prayer as a vital and powerful means of communion with God. “In everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God” (Philippians 4:6) does not suggest that vocal prayer is elementary—it declares it essential. Jesus Himself prayed vocally throughout His ministry, including in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:39), demonstrating that spoken prayer is not a lesser form but a profound expression of dependence and trust. Teresa’s model, by relegating vocal prayer to the spiritual basement, risks alienating believers from one of the most accessible and biblically endorsed practices of faith.

          Teresa’s framework is deeply introspective, focusing on the individual’s interior journey toward union with God. While personal prayer is undeniably important, her model largely ignores the communal dimension of prayer that Scripture repeatedly affirms. “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them” (Matthew 18:20) highlights the unique presence of Christ in corporate prayer. The early church was devoted to shared prayer and fellowship (Acts 2:42), and Paul frequently exhorted believers to pray for one another (Ephesians 6:18). Teresa’s emphasis on solitary progression risks promoting a privatized spirituality that neglects the richness of communal intercession, mutual encouragement, and the shared life of the body of Christ. In sidelining the communal aspect, her model presents an incomplete and potentially isolating vision of spiritual growth.

          Perhaps the most troubling implication of Teresa’s nine levels is the potential for spiritual elitism. By establishing tiers of prayer, her model can create an environment where believers feel inferior if they do not experience higher stages. This dynamic fosters comparison, shame, and a sense of spiritual inadequacy—especially among those who struggle with prayer or do not encounter mystical phenomena. The gospel, however, dismantles all spiritual hierarchies: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). All believers are equally indwelt by the Holy Spirit and equally invited into communion with God. Teresa’s framework, though perhaps intended to inspire, risks creating a spiritual caste system that contradicts the radical inclusivity of the gospel.

          Teresa of Avila’s Interior Castle offers a poetic and passionate vision of spiritual ascent. Yet its hierarchical structure, emotional emphasis, and individualistic focus stand at odds with the biblical model of prayer. Scripture teaches that communion with God is not a mystical achievement but a gracious invitation. Prayer is not a ladder to climb, but a door already opened through Christ. It is vocal, communal, sincere, and available to all. Any framework that obscures these truths—however revered—must be critically examined and re-centered on the unchanging Word of God.

The Quiet Toll Of A Broken Spirit

“... for when a man's spirit has been thoroughly crushed, he may be peevish at small offenses, but never resentful of great ones.”

Nathaniel Hawthorne, The House of the Seven Gables, p. 141

The Enduring Consequences Of Our Actions

“Still, there will be a connection with the long past-a reference to forgotten events and personages, and to manners, feelings, and opinions, almost or wholly obsolete-which, if adequately translated to the reader, would serve to illustrate how much of old materials goes up to make the freshest novelty of human life. Hence, to, might be drawn a weighty lesson from the little regarded truth, that the act of the passing generation is the germ which may and must bear good or evil fruit in a far-distant time; that, with the seed of the merely temporary crop, which morals term expediency, they inevitably sow the acorns of a more enduring growth, which may darkly overshadow their posterity.”

Nathaniel Hawthorne, The House of the Seven Gables, p. 2

Roman Catholic Sexual Ethics, Weaknesses And Red Flags

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to highlight some of the more problematic aspects of Roman Catholic sexual ethics. While there is much teaching on human sexuality and marriage that is commendable, it often falls short when addressing the practical function of sexual relations within marriage. Excerpts from Pope Paul VI's papal encyclical titled Humanae Vitae are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary.

          "...And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason." (paragraph 12)

         While the Bible emphasizes marriage's unitive and procreative aspects, it also values love, mutual support, and commitment (Genesis 2:18-24). Notably, there are respected biblical marriages without children (e.g., Abraham and Sarah before Isaac, Zacharias and Elisabeth before John the Baptist). Jesus emphasized love as the core of relationships (John 13:34), which applies to marriage beyond just procreation.

          "...Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator." (paragraph 13)

          This sort of thinking appeals to self-righteous individuals who invent standards which suit their goofy ideas about life. However, understanding the different purposes a body part can serve in various contexts does not necessarily mean that it is being misused or abused. For example, consider the mouth: humans use their mouths for speaking, breathing, and even whistling, which goes beyond its primary biological function (i.e. eating). Similarly, contraception can be seen as respecting the natural versatility of human functions, rather than being "opposition" to the divine plan.

          "Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means." (paragraph 14)

          Prohibiting non-abortive contraception, even when a woman is more likely than usual to experience complications or death, seems inconsistent with Rome's pro-life message. It places the potential for new life above the well-being and life of the woman.

          "Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these." (paragraph 14)

          Human sexuality is complex and multi-dimensional. It serves not only reproductive purposes, but also emotional, psychological, and social ones. Acts that do not lead to reproduction can still strengthen relationships, provide emotional support, and contribute to the happiness of both partners. There are other factors to consider in judging the morality of sexual acts besides their reproductive potential.

          "If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.” (paragraph 16)

          The pope gets into nitty-gritty details surrounding the hardships that may arise from childbearing. However, his idea of people creating a fixed timetable for intercourse is simply weird and showing a lack of good sense. Further, the rhythm method has resulted in many children being born. If there were statistically little difference between the effectiveness of natural family planning and artificial methods of contraception, then that would only make Roman Catholic teaching on this issue redundant. Regardless, it has concerned itself with lofty sounding ideas that fail to translate into effective or feasible solutions in the real world. Rome's teaching that contraception in some way violates a higher moral order is a theoretical concept only, fastidiously clung to with a splendid degree of hubris.

          "Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards." (paragraph 17)

          Saying that one course of action leads up to another without adequate demonstration would be the attribution of a false cause. For example, it would be absurd for one to claim that the act of him washing his truck caused it to rain outside if it happened after the fact. Further, any tool can be used in improper or unacceptable ways, opening the door to grave consequences. This sort of reasoning is comparable to the Church of Christ talking point that using musical instruments in worship is a slippery slope for the spread of theological liberalism in churches.

          "...Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. " (paragraph 17)

          A religious organization that has priests who take on vows of mandatory celibacy or teaches as dogma that Mary forever remained a virgin is out of touch with reality. For one thing, creating an environment with exceedingly high expectations when they already are high enough is going to result in moral failure. On the other issue, the Catholic teaching on Mary's virginity goes against the grain of the natural human inclination towards intimacy and the general character of marriage relationships. These sorts of teachings originated from the minds of self-righteous men who kept their heads in the clouds.

          "...Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.”  (paragraph 17)

          An effect of the traditional Roman Catholic approach to women and conception is that they can be reduced to baby making machines. It is obvious that "the faithful" are not considered competent to make sound decisions for themselves, taking into account the potential repercussions of their actions. A matter is thus because Rome has specifically dictated it to be thus, not because there are necessarily good reasons behind certain decrees.

       

Roman Catholic Teaching On Contraception, Examined And Refuted

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to evaluate a contentious aspect of Roman Catholic moral theology, particularly the use of contraceptives. The merits of the stance assessed here rest on highly emotional and speculative presuppositions regarding the nature of procreation, which can truly be perplexing. Excerpts from Pope Pius XI's papal encyclical titled Casti Connubii are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary:

          "...To take away from man the natural and primeval right of marriage, to circumscribe in any way the principal ends of marriage laid down in the beginning by God Himself in the words ‘Increase and multiply,’ is beyond the power of any human law.” (paragraph 8)

          Note that God spoke those words to Adam and Eve, before the world was even populated. That blessing of reproduction after one's own kind has more than since been fulfilled. While large families are not a concept frowned upon in biblical contexts, those who declare such as a "principle end" of marriage do so without divine approval or commandment. Nothing in the original directive of Genesis is said to hold the same weight or necessity today.

          "And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act.” (paragraph 53)

          If God is as concerned with couples having children as Rome seems to be, then why did He not simply create us as hermaphrodites? Why would He create man and woman? The approach taken by the pope on this issue is woodenly rigid and short-sighted. It neglects other significant aspects of the marriage bond, which are companionship, mutual support, and love between partners. 

          “Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.” (paragraph 53)

          The Roman Catholic Church would have us believe that all forms of contraception are inherently sinful, except for natural family planning. It would have us believe that divorce is not permitted by God, except when it is called an annulment. This is an absurd effort on the part of Rome to arbitrarily dictate what adherents do with their lives.

          “But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.” (paragraph 54)

          At its very best, this can be regarded as a subjective opinion stated in unusually strong terms. It is not clear how preventing the fertilization of an ovum is a "crime" against nature. Further, the Roman Catholic Church is guilty of promoting groupthink. If the decision to enter into marriage can be left up to the individual, then the decision on the number of children to have also falls under personal discretion. It is really that simple.

          "Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.” (paragraph 55)

          Citing the church fathers as evidence for a theological position is akin to saying that we should believe it because others believe it or it has been around a long time. The beliefs of such men should be tested to see whether they withstand scrutiny. Moreover, the Roman Catholic New American Bible Revised Edition attributes the death of Onan to disobedience to God's Law, not him using a form of contraception: "Preserve your brother’s line: lit., “raise up seed for your brother”: an allusion to the law of levirate, or “brother-in-law,” marriage; see notes on Dt 25:5; Ru 2:20. Onan’s violation of this law brought on him God’s punishment (vv. 9–10)."

          "...any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” (paragraph 56)

          Just as God manipulates biology to create life, we manipulate chemistry to responsibly manage it. Further, Roman Catholic theologians would be taken more seriously on this issue if they stopped using deodorant or shaving altogether. After all, natural processes are interfered with in both scenarios. One could make appeals to some vague "natural law" to justify many things even Roman Catholicism itself would condemn.

          "...Holy Mother Church very well understands and clearly appreciates all that is said regarding the health of the mother and the danger to her life. And who would not grieve to think of these things? Who is not filled with the greatest admiration when he sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is, can reward her for the fulfillment of the office allotted to her by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to overflowing.” (paragraph 58)

          This is poor life counsel disguised in the language of personal piety. Allowing non-abortive contraception in high-risk situations aligns with the principle of "do no harm." By preventing a potentially dangerous pregnancy, the woman is making a morally responsible choice to protect her own health and well-being.

Debating Ethics: Abortion, Race, and Progressive Views

• Discussion:

          -Following are a series of excerpts with responses to them from an exchange with a progressive democrat. The sort of political ideology which this person has consumed is obviously meant to cause hatred and discord. It is hoped that points made here will prove to be useful in discussing the issues of abortion and race with others: 

          "You may not know it, but thugs is a real word. There are real thugs. You think it has to do with skin color. And that’s the problem: thugs are people who hate with brutality." 

          The skin color of a man is not the prima facie issue. Genetics alone would not be sufficient to determine the likelihood of one committing crimes. There are environmental factors, as well as psychological components, opportunities for education, and sources of influence. Rather than being considered an inherent part of their being, moral problems among black people can be attributed to cultural deficiencies, such as the breakdown of family structures, community cohesion, and personal responsibility. Moreover, critical race theorists oftentimes talk in ways that the abolitionists themselves in all likelihood would have regarded as unlawful. 

          "Like you and Hamas. You’re just an armchair terrorist and insurrectionist. An old bastard thug." 

          Likening people that one merely disagrees with to Hamas is breathtakingly ignorant. That group is comprised of radicals who murder outsiders in the name of global dominance. Just as Hamas terrorists do not really worship any god but the concept of death, so modern progressives worship the self and their own version of reality.

          "And “right to life” is in quotes because it’s a lie you and Craig and the other thugs tell yourselves." 

          We ought to reject any concept of "individual rights" that appeals to our ego. "My body, my choice" does exactly that. Moreover, this sort of thinking is puerile, since it rests on an oversimplified concept of personal property. This is more than a matter of, "I can do whatever I want with this. It is mine and no one can take it away from me." With personal liberty comes responsibility toward oneself and his fellow countrymen, including the unborn.

          "In a free democracy, you won’t let women of child bearing age determine their life." 

           False. Women of child bearing age determine their life by choosing whether to become pregnant. Parents have an obligation to care for their children by virtue of the inherent nature of such an interpersonal relationship. 

          "Because you don’t care about life. Evangelicals didn’t care about life until they needed a better political plan than opposing desegregation." 

          This is deceptive manipulation. Pregnancy centers are available to women in need of them as well as adoption agencies for adults who want to take care of abandoned children. For the record, it was mostly the Southern Democrats who defended the institution of slavery and filibustered civil rights legislation. 

          "Do yourself a favor and learn something for the first time in 40 years: look up Paul Weyrich." 

          The opinions of Weyrich do not carry any inherent authority over anyone else. 

          “Evangelicals considered abortion a “Catholic issue” through most of the 1970s, and there is little in the history of evangelicalism to suggest that abortion would become a point of interest." 

          Granting that, the shift only proves that people can be wrong about an issue and change their minds when presented with more data. It is irrelevant to the question of the morality of abortion itself, since truth is not determined by popularity. The state of medical research has changed dramatically since the 1970s.

          "Even James Dobson, who later became an implacable foe of abortion, acknowledged after the Roe decision that the Bible was silent on the matter and that it was plausible for an evangelical to hold that “a developing embryo or fetus was not regarded as a full human being." 

          Even if the Bible is silent on the topic of abortion, it does not follow that God has granted women permission to get them. Further, Scripture implicitly recognizes that a "developing embryo or fetus" has personhood (Judges 13:3-5; Jeremiah 1:4-5; Luke 1:44). That would indicate the biblical authors accepted the notion that human life begins at conception, challenging the morality of terminating life in the womb. Finally, it is inconsistent for liberal progressives to address the Bible's teaching on abortion, since they generally regard it as nothing but an outdated collection of writings by uneducated men.

          "In the course of the first session, Weyrich tried to make a point to his religious right brethren (no women attended the conference, as I recall). Remember, he said animatedly, that the religious right did not come together in response to the Roe decision." 

          The claim about the Roe v. Wade decision is imprecise. While it is true that the religious right did not initially form in response to that Supreme Court ruling, it was later used as a significant rallying point. Further, many women were involved in that movement from its early days.

          "No, Weyrich insisted, what got the movement going as a political movement was the attempt on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies, including a ban on interracial dating that the university maintained until 2000." 

          Even if there was a federal piece of legislation drafted and signed into law allowing for abortions in certain contexts (i.e. cases of rape, incest, and when a woman's life is in danger), that still would not be enough for modern-day progressive democrats. As an additional point, their ideology is not progressive in the usual sense of the term, since they actually want to take us back to a culture comparable to ancient Greece and Rome.