Mary for the Evangelicals by Dr. Tim Perry, Ph.D. [his photo inset]
“Spouting off before listening to the facts is both shameful and foolish” (Prov. 18:13, NLT).
The verse best describes the attitud
e of Mr. Gerry Soliman when he made his comment on Prof. Tim Perry (A Short Comment on Tim Perry, at http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2010/08/short-comment-on-tim-perry.html).
Mr. Soliman’s comment on Prof. Tim Perry, by his very admission, is “[b]ased on some people who have read the book, especially Roman Catholics, his work appears to favor the view of Roman Catholicism on Mary.” Soliman’s assessment that Prof. Tim Perry’s work appears to favor Roman Catholicism’s view on Mary is based merely on hearsay.
What was his basis for that conclusion that Perry’s view on Mary favors the Catholic position? His answer: “some people who have read the book, especially Roman Catholics.” He accepts as gospel truth something that he has not investigated for himself. What a poor juror would Mr. Soliman make – one who believes in hearsay.
To be able to comment on Prof. Perry and his work, has Mr. Soliman ever read the book Mary for Evangelicals which he calls “controversial”? This is Mr. Soliman’s damning admission:
“I have not read the book at all but the way some Roman Catholic apologists give positive comments on Mr. Perry's book makes the book controversial. There are even Roman Catholics who say (or imply), "Look, there is an Evangelical professor/author who has the same view as Roman Catholics on Mary." I think this book is being used as basis of some reports on Evangelicals turning to Mary.”
Mr. Soliman has not read Prof. Perry’s book. And he declared it controversial only because of “the way some Roman Catholic apologists give positive comments on Mr. Perry's book makes the book controversial.” Again, hearsay. This is the level of Mr. Soliman’s scholarship.
In Filipino, there is a saying, “Ang naniniwala sa sabi-sabi ay walang bait sa sarili.” Perhaps that would be an apt description of Mr. Soliman’s scholarship, or the lack of it.
Despite his admission that he has not read Mr. Perry’s book, and after relying on hearsay for his conclusion, he nevertheless gave himself a pat on the back and said, “[h]owever, I am not the type who is easily convinced.” Oh really? Come on, Mr. Soliman. Get real!
“Let other people praise you - even strangers; never do it yourself” (Prov. 27:2, GNT).
And how did Mr. Soliman justify that he is not easily convinced? By relying on a comment by Tim Perry in an interview. Is that the best evidence? No, the best evidence is Prof. Tim Perry’s book itself.
Let’s check Prof. Perry’s comments that Mr. Soliman cited.
WHY DO YOU THINK THERE IS SUCH A CURRENT FASCINATION WITH MARY?
*
First, we must consider the impact of what Timothy George has called the “ecumenism of the trenches.” Over the last thirty-five years or so, evangelicals and Catholics have slowly come to appreciate how much we share in terms of morality, particularly in the thorny ethical problems surrounding the beginning and end of life, the definition of marriage, and the constructive role faith can and should play in the public realm. I think this has led to the establishment of grass-roots friendships based on trust. To put the matter bluntly, theological disagreement takes on a whole new tone when you’re praying together in front of an abortion clinic. Key evangelical theologians and leaders like Timothy George, J. I. Packer and Chuck Colson have used that trust wisely to engage in theological dialogue with Catholic theologians and leaders. Once such theological ties were established, it was only a matter of time before Mary came up. Since the third generation of the Reformation, she has personified every major doctrinal dispute, whether sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia or solo Christo.
What’s wrong with this comment of Tim Perry? There is nothing in the statement that suggests that Prof. Tim Perry’s views favor Roman Catholicism’s views on Mary. He candidly stated the experience of both evangelicals and Catholics in finding themselves on the same side on many issues such as “morality, particularly in the thorny ethical problems surrounding the beginning and end of life, the definition of marriage, and the constructive role faith can and should play in the public realm.” That is a fact that Mr. Soliman would want to sweep under the rug. Like an ostrich, he buries his head under the sand.
In the introduction to his book, Prof. Tim Perry noted: “Against an increasingly hostile, intolerant and powerful secularism, Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants in North America have found themselves thrown together, allies in the fight for the lives of those whom the culture regards as disposable. In front of abortion clinics, courthouses, legislative assemblies, and even in jail cells and at adoption centers and hospices, many of us made a radical discovery: we are one in Christ” [Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 15). This shared experience of Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants in North America is what Timothy George calls “ecumenism of the trenches.” But Mr. Gerry Soliman considers it compromise with evil. What bigotry at its worst!
Then again, we ask: where does Mary figure in Prof. Tim Perry’s comment quoted above? None, except that Prof. Tim Perry mentions in passing that key evangelical theologians and leaders have used the trust based on grassroots friendship to engage in theological dialogue with Catholic theologians and leaders – and such theological dialogue would certainly include Mary because since the third generation of the Reformation, she has personified every major doctrinal dispute.
What’s wrong with dialogue? Mr. Soliman himself, an amateur evangelical apologist, is engaged in dialogue with Catholic apologists such as myself, Fr. Abe Arganiosa, Mr. Cenon Bibe and Mr. Isahel Alonso, among others. Through his blog and other Internet fora, Mr. Soliman does dialogue – by presenting his views and commenting on our views. For him to begrudge Prof. Tim Perry and other “ecumenical Protestants” for engaging in dialogue is hypocritical.
In 2009, when I had a dialogue with Rodimus on the issue of perpetual virginity of Mary, I purchased Prof. Tim Perry’s book. I explained that “I got hold of Tim Perry’s Mary for Evangelicals because I wanted to know where an evangelical is coming from when it comes to the issue of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I don’t want to be accused of misrepresenting the evangelical position.” (see: http://marwil-n-llasos.blogspot.com/2009/02/catholic-answers-versus-defensores.html).
After having read the book many times over, I commented that “I like Prof. Tim Perry and his book a lot. Although I disagree with him on so many points, I respect his honesty and scholarship. Prof. Tim Perry’s credentials are by any standards superior to Rodimus” (ibid.).
Had Mr. Soliman read Prof. Perry’s book, he would have easily ascertained that it is not a wholesale endorsement of Catholic view on Mary; on the contrary, there is so much there that cannot be reconciled with Catholic Marian viewpoint. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that there are some points of agreement as well.
Mr. Soliman, like the Iglesia ni Cristo apologists who are fond of the “tunog” system, highlighted “ecumenism of the trenches” and labeled Prof. Tim Perry and other evangelical theologians and leaders as “Ecumenical Protestants.” That would make him one, an Ecumenical Protestant himself, if by “Ecumenical Protestant” he means an evangelical or Protestant who engages in dialogue with Catholics.
Mr. Soliman then went on to condemn not only Ecumenical Protestants but ecumenism itself. For him, “[e]cumenism compromises Protestant beliefs by being one with Roman Catholicism.” Has Mr. Soliman ever bothered to define ecumenism first before he condemns it? No. Has Mr. Soliman also offered proof how Protestant beliefs are compromised by being one with Roman Catholicism? Also not. Has Mr. Soliman explained how Protestant beliefs became “one” with Roman Catholicism? Again, not at all. Mr. Soliman is long on generalization but short on details.
Mr. Soliman noted that “Mr. Perry also has another book titled, The Legacy of Pope John Paul II: An Evangelical Assessment.” And he concluded that “[o]nly a compromiser would write things like that.” Did he bother to explain how so? Again, no. The late Pope John Paul II was a contemporary world figure and everybody is free to make any assessment, be they Evangelical of not. If Mr. Soliman would write an assessment on communism, or even Roman Catholicism, by his own standard and logic, he would be a compromiser, too. To use his very words, “Only a compromiser would write things like that.” Such is the faulty logic and sloppy reasoning of Mr. Soliman.
Assuming arguendo that Prof. Tim Perry is an ecumenical Protestant. So what if he is one? Does that mean that, by that fact alone, his findings and conclusions, no matter how they are arrived at through scholarly research, are automatically wrong? To say so would be to fall prey to fallacious reasoning of “genetic error.” This is what precisely Mr. Gerry Soliman is doing.
As is his wont, Mr. Gerry Soliman turned the tables on Catholics stating that we “will also not find it pleasant when Evangelicals quote favored Roman Catholic sources like the church fathers against Roman Catholic teachings.” Of course, Mr. Soliman is being hypocritical here. When Catholic apologists the writings of the Church Fathers, he would simply dismiss them because after all he believes in “sola scriptura” – no Church Fathers, please. But then, like his idol Dr. James White, he would use patristic sources against Catholic teachings. Isn’t that double standard?
Mr. Soliman anticipated that “Roman Catholics will say things like the church fathers are not infallible or the church fathers are not the magisterium.” His sarcasm aside, Mr. Soliman finally got it right this time. As Mr. Carlos Palad explained to Mr. Soliman’s alter ego Rodimus –
“In citing the Church Fathers, five things ought to be kept in mind:
A) Individual Church Fathers are not infallible. We Catholics never cite a particular Church Father because we think he is infallible, and because a citation from him is of its nature irrefutable. Even St. Augustine -- considered by Roman Catholics as the greatest of the Fathers -- was not infallible in all things.
B) Rather, when we cite the Church Fathers, it is in the context of what we call the "Consensus Patrum", or the Consensus of the Fathers. The Consensus Patrum may be defined as the broad agreement among the great majority of the Church Fathers, from the very first Apostolic Fathers down to the last Church Fathers (generally held to be St. Bede the Venerable in the West and St. John Damascene in the East), on the truthfulness, reliability and apostolic origin of certain teachings.
C) Thus, when we cite the Fathers on this or that issue, they are cited not so much because of their individual authority, but because their testimony on a certain doctrine constitutes yet another link in the golden chain of testimonials stretching from one generation of Fathers down to the next, proving that a certain belief is indeed that which “has been believed everywhere, always, by all” (St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, #6). Indeed, as St. Vincent of Lerins further declares in the same paragraph:
“For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors...”
Thus, the reason why the Fathers are always read not in isolation, but always in the context of the testimony of all the other Church Fathers. Where sufficient Church Fathers from the very first century of the Church down to the sunset of the Patristic age (c. 8th century) testify to the truthfulness of a certain teaching, then we may be certain that it is the authentic tradition handed down from the Apostles. To repeat: a single quote from a Church Father is never sufficient or decisive in itself, but an unbroken chain of testimonies from one Father to the next is not to be contradicted.
When Brother Marwil cites Tertullian, it is not because Tertullian is an infallible authority. Rather, the value of Tertullian lies in the fact that he is one of the links in the unbroken chain of Patristic testimonies to Mary as the New Eve. His testimony is, to use the terminology of St. Vincent of Lerins, one of the proofs of the antiquity and universality of early Christian belief in the exalted state of the Blessed Virgin.” (available at: http://marwil-n-llasos.blogspot.com/2009/03/church-father-hopping-of-lawyer.html).
In the conclusion of his comment, Mr. Soliman pontificated:
“Here are the things that everyone should keep in mind: Mr. Perry's works are not binding to all Evangelicals.” And whose works are binding on Evangelicals? Gerry Soliman’s?
Mr. Soliman further said: “Even if Mr. Perry is called a scholar, he does not represent all Evangelicals. So for those who love to quote Mr. Perry, it doesn't bind me and the rest of the Evangelicals who refuse to compromise their beliefs. We are already in the period where people will fall away and compromise their beliefs.”
If Prof. Perry does not represent all Evangelicals, then who does? Could Mr. Gerry Soliman represent all Evangelicals? He could not. He could only represent himself. Who has ever given him the full authority to speak for and in behalf of all Evangelicals? No one.
Compared to Prof. Tim Perry, Mr. Soliman cannot hold a candle beside the Evangelical Professor. Mr. Soliman has no professional degree or formal training in Theology while Prof. Tim Perry has. Let’s compare:
PROF. TIM PERRY – Associate Professor of Theology at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada. Columnist for Faith Today magazine. Published author.
MR. GERALD JOHN P. SOLIMAN – Certified Public Accountant, Certified Internal Auditor, Member, Bereans Apologetics and Research Ministry.
No more, no less. Very clearly, Mr. Soliman does not have a shred of academic credential in Theology compared to Prof. Perry. Thus, no amateur should presume to be more knowledgeable than a pro; neither should a charlatan pass judgment upon a scholar.
To boost his credibility at the expense of a professional theologian and scholar, Mr. Soliman self-righteously declared: “A true Christian knows that there should be no compromise with false religions. Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 2nd Corintians 6:14.”
The implication is clear. Prof. Tim Perry is not a true Christian. He compromised with false religions. This leads us back to the question: what is Mr. Soliman’s basis for his judgment? Has he read the book of Prof. Tim Perry? No, he has not. His basis is pure and simple hearsay. So what credibility does Mr. Soliman have on this issue? Nothing, zero, nada, zilch.
Here we see that Mr. Soliman’s judgment is clouded by bias and prejudice. He has already made up his mind without even bothering to look at the evidence. So, where is due process there? Mr. Webster in the celebrated Dartmouth College case, gave the classic definition of due process of law as one “which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial.” Similarly, in defense of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Nicodemus asked the Pharisees, “Does our law condemn anyone without first hearing him to find out what he is doing?” (John 7:51, NIV).
Mr. Soliman, a modern-day Pharisee, without having read Prof. Perry’s book and proceeding only on hearsay, pronounced Prof. Perry as an “Ecumenical Protestant” who compromised with false religions. Is that fair? If Mr. Soliman can do that to an evangelical brother, what can “Romanists” expect from him? Can we trust him to proceed in utmost good faith and objectivity when Catholic teachings are involved?
