Just a quick note as I’m headed to Seattle. Really looking forward to meeting all of those who are coming for the conference and debate.
I notice a few folks out there who are extremely excited and happy that when I quickly put together a response to Karl Keating on his ridiculous attack upon John MacArthur that twice I referred to Pope Boniface instead of Pope Benedict. Ignoring the substance of what I wrote and focusing solely upon mixing two artificial names (shall we just call him Joseph Ratzinger and stop the pretension of the Papacy and its naming policy?), some have jumped on this as if it has some kind of meaning. One Anglican wrote,
This is just too funny. How are those of us who disagree with him supposed to take him seriously? Despite the fact that he continually alienates Roman Catholics by calling them names (Christ-crucifiers, Popish, heretics, Romish, etc.) and continually mocking the ecclesiastical offices which they hold dear, how does he expect to be effective when he cannot even get the name of the current Pope right?
One will note that 1) this writer ignores the discussions of the election of Ratzinger that took place at the time and the proper designation provided; 2) he ignores the entire substance of the post itself, 3) he confuses biblical refutation and disagreement with mocking, and finally, 4) I would like to challenge this would-be critic to provide me with a single example of my use of the phrase “Christ-crucifiers” on this blog or in my published writings. I wonder, which is more important: switching fake names (Boniface is a well known Papal name as well) in a hurry or outright lying about someone else, like this Anglican did? Interesting standards he has.
