Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #36

General Comments

Okay, after every couple or three newsletters, I usually get an email that tells me I’m not being very nice in my newsletters. That I’m too sarcastic, too mean, too disrespectful…just not nice. Well, in my defense, for those who think I’m too sarcastic, I would just like to open up and share a little bit of my past so that you can know where I’m coming from…the environment I was raised in… and maybe those who send such emails won’t judge me so harshly.

I distinctly remember, the day I was born, that right after the doctor slapped my bottom, I heard my mother say, “This…I waited nine months for this?!” When I was one, I can remember my dad changing my diaper and saying, “Thanks, son, could you pee on my just one more time?!” When I was six, I remember my first grade teacher saying, “Why of course 1+1=7, John, and 2+2=35, and you are a handsome young man!” When I went in for my First Confession at age eight, I remember Father saying to me, after I confessed that I often fought with my little brother, “Gee, that’s really original!” In high school, I told the baseball coach that I wanted to try out for the team, and he said, “Yeah, well I want to be President,” as he closed the door in my face. In college, I once called a young lady to invite her to a big fraternity party. I said, “Would you like to go to the party?” She replied, “Sure…with who?” My first big job interview after college, I told the interviewer that the job was made for me, she said, “I kind of doubt that, but I have no doubt that suit definitely was NOT made for you!”

So, given the background I grew up in, can you blame me for the way I turned out?!

The fact of the matter is, if someone is upset with me, it’s usually because I’m telling them they’re wrong, or I’m not rolling over and playing dead like other Catholics they’ve come across. Or, it’s a Catholic that doesn’t like me telling some non-Catholic that they’re wrong. Sometimes it seems that the only mortal sin one can commit in today’s society is to tell someone else they’re wrong (unless of course, it’s someone writing to tell me that I’m wrong).

Now, do I use sarcasm? Absolutely. Most of the time I use it in a humorous, lighthearted, fun sort of way…that’s how I use it with everyone – wife, kids, friends (both of them). Sometimes I use it to illustrate the absurdity of what someone is saying (which is very rare because people rarely say absurd things to me). Sometimes, I use it to poke at folks to try and get them to not take themselves so seriously.

However, I am well aware that emails are very poor mediums for conveying tone…for conveying attitude…for conveying emotion…and that they are, therefore, very easily misinterpreted. That’s why we now have dozens upon dozens of different smiley faces (emoticons), all of which are designed to express a particular tone or emotion. And, I learned a few years back that when you write someone a direct, straightforward, to-the-point email (which is the kind of email I generally write) and don’t include smiley faces and such, it can very easily be interpreted in a negative manner.

When I first realized that, I started to use smiley faces and winky faces and surprise faces and all those other types of faces in my emails. But, I really don’t like doing that. Besides, I realized that if someone wants to assume the worst of me, then I ought to let them do just that. So, I decided to eschew (that’s a word we Alabama folk don’t use too often) the use of smiley faces because I want to see how someone is going to interpret what I have to say. If they assume what I say was meant to be rude or insulting or disrespectful – even though I never intend it as such – and they want to get offended by what I say, well, that kind of tells me something about them…gives me a little extra insight. Which helps me to better prepare my responses.

Now, one last comment: for those who wish to comment on the tone of what I say…if you think I’m being too rude or disrespectful or sarcastic or any such thing…I simply say this – thank you for your emails. I do read them. However, if you want me to take you seriously, then give me a specific example, instead of a broad generalization, and I will consider it. If an apology is in order, then I will apologize. But, if you can’t give me a specific example, then I don’t have anything tangible to take to my psychiatrist to discuss. I would also say, if you’re looking for namby-pamby, then you probably need to take yourself off my newsletter list, because you’re not going to get namby-pamby from me. I would also suggest you not read the Gospels, because you won’t get namby pamby there either…especially Matthew 23. :-)

Introduction

This is a continuation of my conversation with Matt Johnson. The exchange below is rather long because it contains about 2 or 3 emails from each one of us. All of the responses are interspersed amongst each other and identified as Matt1, John1, Matt2, John2, etc., depending on the order the comments were made. Matt1 coming before John1 and John1 coming before Matt2 and so on.

I wanted to include all of this at once, for a few reasons: 1) To break it up into two or three newsletters would make it difficult to follow the conversation and drag it out needlessly; 2) These emails pretty much go nowhere, as Matt himself agrees, and therefore I want to get them all out of the way at the same time. I thought about just skipping all of them, but I wouldn’t want to be accused of trying to hide something; 3) My latest email to him, which will be in the next newsletter, shifts the direction away from where the current conversation was headed (most of it, anyway), and went back to questions I had previously asked him and then focused primarily on our exchange about the Eucharist.

So, when you read his responses labeled “Matt3” in this newsletter, I am pretty much giving him the last word on those – again, because there really isn’t much of substance there so it doesn’t matter if he has the last word on those things or not. Although, I may eventually go back and re-visit some of what he said as it might be applicable to what I hope is a new direction for this conversation.

I am not going to put in any comments because it is already long enough, and I don’t think they are really necessary here. Although, one thing I will say, is that sometimes it seems like he and I are speaking a different language…whether my fault, his, or both…but the extent of the dis-communication was more than I usually encounter. I mean, in one place I couldn’t even get him to understand that I was simply saying there is a difference between the words “core” and “essential.”

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Matt1 = Matt’s first correspondence ; John1 = John’s first correspondence ; Matt2 = Matt’s second correspondence
; John2 = John’s second correspondence; Matt3 = Matt’s third correspondence

Matt1: If I may repeat my narration of our exchange so far, it is thus:
You asked me where we should start. I responded by asking you what you considered to be essential Christian teaching.

John1: Well, let’s be precise here, you asked me what I consider to be the “essentials of faith.” In my previous response, I merely I responded by giving you what I consider to be the “core beliefs” of “the” faith, meaning Christianity. I specifically stated that I do not believe in essential vs. non-essential doctrines. I wish to be precise for you have taken me to task for answering incorrectly (as you see it) a question which you actually never asked me, as I will show below.

Matt2: “Essentials of faith”, “core beliefs”, “essential Christian teaching” – what you call precision, I recognize as a distinction without a difference (you even seem to use them interchangeably throughout your response). I’m not sure why you are littering the debate with this.

John2: First, I did not use the terms “core” and “essential” interchangeably in my response. I simply borrowed your words…“essential Christian teaching”…and used them in my examples. Second, maybe in your theology these two terms are considered a “distinction without a difference” – I fully understand why it has to be that way. But, I wasn’t speaking of your theology, I was speaking of mine.

Matt3: Perhaps I’m not as smart as you, but I still don’t see the difference – even when, for the sake of argument, I try to adopt your personal theology. If there truly is a meaningful difference between “essential Christian teaching” and “essentials of the faith” and you want me to understand it, then you’re going to have to condescend to me a little more – since you haven’t actually made a distinction.

John2: And, I am not “littering the debate” with this point. This is something very important. You asked me for the “essentials of faith.” I made it very clear that I do not buy into the belief system of so many Protestants that has “essential” doctrines vs. “non-essential” doctrines. And, after explaining this to you, I gave you the “core” beliefs of Catholicism, which can be found in the teaching of the Apostles – the Apostles’ Creed. Now, a few exchanges later, you simply dismiss my beliefs with a wave of your hand and claim them to be a “distinction without a difference.” Again, maybe it is in your theology – it actually has to be in your theology – but it’s not in mine.

Matt3: Who says that I agree with the idea of “non-essential” doctrines? You may have met some people who believe this, but I am not one of them. For your information, I believe that anything that is non-essential is not a doctrine, but a matter of opinion.

John2: When I said in “your theology these two terms are considered a distinction without a difference,” the two terms referenced are: 1) core; 2) essential. Please go back and read my comments under “J2" which mentions those two words specifically.

Matt1: You responded with the so-called Apostles’ Creed. I recently responded that it is interesting that you chose to give me a non-inspired, man-made creed. I wrote that if you asked me the same question I would just give you a Bible.

John1: Actually, you wouldn’t “just” give me a Bible. You would give me the Bible and your own fallible, non-authoritative, man-made interpretation of the Bible.

Matt2: What do you mean by that?

John2: Well, I think I explained it below, but just to summarize what I mean when I say you wouldn’t “just” give me a Bible: Let’s say that I just asked you for the “essentials” of your faith. You “just” give me a Bible. I read John 6:51-58, where Jesus repeats Himself as He does nowhere else in Scripture, that one must eat His body and drink His blood in order to have eternal life. I believe what I read and I go looking for the Church that claims to give its followers the actual body and blood of Christ to eat and drink. You would then step in, as you have done below, and tell me that my interpretation of the Bible is wrong. That it can’t mean what I believe it to mean (and what it actually says), it means something else…and you, of course, would give me your fallible, non-authoritative, man-made interpretation of what it means. So, again, you don’t “just” give someone a Bible in order to give them the essentials of your faith, you give them a Bible along with your fallible, non-authoritative, man-made interpretation of that Bible. And, if they don’t accept your fallible, non-authoritative, man-made interpretation of the Bible, then they are, of course, wrong. Right?

Matt3: I’m going to let our actual dialogue on the matter determine whether that is a baseless claim or not.

John1: And, if I didn’t accept your fallible, non-authoritative, man-made interpretation of the Bible, you would accuse me of all sorts of things, as you have done.

Matt2: How do you know what I would do? And what sorts of things have I accused you of?

John2: Well, I know what you would do, because you’ve already done it. In looking at your emails you have accused me of: 1) believing a false faith, that has been “manufactured” by my false church; 2) believing something that is contrary to (outside of) the Scriptures; 3) blindly following “Rome”. I could go on, but I think those examples are sufficient to answer your question.

Matt3: Well you’re not really being fair here. You are saying that I accuse you of these things because you do not accept my fallible, non-authoritative, man-made interpretation of the Bible. That’s not true. I accuse you of these things because they are true (except for your first point – it is stated too strongly). We’re exchanging a lot of rhetoric here. Fortunately I believe the redeeming part of our dialogue will come from actually looking at the Scriptures.

John1: And I will prove that to you right here and now.

Matt2: If the following is an example of your standard for “proof”, then I can see why you accept (perhaps blindly) the denominational teachings of the Roman Catholic church instead of thinking for yourself. I truly hope we can go beyond sound bites and look at what the scriptures have to say about each of the passages you brought up.

John2: Again, you simply wave your hand and dismiss my argument as a “sound bite.” I believe the above is what is known as an ad hominem attack. Avoid the argument and attack the person. My point has indeed been proven.

Matt3: Nice try, but I am dealing with your arguments. The process is ongoing and will require some patience from you. We both know how patient I have been. You like to say things are proven before you actually prove them. Perhaps that word does not mean what you think it does.

John2: Do you agree with my interpretation of the passages of Scripture that I presented, or not? You do not. Have you accused me of believing false teachings – “mouse droppings” – and of blindly following Rome? I believe you have. The whole point is, you don’t accept my interpretation of the Bible. You believe your interpretation of the Bible counts, and mine doesn’t, don’t you? Well, my question to you is: Why? Why is your interpretation more valid than mine?

Matt3: We will get into this when we actually look at the Scriptures. Right now all we have is two people claiming to be right. If you declare yourself right that doesn’t make you right. If your denomination declares itself infallible, that doesn’t make it infallible. The proof will come as we look at the Scriptures.

John2: Am I not allowed, under your theological system, to read and interpret the Bible for myself to arrive at the truth? But, you’re not allowing me to do that because you do not accept any of my interpretations of the Bible that I have made below – Original Sin, the Eucharist, Sacred Tradition, Confession – men having the authority on earth to forgive sins, and I could go on, but I’m just using these as examples to prove my point.

Matt3: Instead of having an honest dialogue about many of these things you have made assumptions and argued along party lines. You have no idea what I believe about original sin, sacred tradition, confession, or forgiveness. I have made no claims about these things. I will quote you to you. “If you disagree with me then fine, but disagree with what I actually believe, not a misrepresentation of what I believe.” Could we cut through the rhetoric and get to what God actually tells us through the Scriptures?

John2: You do not allow me to interpret the Bible for myself, even though your theological system teaches that every man can pick up the Bible and read it and interpret it for himself in order to get the truth concerning the Christian Faith. Is it just me, or is there an inherent contradiction in that?

Matt3: Since you asked, yes, it is you. You have taken your question, “Am I not allowed, under your theological system, to read and interpret the Bible for myself to arrive at the truth?” and turned it into an accusation, “You do not allow me to interpret the Bible for myself . . .”. I never said that you cannot interpret the Bible for yourself. Nor did I ever say that, “every man can pick up the Bible and read it and interpret it for himself in order to get the truth concerning the Christian Faith.” I do not think that you understand what I believe. The further we get into this the more you seem to reveal that you caricature my beliefs instead of attempting to understand them. This leads you to false assumptions. When have I not allowed you to interpret the Bible for yourself? (Or for that matter, when have you actually interpreted the Bible for yourself?) It is true that anyone can interpret the Bible for themselves. This freedom, however, does not guarantee their interpretation to be true.

John2: And, you accuse me of “perhaps blindly” following the “denominational teachings” of the Catholic Church (which, for your information, is not a denomination) instead of thinking for myself.

Matt3: Saying something is true is not the same as it being true. The Roman Catholic church is in fact a Christian denomination by all standards except its own.

John2: (I’m sure glad you don’t believe in discrediting someone else’s faith.)

Matt3: When did I say I believe that? Sometimes you have me confused with a Unitarian. Other times you have me confused with a Reformed theologian. Please understand I am simply a Christian. Christians recognize that Jesus is the way, truth and light and that no one comes to the Father unless through him. That discredits a lot of people’s faith. If I am discrediting anything about you it is not your faith, it is some of your beliefs.

John2: You seem to not understand Catholicism as much as you claim to understand Catholicism.

Matt3: Perhaps you would consider that you seem to understand nothing but Roman Catholicism. And by the way, I think my only claim about my knowledge of Roman Catholicism was that I married a woman who was raised in the Roman Catholic church. I don’t remember making grandiose claims about my knowledge of your church.

John2: The Church does not ask anyone to “blindly” follow her teachings. She encourages everyone to read Scripture in order to better discern what is truth and what is error.

Matt3: Yes, the Church does encourage everyone to read Scripture. But the Roman Catholic part of the Church, well you have some proving to do there John. With all due respect and I do not mean to offend, you need to realize how ridiculous it sounds for a Roman Catholic to claim that his version of Christianity is the one that encourages people to think for themselves and read the Scriptures. Surely you know the history books do not confirm that claim.

John2: I have done just that. I have read the Bible with an open mind, and have found the evidence for what the Church teaches to be compelling. And, I have found the evidence for your non-Catholic beliefs to be essentially non-existent.

Matt3: Some things are easier to say than to prove. How deep are you willing to dig with this “open mind” of yours? I suspect not much further than the nearest catechism. Please prove my suspicion wrong.

So let me ask you, in all of your open-mindedness, is there any doctrine of the Roman Catholic church that you disagree with? I bet your readers would be glad to know if you have one. No? I didn’t think so. I bet you agree with doctrines that you don’t even know exist.

By the way, you have an entire ministry dedicated to helping Roman Catholics feel good about their faith without reading or studying the Bible. You assure your readers that with simple “logic” (read “talking point”), and a few Bible verses, they can counter any argument against Roman Catholic doctrine. This is a far cry from actually Bible study.

John1: Okay, let’s say that I have asked you what you believe to be “essential Christian teaching,” and you have responded by giving me a Bible and said, “This is essential Christian teaching.” So, I turn to Ephesians 2:3, and it says “so we were, by nature, children of wrath.” And I conclude that you believe we are all born into condemnation, as children of wrath, because of the sin of Adam. As the Bible further tells us in Romans 5:18, “Then as one man’s [Adam’s] trespass led to condemnation for all men…” So, do you believe in the fact that Adam’s sin led to the condemnation of all men and that, because of his sin, we are all born into the flesh as “children of wrath?” Are we in agreement on that very clear biblical teaching, brother?!

Matt2: I hope you really do consider me a brother in Christ. I would rejoice in that. The alternative is sarcasm, which I would find repulsive.

John2: If you have been duly baptized, then you are indeed a brother in Christ…although, since you reject certain truths of the faith, you are a separated brother. Separated by your refusal to accept the fullness of truth, not because we’ve “drawn a circle” that leaves you out.

Matt3: Ah, but you have drawn the circle. If I do not accept your version of “the fullness of truth”, then you label me a “separated brother”,

John2: Regarding sarcasm, why so sensitive? Lighten up, it makes life a bit better. It may have been sarcasm, it may not have been…so what?

Matt3: But the truth is . . . ? Irrelevant – ?

John2: It may have been me in a light-hearted mood mimicking one of my friends who calls everyone “brother” with a decidedly southern evangelical twang in his voice. Emails are not very good at conveying tone, so you can find malice, sarcasm, rudeness, or anything else you want to find, if you’re looking for it. But, it may not actually be there. As for me, I prefer to just read things in a matter-of-fact manner and to think the best about a person’s tone and intentions, and not be offended – even if someone is trying to offend me.

Matt3: My problem is not with sarcasm. Sarcasm is the vernacular of my generation. As a matter of fact many have, regrettably, exchanged it for wisdom and called it an even trade. My problem is that our Lord and Savior prayed to the Father that you and I would be one and I perceive you being flippant about that unity. I take that prayer seriously. Perhaps I do just need to lighten up, and not take the Bible so seriously. (Was that sarcasm?)

John2: By the way, I don’t believe I’ve ever referred to your beliefs as “mouse droppings,” as you have done with mine. So, if anyone should be offended…

Matt3: Please realize that I have no intention to offend you. I simply call them as I see them. Think of it this way – if you are fully clothed and I come up to you and accuse you walking around naked, you would not be offended in the least. The reason you would not be offended is because it is not true. As a matter of fact it would be me who would look ridiculous. Think about this. Why would you be offended about the “mouse droppings” comment? If there is no truth to what I am writing, then you should not be offended in the least.

Matt2: I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why you think I don’t believe the clear teachings of the Bible. Have I written anything to suggest this? I believe it is you who often repeats something like, “If you disagree with me then fine, but disagree with what I actually believe, not a misrepresentation of what I believe.” I would ask you to first understand what I believe before disagreeing with me.

John2: Well, correct me if I’m wrong: You believe in the Bible as the sole rule of faith for Christians. You believe in everyone’s right to pick up the Bible and read and interpret it for themselves to come to an understanding of truth (unless, of course, they are Catholic – everyone knows Catholic interpretations can’t be trusted). You do not believe in transubstantiation. You do not believe that men can forgive the sins of others (sacramentally). You do not believe in the doctrine of Original Sin. You do not believe in Sacred Tradition. You do not believe in salvation by faith alone or its corollary – once saved always saved. You do not believe that anyone in the Church has been given the gift of infallibility. You believe in the necessity of baptism, but it is not regenerative. You do not believe in infant baptism. Shall I go on?

Matt3: No, don’t go on, you have made enough mistakes. You are proving my point better than I could. And since you asked to be corrected, I will. I believe the Bible is presently the only infallible source of special revelation. I believe in everyone’s right to pick up the Bible and interpret it. This, however, by no means guarantees that each individual interpretation is true. (It doesn’t matter whether the individual is Roman Catholic or not – it is Scriptural accuracy that matters.) I believe that Jesus told his apostles, “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” I believe the Bible teaches about original sin. I believe the Bible repeatedly warns us against traditions that detract from Christ. I believe that we are saved by faith and our salvation is preserved through faith. I do not believe that anyone in the present Church (or the Roman Catholic branch of the Church) has been given the gift of infallibility (that’s one you came closest to getting right). I believe in the necessity of baptism and that biblically it is normally connected with regeneration. I do not believe that infant baptism is the biblical model or teaching. (I believe many other things that you are probably unaware of, but I was just correcting your paragraph above.)

John2: Now, as to why I don’t think you believe in the very clear teachings of the Bible, it’s because you don’t believe in what the Bible teaches concerning Original Sin, Confession, the Eucharist, Sacred Tradition, the Authority of the Church, Confession, and so on.

Matt3: Actually, I do believe the very clear teachings of the Bible concerning original sin, confession, the Eucharist, sacred tradition, the authority of the Church, confession and so on. You conveniently claim that if I don’t agree with you then I must not believe the very clear teachings of the Bible. You have a lot of proving to do before that statement will hold water (forgive the baptism pun). I hope we get the opportunity to look at what the Scriptures actually have to say about your litmus test list of biblical doctrines.

John1: Let’s try it again. You’ve handed me a Bible and said, “This is essential Christian teaching,” and I open it up to John 6:51 and following. And I read that we must eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood in order to have eternal life. And I conclude that you believe we must literally eat the actual flesh and drink the actual blood of Jesus Christ in order to have eternal life. I conclude that because that’s what the Bible says. So, do you believe in the fact that we must literally eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ in order to have eternal life? Are we in agreement on that very clear biblical teaching, brother?!

Matt2: Let’s really take a look at this one. I realize that you gave me four examples of your interpretations, but let’s start here. You call this clear Christian teaching. (Actually, a few paragraphs later, you call this “very clear biblical teaching”.) I have some questions for you. You say that you concluded (by that I suspect you mean that the Vatican has concluded) that “we must literally eat the actual flesh and drink the actual blood of Jesus Christ in order to have eternal life.” I am confused. Perhaps you can help me out. First of all the Bible never says that we must “literally” eat the flesh of Christ. You said it that way, Jesus didn’t. Second, the apostles never literally ate the actual flesh or drank the actual blood of Jesus Christ. In fact, the Bible says that they ate the bread and drank the wine. Yet we both presume that they received eternal life without cannibalizing Jesus. Also, wouldn’t it be impossible for any of us to “literally eat” the flesh of Christ since, in his resurrected body he ascended to heaven and now sits at the right hand of the Father? How can we literally eat the flesh that is not available to us? So since the apostles didn’t literally do it and it is impossible for us to do it, how can you say that it is mandatory for eternal life? You say this is very clear teaching. But it doesn’t seem so clear to me. As a matter of fact, it seems that you have added something to the Bible. Could you help me out and explain it?

John2: First off, you again accuse me of being a blind, mindless robot of the Vatican.

Matt3: “Blind, mindless robot of the Vatican,” hmm, don’t remember saying that.

John2: Is that what you refer to as being “inclusive.” If it is, then to borrow a phrase from The Princess Bride, “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

Matt3: When did I use the word “inclusive”? Again, you seem to have me confused with a Unitarian. You are skilled at the straw man fallacy – you portray me in a flawed and inaccurate manor, then you attack your caricature of me. Not nice.

John2: Second, to answer your questions. No, the Bible does not use the word “literally” in John 6. I never claimed it did. You seem to be parsing my statements so you can argue points I have never made and ignore the points I have made.

Matt3: Let me quote you. You wrote, “And I conclude that you believe we must literally eat the actual flesh and drink the actual blood of Jesus Christ in order to have eternal life. I conclude that because that’s what the Bible says,” (emphasis mine). You also wrote, “So, do you believe in the fact that we must literally eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ in order to have eternal life?” (emphasis mine). You may call this parsing a statement. I see it is a glaring contradiction. You say that you did not claim that the Bible uses the word “literally” in John 6, yet you react as if it did. You do claim that we must literally eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ in order to have eternal life. The Bible doesn’t. You do. You made that point.

John2: However, Jesus does literally say that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life, does He not? Regarding the Apostles, and to join you in your own game, the Bible does not say “they ate the bread and drank the wine,” as you claim it does. In fact, the Bible doesn’t actually say whether they ate or drank anything that He gave them.

Matt3: Are you playing a game here? I’m not. They prepared the meal. They gathered around the table. They ate the food in that was front of them. Jesus thanked the Father for the bread. Jesus told them to eat the bread. Jesus thanked the Father for the cup. Jesus told them to drink from it. Are you, for the sake of argument, trying to claim it is probable that the apostles did not eat and drink the elements that Jesus gave them as they sat around a table and he instructed them to eat? If so it is you who are playing games.

John2: However, the Bible does indeed record Jesus as saying that it was His body that He gave them to eat and that it was His blood that He gave them to drink, does it not? Do you deny that Jesus said what He was giving them was His body and His blood?

Matt3: We are in agreement as long as you stick to the scriptures.

John2: Next, you claim it would be “impossible” for any of us to “literally eat” the flesh of Christ since He is in Heaven. I find it strange that a Bible-believer such as yourself would claim something impossible for God to do.

Matt3: You find that strange do you? That is because you don’t understand quite a bit about my beliefs. If you did then it wouldn’t be strange at all. Of course you are aware there are lots of things that God cannot do. Be honest, you do know this. (Will John admit this to his readers?) Be careful in how you respond or you will find yourself going through the back door of the “moral influence” view of atonement.

John2: Next, please specifically state what I have “added” to the Bible. Does the Bible record that Jesus literally said we have to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life, or not? Does the Bible record that Jesus literally said that what He was giving the Apostles at the Last Supper was His body and His blood, or not?

Matt3: Here we are back to the meat of our debate, and I am glad for it. Again, we are in agreement when you stick to the scriptures. Yes, Jesus literally said, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life . . .” This is obvious from the Scriptures. But Jesus does not say, “Whoever eats my literal flesh and drinks my actual blood transubstantianaly, has eternal life..,” as your theology assumes he did.

Jesus also said, “I am the true vine . . ,” yet we recognize this statement as a comparison. I have said (tongue in cheek) that Roman Catholics are Christians who believe that God is not capable of metaphor. You asked me to specifically state what you have added to the Bible. Here are the three interchangeable words that you have added: literally, actually, and transubstantianaly. Your doctrine fails without them, but they are nowhere to be found in Scripture. You have added them.

I noticed that you haven’t answered my questions. I realize that you have an admitted tactic of asking more questions than you answer. But shouldn’t you at least answer a few in good faith – just to show some genuine interest in dialogue, and perhaps even truth?

John2: You stated earlier, “I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why you think I don’t believe the clear teachings of the Bible.” Well, maybe I think that because you try to get around what Jesus actually said with some word games and by claiming that something is impossible for God.

Matt3: I haven’t gotten around anything. I simply do not agree with the doctrine you have accepted and you accuse me of playing games. You are the one who adds words to scripture, not me. You parenthetically add the word transubstantion to Jesus’ words. Then when I reject that change you say that I do not accept the clear teachings of scripture.

John2: Next, let’s indeed really take a look at this one.

Matt3: Again, I am glad that we are diving a bit beneath the surface here. I believe this is where more of our exchanges should go. Here is where many of the people you have dialogued with in the past have gotten frustrated, changed the subject and followed it up with something ridiculous like calling you a Mary-worshipper. I will give you no such satisfaction, but I will stick to the subject at hand. (Besides, everyone knows that you would have to make a statue of something and pray to it in order to worship it.) That, by the way, was sarcasm.

John2: I answered your questions, so please answer mine.

Matt3: Well, no, you haven’t answered my questions. I asked you, “Wouldn’t it be impossible for any of us to ‘literally eat’ the flesh of Christ since, in his resurrected body he ascended to heaven and now sits at the right hand of the Father? How can we literally eat the flesh that is not available to us?” You never answered that question. You simply said that you thought it was strange that I thought something was impossible for God to do. I asked you to help me out and explain this. You did not explain your doctrine of transubstantiation. I wish you would. But even though you didn’t answer my questions, I will answer yours anyway. (But don’t think you’re off the hook yet. I still expect some answers.)

John2: First, let me ask: what do you think it means when Jesus says we must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life?

Matt3: I believe I have already answered this above. God is capable of a metaphor. Jesus is also metaphorically compared to other things – “Lamb of God” and “light of the world” to name a couple. Christians have always recognized these as metaphors that reveal spiritual realities. Or do you have a doctrine of “trans-Lamb-of-God-ation” and “trans-light-of-the-world-ation” tucked away in your catechism?

John2: Second, what did the Jews and His own disciples, the people who were standing right there when He said these words, think He meant?

Matt3: Good, I’m glad you brought that one up. Please do not tell me you are looking at the reaction of people who deserted Jesus and knew nothing of the last supper or the cross to give you an accurate indication of what Jesus actually meant. Are you? John records that the people were confused and/or turned off by these statements. This is reminiscent of Nicodemus’ exchange with Jesus in John chapter three. Jesus tells Nicodemus that man must be born again. Nicodemus was confused. Should he take this literally? Nicodemus even had the guts to say to Jesus, “How can a man be born when he is old? Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” And we see here, like in chapter six, that the (educated) Jew right there beside Jesus misunderstood the metaphor. Being born again is a way to describe a spiritual reality in connection with our baptism. This is much like eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking his blood.

John2: Third, let’s look very closely at John 6:51. What is the bread that Jesus wants to give us to eat? His flesh, right? The flesh that He gave for the life of the world, right? Question: Was the flesh that He gave for the life of the world real, or symbolic? I mean, think about it, Jesus is telling us He wants to give us bread to eat. And, He is very specific as to what this bread is that He is referring to…His flesh…His flesh which He will give for the life of the world. So, again, was the flesh that He gave for the life of the world real…or symbolic? Does He want us to eat His real flesh, or His symbolic flesh?

Matt3: You are guilty of presenting a false choice here. I know that Jesus’ sacrifice was real, not symbolic. Yet you have manufactured an unnecessary correlation. You have implied that if one was real and not symbolic that the other must be real and not symbolic. Where did you get that? Who said that must be true? The Bible doesn’t. Does your church? Do you? This does not seem to be the product of free thinking. It seems to be the product of denominational loyalty. I will at present leave it to you and your readers to speculate as to why the Roman Catholic leadership has come up with a doctrine whereby only they can share in the “true” Lord’s supper.

John1: Let’s try another one. You’ve handed me a Bible and said, “This is essential Christian teaching,” and I open it up to 2 Thes 2:15 which says, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” And I conclude that you believe we must follow what Paul the Apostle taught, whether he wrote it down or not. In other words, we must follow both the written traditions of the Apostles, and the oral traditions of the Apostles. Are we in agreement on that very clear biblical teaching, brother?!

Matt2: I assume that we will get into this one later, but one at a time please.

John1: One more. You’ve handed me a Bible and said, “This is essential Christian teaching,” and I open it up to John 20:21-23 where it says, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” And I conclude that you believe that Jesus gave some of His disciples the authority to forgive or retain sins. Or, as it says in Matthew 9:6-8, I conclude that you believe God has given men the authority on earth to forgive sins. So, there are men who can forgive sins or retain sins. Are we in agreement on that very clear biblical teaching, brother?!

Matt2: I want to go on record as saying that not only would I give you these verses if you asked be what I considered essential Christian teaching, but I would give you the WHOLE Bible. I would not pick and choose cafeteria style which verses are important and which can be overlooked.

John2: In all sincerity, I don’t mean to offend you, but do you know what an “example” is?

Matt3: Why would I be offended? I understand what an example is.

John2: I was not trying to be all-inclusive in my answer. I was simply giving you some examples of the fact that you would not “just” give me a Bible to answer the question of essential Christian teachings, you would give me a Bible and your own fallible, non-authoritative, man-made interpretation of the Bible.

Matt3: You’re being a bit defensive here John. I was making a personal claim that you took as an accusation against you. Easy there.

John2: I gave you several verses as an example of this. Your response proved my case. Where Jesus said point blank that we are to eat His flesh and drink His blood if we are to have eternal life…your response was what? No, we don’t have to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. In fact, you say it would be impossible for us to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Matt3: No, you haven’t proved your point yet. You like to say that you have proved things. But you are not so good at proving them before you do. If you look back at the context of my claim, I stated that it would be impossible for us to eat the literal flesh and drink the literal blood of Christ. Let’s be fair here John. I did not say it would be impossible to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ. As a matter of fact, I eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ every week. Perhaps you do too. Seek first to understand, John.

John2: The essence of my argument here is this: You come up with different interpretations of the Bible than I come up with. By what authority do you declare your interpretations right, and mine (oops, I mean the Vatican’s) wrong? Tell me where in the Bible I can look to find your name as the authority one must turn to when trying to decide between truth and error? You don’t even claim infallibility, yet in your actions you act as if you are indeed infallible. If you’re not infallible, could your interpretation of John 6 be wrong? Could mine (I mean, of course, the Vatican’s) be right?

Matt3: Yes, that is the essence of your argument, and that is the problem. Regardless of what the Bible says, regardless of what is logical, you accept what you call the infallible and authoritative teachings of the Roman Catholic church. I repeat, claiming authority is not the same as having authority.

John1: Would you agree with me on all of those very clear biblical teachings? I think not. In other words, you don’t just hand me a Bible, you hand me your corrupted, non-authoritative, man-made, fallible interpretation of the Bible as well. Don’t you?

Matt3: Again, claiming that your interpretation of these passages is clear biblical teaching does not make your interpretations correct. And claiming that my interpretation is corrupted does not make it corrupt. You have to prove that John.

Matt2: Can you tell me specifically how my understanding of the scriptures is corrupted? That is an easy accusation to make, but can you prove it?

John2: I have given specific examples above regarding John 6 and the Last Supper accounts, but, in general, your understanding of scripture is corrupted because it is based upon a tradition that you admit to being only 200 years old. So, again, I ask: You don’t just hand me a Bible, you hand me your non-authoritative, man-made, fallible interpretation of the Bible as well, don’t you? (I left out “corrupted” in the interest of ecumenism.)

Matt3: Here’s that quote again, “If you disagree with me then fine, but disagree with what I actually believe, not a misrepresentation of what I believe.” The Church is constantly in need of restoration. Let’s have another bit of brutal honesty in our discussion concerning John chapter 6. It is you who claim that the doctrine of transubstantiation is biblical, but any guesses as to when that doctrine pops up in history? Any guesses? Anyone? Surly this is so important that the early church unanimously agreed on it. Surly not a year or decade would go by before this important truth was revealed to the Church. But alas this is not the case. The word “transubstantiation” was first introduced in 1079. (Hmm, lots of new doctrines are introduced after 1054 A.D. – perhaps more on that later, I bet your readers would be interested in it.) I wonder why it took God so long to clear this one up. Perhaps you can see now that it is my faith that is ancient (because it is based Scripture) and your faith that contains innovations and additions. My faith is not 200 years old. It is nearly 2000 years old. It is your faith that is constantly being changed to serve its institutional purposes.

John1: And, if I don’t accept your corrupted, non-authoritative, man-made, fallible interpretation of the Bible, then I’m wrong, aren’t I? Gee, that sounds fair to me. Well, how come I’m the one who is wrong and not you? By what authority do you claim to have a more authentic interpretation of the scriptures than the one I have?

Matt2: You misunderstand, misrepresent, and caricature me. If you are wrong it is not because you agree or disagree with me. It is because you are wrong – objectively. God makes the standards of right and wrong – not you and not me. You ask a fair question. Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? (Jobs friends received an interesting answer to that question.) Perhaps our discussion will eventually get into the realm of hermeneutics. I think you and your readers would benefit from that. I also think it is fair for me to ask you why your purport to be the one who is right.

John2: I don’t believe I do “misunderstand, misrepresent, and caricature” you. You are playing games and not answering the question.

Matt3: No, I am answering the question, but not agreeing with you and you call that playing games.

John2: Yes, God makes the standards. If I am wrong, I am wrong because I am objectively wrong. I agree. However, you believe me to be objectively wrong everywhere that I disagree with you on doctrine, do you not? Is that a coincidence? In other words, you believe yourself to be objectively right and me objectively wrong. The problem I have is that you have set yourself up as the judge for what is objectively right and what is objectively wrong in terms of religion. You claim not to be infallible, yet you act as if you are. You have never said, “John, I’m not absolutely sure, but I think your church may be teaching things that are not true Christian doctrine.” Or, “John, your church teaches things that I think are wrong, but I know that I’m fallible, so I could be the one that’s wrong.”

Matt3: Nor have you ever stated that you might be wrong. But then that would implode the cornerstone of your theology, wouldn’t it? Then everything you believe would be subject to biblical accuracy and logic instead of the so-called authority of the Roman Catholic church. Coincidentally, your “free thinking” mind has come to the exact same conclusions of the Roman Catholic church. Hmmm. Who is not being honest here? You’re not allowed, by your own theology, to disagree with the Vatican so how can you think freely?

Matt3: So here is a big question for you, could you be wrong about the infallibility of Roman Catholic church doctrine? Since you are fallible, and you are the one who has decided this doctrine is true, perhaps you have made a mistake. Would you admit that?

John2: No, instead you have referred to the “false” teachings of the Catholic Church and to the “manufactured” authority of the “institution called the Roman Catholic Church”. You have also compared the Church’s teachings to “mouse droppings.” In other words, you believe yourself to be infallible in declaring us to be objectively wrong in every instance where we disagree with what you believe, do you not?

Matt3: In other words!? In who’s other words? Must be yours. They are not my words. Here you go with your talking points again. You’re not listening. You even asked the question and I answered it for you. I do not claim to be infallible. But I do claim to agree with God on certain things. By the way, your point above is moot. Every time there is a disagreement, everyone involved believes they are right and the opposing side is wrong. I do not mean to insult you, but that is just the way disagreements about doctrine work. Until you prove the infallibility of the Roman Catholic church (which I do not recall you even attempting) I will continue to debate on the assumption that, where we disagree, I am right and you are wrong. I’m sure you will continue to do the same. If you really want to get somewhere in this debate, then prove to me the infallibility of the Roman Catholic church. I am fairly reasonable. If the Roman Catholic church is infallible, then you should be able to prove it to me.

You seem to have created another false choice here. You claim that when I disagree with the Roman Catholic church I claim to be infallible. Why does someone have to be infallible? You seem to have manufactured this.

John2: I will, unlike you, answer the question about why I believe myself to be right and you to be wrong. I purport to be right because my beliefs are in agreement with those of the Church founded by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago.

Matt3: Every Christian is part of the Church that began nearly 2000 years ago.

John2: Your denomination, or movement, very plainly claims (as I read from the website you provided me) to have been started by men, in the United States, approximately 200 years ago. It was not founded by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago in Israel.

Matt3: You misunderstand quite a bit about the Church and restoration. The movement that is part of my spiritual heritage is not a new religion (or even a denomination) that began 200 years ago. It is a branch on the vine of Christ that realizes the need for every Christian of every generation to be about the business of restoring the Church to the New Testament model. Think of it this way. Let’s say that you gave your children a block of clay to play with and they have been playing with it for 3 years. It has been a lot of things over those three years and has been handled quite a bit. Perhaps sweet little McKenna has accidentally dropped it a few times. Perhaps a few times Ethan played with the clay after eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and now the clay is a little sticky. Now the clay has a lot of things in it that it shouldn’t have. They don’t want to just throw the clay out – it was a gift from their father. Noah, if he wants to take the initiative, can “reform” it and make it look different. But the problem is not that the clay is in the wrong shape. The problem is that the clay has things in it that shouldn’t be there. The clay does not need to be reformed into a new shape (or even counter-reformed into a different shape). It needs to be restored. It needs to be returned to its original condition. So let’s say that Noah initiates a restoration process for the clay. He somehow painstakingly begins to purify the gift that his father gave the family some years ago. Even if Brennan gets mad at him and says the clay is just fine, or it is supposed to be that way, or it has always been that way and Noah should just leave it alone and go with the flow, Noah believes something different and continues the restoration process. I believe the analogy is obvious. (But I will spell it out for you if you ask.) The Restoration movement is not a bunch of churches that were founded by man 200 years ago. The Restoration movement is part of the kingdom of God who have joined in the process of restoring the Church back to the New Testament model that our Father gave us some 2000 years ago.

John2: The bishops of my church can historically trace their authority back to the Apostles.

Matt3: Of course they can. All Christians (regardless of their denominational or non-denominational affiliation) can. Who do you think passed down these elements of faith? But you may be trying to tell me that the apostle Peter was the first Roman Catholic Pope. Is that what you are trying to claim? You have to prove things you claim John. Perhaps you can start by proving it to the Roman Catholic scholars who believe it is a bedtime story. I will be fair though. Can you prove that the Roman Catholic church has some unique claim to apostolic authority that other Christian churches do not have?

John2: Can the leaders of your church do that?

Matt3: Of course they can. This is not a claim unique to the Roman Catholic church (though the RC church does put quite an interesting and exclusive spin on their own claim).

John2: In the Bible, it says that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, not the individual.

Matt3: I like it when you quote scripture. It guarantees that we are in agreement on something.

John2: It also says that if there is a dispute between Christians, we are to take it to the church. In other words, it is the church that decides authoritatively on matters of dispute between Christians. Who in your church can act with such authority? In Acts 15, the Church called a council to resolve a particular doctrinal dispute. Has your church ever done that? In Matthew 16 and 18, the leaders of the church are given authority to bind and loose on earth…who in your church has such authority?

Matt3: Every Christian congregation, presumably even yours, has the authority which you describe above. It is stated as truth in the Bible, so it is true. You need to wrestle with some very serious questions. Look at the context of the passages you cited. What is “the church” in these passages. I submit that your interpretation of “the church” (according to what you have just written) is inaccurate. The church (ekklesia) is mentioned twice in Acts 15:3-4 and refers to two separate congregations. Not one of those churches is located in or has headquarters in Rome. As a matter of fact, if any authority exists, it is in Jerusalem, not Rome. This is a far, far cry from Roman Catholicism. Be careful of anachronisms. They sneak up on people eager to practice eisegesis with the Bible. This is another topic I hope we can get into if you stay with me and discuss hermeneutics.

John2: I purport to be the one who is right because, unlike you, I do not rely on my own fallible, non-authoritative, man-made interpretation of the scriptures to determine right and wrong. I rely on the infallible, authoritative, God-ordained authority of the Church established by Jesus Christ.

Matt3: No, you rely on the fallible, non-authoritative, man-made interpretations (and additions) of the Roman Catholic church. That does not make you right. Claiming authority and infallibility is not the same as having it. Again, you offer claims, but no proof.

In an interview late last year you said, “Either Jesus founded more than one church, Jesus founded an invisible and abstract church in which everyone who accepts Jesus belongs to this church, or He founded one Church, which is 2,000 years old, which is visible, holds that doctrine matters, and has the direct authority of Jesus Christ himself.” We can both agree that Jesus did not found more than one Church. But I am glad you see the possibility of an invisible and universal (I substituted that word for “abstract”) Church in which everyone who follows (I substituted that word for “accepts”) Jesus belongs to his Church. This Church is 2000 years old and has the direct authority that Christ himself has granted it. I threw all that in just so you would know more about what I really believe.

John1: Plus, let’s say that you hand me the Bible and tell me that it is the “essentials of faith.” Fine. My question to you is: How do you know? How do you know the Bible contains the “essentials of faith?” WHO TOLD YOU THAT? Who? How do you know that the Bible is the Word of God? How do you know which books are supposed to be in the Bible? How do you even know who wrote the Bible? For example, can you tell me how you know Mark wrote Mark? And, which Mark wrote Mark? Do you know? How do you know? How do you know that what Mark wrote is the inspired Word of God? Very important questions. Please give me chapter and verse that tells us who wrote the Gospel of Mark and that it is indeed the inspired Word of God? Which chapter? Which verse? Where, in the Bible, is the list of books that are supposed to be in the Bible? If we go by the Bible alone, then the Bible must tell us somewhere which books are supposed to be in the Bible, right? How else would the early Christians know which books to include in Scripture?

Matt2: Again, you seem to caricature me. Are you implying that I only believe what I read in the Bible? Are you implying that I do not believe in life on the cellular level because that cannot be found in the Bible? Are you implying that I do not believe in the existence of radios, televisions, and automobiles because they cannot be found in the Bible? What is your point?

John2: Again you play games. Where did I say anything in the paragraph above about “life on the cellular level”? You have made claims that you are different than the other folks I’ve featured in my newsletter, but you seem to avoid answering questions and shifting the topic as well as any of them. Can you not simply answer the questions?

Matt3: This kind of rhetoric may play well with some of your readers, but it is either insincere or misguided. Do not accuse me of playing games because I do not answer the way you want. Let me save you (and hopefully your readers) some time. I believe in the Church. I think I have already stated that clearly. But the Church and the Roman Catholic church are not synonymous. You need to understand this belief. It will unlock many of your misconceptions about me.

John2: How do you know the Bible contains the essentials of faith? Who told you that? Did the Bible tell you that?

Matt3: Well, when I read the Bible, I read that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, . .” Does the Roman Catholic church have to confirm this in order for it to be true, or can we just take God’s word on it?

John2: How do you know the Bible is the Word of God? Who told you that? How do you know which books are supposed to be in the Bible? How do you even know who wrote the Bible? For example, can you tell me how you know Mark wrote Mark? And, which Mark wrote Mark? Do you know? How do you know? How do you know that what Mark wrote is the inspired Word of God? Very important questions. Please give me chapter and verse that tells us who wrote the Gospel of Mark and that it is indeed the inspired Word of God? Which chapter? Which verse? Where, in the Bible, is the list of books that are supposed to be in the Bible? If we go by the Bible alone, then the Bible must tell us somewhere which books are supposed to be in the Bible, right? How else would the early Christians know which books to include in Scripture?

Matt3: You raise an excellent point. I’ll deal with it below.

John2: In case you don’t understand the point, it is this: You claim that you would “just” hand me the Bible in answer to a question about the “essentials of the Christian faith,” so is it not important that you could tell someone why you believe the Bible to contain the essentials of faith? And, does the Bible really contain all the “essentials of the Christian faith”? For example, is it an essential of the Christian faith that we know that all the books in the Bible are the inspired Word of God? I would think that is pretty essential, wouldn’t you? So, does the Bible give us a list of which books should be considered the inspired Word of God…does it give us the list of books that should be in the Bible?

Matt3: I don’t think you are advancing your argument as much as you hope. Since I make a distinction between the Church and the Roman Catholic church, I have no problem admitting anything that I get from the early Church. But saying that something came from the early Church is not the same as saying that it came from the Roman Catholic church. Let me also state that I am not excluding the Roman Catholic church from the Church (please don’t try to pin that accusation on me).

Matt1: You responded that the so-called Apostles’ Creed contains teachings that are essential to the Christian faith. Then you asked me what parts of the creed that I disagree with. Now we are getting somewhere. You wrote, “If you ask me what I believe, I will give you the Bible, as well.” But the fact is, you didn’t. No you gave me something else. You gave me something LESS than the Bible. This is but one illustration of how far your faith has traveled from the authority of the divine book towards the manufactured authority of the institution called the Roman Catholic church.

John1: Here is where you chastise me for answering your question incorrectly (again, as you see it), but you are actually taking me to task for not giving the answer you want to a question you didn’t ask. There are two questions here: The first question pertains to the “essentials of faith.” Again, I said I don’t believe in essential vs. non-essential doctrines, so I answered with what I said are the “core beliefs” of Christianity…the beliefs around which all other Christian beliefs revolve.

Matt2: Ah, but you do believe in something that resembles essentials and non-essentials. In “Apologetics for the Masses – Issue #22”, you wrote of Veronica, “And, therefore, we use this tradition as a point of meditation and prayer. It’s just that simple. One doesn’t have to believe that Veronica wiped the face of Christ in order to be [Roman] Catholic.” I realize that Veronica does not constitute a doctrine. But this is a telling example of how when something is not in the Bible, even you recognize that it is not essential to faith.

John2: I do believe in essentials and non-essentials, but not in the area of doctrine, as you seem to understand.

Matt3: When have I ever stated that I believe in non-essential doctrines? Again you impose beliefs on me that are simply not true. Then you make an argument that I may actually agree with and then you claim that you have proved me wrong. Disagree with what I actually believe, not with a misrepresentation of what I believe.

John2: However, I never said that belief in Veronica is not essential to the faith because it is not in the Bible. In spite of your claim to the contrary, I don’t believe you understand all that much about the Catholic Faith. The teaching on the trinity – one God, three persons, each consubstantially God – is not in the Bible. Yet, that does not make it a non-essential. It is essential because the Church teaches it is essential.

Matt3: Did I read that right? Why is belief in Veronica it not essential? Because it is not logical? Because it is not true? Because it is not supported by the Bible? No, you say it is not essential because the Roman Catholic church teaches it is not essential! Doesn’t that fit the description of a blind follower? Is this your free thinking?

John2: Veronica is not essential not because she isn’t in the Bible, but because the Church doesn’t teach that she is essential. Is it essential to know that all public revelation from God stopped with the death of the last Apostle? I think so. Yet, nowhere does the Bible tell us this. Is it essential to know, as I mentioned above, which books should and shouldn’t be considered inspired Scripture? I think so. Yet, nowhere does the Bible tell us this.

Matt3: Forgive me, but you come across as having a very low opinion of Scripture and a very high opinion of your particular church. I have read a number of Charismatic authors who come across the same way. That’s just an observation.

So the Roman Catholic church teaches many things. Some of them are essential and some of them are not. Why teach something if it is not essential? And why isn’t it essential? If it is true and part of the approved liturgy then why back off of it and call it a non-essential?

John1: The second question, which you never asked, is: What do I believe? Or, more precisely, where do my beliefs come from? As I said above, if you asked me what I believe, which you did not, I, too, can hand you a Bible, and I can do even more. I can point you to the Church established by Jesus Christ Himself which can guide you in an authentic interpretation of that Bible. Can you do that? Who would you point me to as an authentic interpreter of scripture? Am I an authentic interpreter of scripture? Are you? (By the way, is the core of the apple the same thing as the entire apple?)

Matt2: Yes indeed, if I ask you for where your beliefs come from then you will do more than give me a Bible. That is the problem. I want your readers to see behind the curtain here. Specifically you give me two things. First you give me the Roman Catholic church’s current interpretation of the Bible. Second you give me anything that the Roman Catholic Church decides they want to add to the Bible. You make grand claims about the Roman Catholic denomination because you must. Without those claims even you must admit that the Roman Catholic church is just another branch of the vine of Christ. By the way, I can point you to an authentic interpreter of scripture. It is scripture. By accepting the whole council of God we get a much more accurate interpretation. Again, if we get into hermeneutics, we can discuss this.

John2: Again, with all due respect, but I find your comments here pretty funny. You simply reinforce the whole point I’ve been making. You say that I give you two things: 1) the Church’s interpretation of the Bible; and 2) anything that the Church decides to add to the Bible. Whereas, you give me: 1) Matt Johnson’s interpretation of the Bible; and 2) anything Matt Johnson wishes to add to (or delete from) the Bible.

Matt3: Can you point to where I have deleted anything from the Bible? Perhaps you mean that I deleted the word “transubstantion”. Oh, wait, that’s not in the Bible – my mistake. (But perhaps it is one of those seven books that you claim were “tossed out”. No? Keep looking. It has got to be there somewhere. After all, your church teaches it so it must be there.)

John2: Why should I go with your interpretation rather than the Church’s? The Catholic Church at least claims infallibility, you do not. The Church is mentioned in the Bible, you are not. The Catholic Church can be traced back, historically, 2000 years; you can not. The Catholic Church claims to have received her authority directly from the Apostles; you do not. The Catholic Church claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit; you do not.

Matt3: Hold up there. Be careful with your claims about the Holy Spirit. You do not hold exclusive rights there. And why do you insist on labeling someone as infallible? You seem to be saying that either the Roman Catholic church must be infallible or I must be. This is another false choice. You also seem to really like the Roman Catholic church’s claim of infallibility. But have you considered that if this claim is false, then not only is it fallible, but it also blasphemous? You had better start proving this claim of Roman Catholic infallibility or you will leave yourself open to the accusation that you have made a god out of a denomination.

John2: And, this thing about hermeneutics…that’s just a fancy word you’re using for your argument that your interpretation of Scripture is better than mine.

Matt3: Oh no, we wouldn’t want your readers to think that there actually is something to this hermeneutics thing (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain). Let’s just dismiss it as a “fancy word”. You must not have much respect for interpreting the Bible to say that. Even your denomination uses certain hermeneutics to interpret the Word of God. (But perhaps you have a special class of priests to do that thinking for you.) You seem to easily dismiss things you don’t agree with instead of dealing with them. I admit that hermeneutical studies are not easy, but perhaps if you did the work you could see beyond the catechism and take an honest look at the Bible. I have noticed how much more space is given to your version of logic than actual Bible study in your newsletter. It seems that is because you are better at one than the other.

John2: And, again, you avoid answering my questions. Am I an authentic interpreter of Scripture? Are you?

Matt3: I think I dealt with this above. If you need more clarification, please ask.

John2: Is the core of the apple the same thing as the entire apple?

Matt3: Huh?

Matt1: My specific point here does not even involve the veracity of this creed (though that subject would make for an interesting exchange). My point is that you have gone outside the scriptures for something you call essential. I find that very telling.

John1: Actually, I haven’t gone “outside the scriptures” for anything. Everything in the Apostles’ Creed is scriptural. That’s why I asked you those questions – which are quite relevant to this discussion – about which part, or parts, of the Apostles’ Creed do you not believe in. It’s all from the Word of God. Do you really think that my believing in God the Father as Creator of heaven and earth as a core belief of Christianity, is going outside the scriptures? And do you further think that my believing in Jesus Christ being incarnated and born of a virgin as a core belief of Christianity, is going outside the scriptures? Again, please let me know which parts of the Apostles’ Creed you don’t believe in.

Matt2: Could you quote me the chapter and verse where the Bible says “He descended into hell.”? Where specifically does the Bible teach this clearly? Please show me where the Bible says “descended into Hell”. It must be an important and clear teaching to be recognized as a “core belief” of yours. Or is it possible that some of your core beliefs are really just late interpretations of scripture? (Please note, I am not blaming the Roman Catholic church for this. Additional teaching cropped up among Christians well before the Romans segregated themselves.)

John2: You are a literalist, aren’t you (except of course when it comes to John 6)?

Matt3: I’m the literalist? You’re the one who earlier suggested it was possible that the apostles did not eat and drink the bread and wine at the last supper because the Bible doesn’t literally say they did? Or were you just playing games? And you need to know that you are not a literalist on John chapter six. A true literalist would have to resort to cannibalism.

John2: There is no verse in Scripture that says the exact words, “He descended into hell.” Just as there are no words in Scripture that say there is one God, but that one God is a trinity of 3 persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – each consubstantially God. Yet, you believe that don’t you?

Matt3: The reason I believe in the concept of the Trinity is because the Bible supports the concept.

John2: However, there are verses in Scripture which mention how Jesus descended into the “heart of the earth,” (Matt 12:38-41); “the abyss,” (Rom 10:6-7); “the lower parts of the earth,” (Eph 4:8-9), and how he preached to the “spirits in prison,” (1 Ptr 3:19) after His death. So, call it the “heart of the earth,” “the lower parts of the earth,” “the abyss,” “prison,” or whatever else you want to…we call it hell or hades.

Matt3: Interesting. You can call it what you like, huh? God doesn’t call it hell. You do. Changing words often changes meaning. Are you sure you haven’t changed both the words and the meaning? Are those words interchangeable? Are hell and hades the exact same thing?

John2:
You might be squabbling about what to call this place Jesus descended to, but surely you can’t be denying that he descended to a place where there were souls that were separated from God, are you?

Matt3: Nope. But perhaps there is more to the story than that. And perhaps we will get into it. As a matter fact, yes, that is going on a back burner. For now I am satisfied in your admission that the Bible never says Jesus descended to hell – yet your “essential” creed does.

John1: But, let me go one step further here…where does it say, in the scriptures, or anywhere else for that matter, that going outside of the scriptures is a problem? Don’t the scriptures themselves say that there are many things that Jesus did that are not recorded in the scriptures? And, don’t the scriptures further say that man shall not live by bread alone, but by “every” word that comes forth from the mouth of God? So, if we’re to live by “every” word that comes forth from the mouth of God, but not every word that came forth from the mouth of God is recorded in scripture, as scripture itself says, then what does someone who goes by the scripture alone do in order to live by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God?

Matt2: Are you saying that you or the Roman Catholic church has some revelation about the unwritten doings of Christ? And are you accusing me of only accepting knowledge that comes from the Bible? If so, I refer you to my response above which begins, “Again, you seem to caricature me. . .”

John2: I’m accusing you of nothing that you haven’t already admitted to…only accepting that which comes from the Bible in matters pertaining to the Christian Faith. I would think you would wear that accusation with pride. The problem is, not everything we need to know about the Christian Faith is found in the Bible. Again, I refer to my earlier questions about where in the Bible does it give us a list of the books that should be in the Bible? How do you know Mark wrote Mark? How do you know the Letter to the Hebrews is God-inspired Scripture (I just added that one)?

Matt2: Christians are warned by their Lord and Savior who quoted Isaiah when he said, “They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.‘" Matthew 15:9.

John2: Question: How do you know that applies to Catholic teachings and not to Matt Johnson teachings?

Matt3: Good, question, but it goes both ways. Your claims of infallibility are no good here, there must be proof.

Matt2: Paul also warned, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” 2 Timothy 4:3.

John2: Seems to me that would apply most fittingly to folks whose core doctrines are, at most 500 years old, and maybe even more fittingly to the members of a church that was founded by a group of men in the United States barely 200 years ago, rather than one that’s been around for 2000 years.

Matt3: I wholeheartedly agree. That is why I stick with the teachings of Scripture, whose newest parts are 1900 years old, instead of following a denomination that adds teachings even up to the present day.

Matt2: And there is a haunting verse at the end of the Bible, “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.” Revelation 22:18. So yes, I am very careful about that which I consider inspired and authoritative.

John2: You are “very careful” about that which you consider inspired and authoritative? Well, that’s very nice. Does being “very careful” mean the same thing as “infallible.” I mean, you could be “very careful” about what you consider inspired and authoritative, but still be wrong, couldn’t you?

Matt3: Until you prove the infallibility of your church, then this line of argument will hold no weight. We just have two people disagreeing. One could be wrong. That person could be you.

John2: By the way, if you’re really worried about that passage from Revelation, you might want to put back the 7 books of the Bible that Martin Luther tossed out.

Matt3: You have to prove claims that you make. Can you prove that Martin Luther “tossed out” seven books of the Bible? For your information this will involve proving that those seven books have always been held in the exact same esteem as the canonical sixty-six books.

Matt1: I make no secret that my goal here is to show that the legitimate faith that you have in Jesus as the Christ has been tainted by false teachings. You have opened our exchange from your end with the authority of man-made creeds instead of the authority of the scriptures. This was one-hundred percent your decision. You did this in response to an open ended question.

John1: I have opened our exchange with the core beliefs of Christianity…which was what you asked me for…as found in the Word of God and as set forth in the Apostles’ Creed. You have opened our exchange with? Nothing! Well, actually, you have opened our exchange with some man-made test, of your own devising, which you claim I have answered incorrectly. Please do give me the scripture and the verse that says, “In order to test whether or not someone has an authentic Christian Faith, ask them to give you the ‘essentials of faith.’ If they respond with any answer other than ‘the Bible,’ then you know that their religion has become corrupted.” Where is that in the Bible? And please tell me how would a Christian who was alive in, say 50 A.D., have responded to your question? Would they have said, “The Bible?”

Matt2: Again, I am misrepresented. Please understand me before you disagree with me. I have proposed no man-made test for you. I have simply asked you to make a statement about the essentials of your faith. I have noted how you went directly to a man-made, non inspired creed. Oh, and by the way, I don’t know about precisely 50 A.D., but in c. 55 A.D. Paul wrote “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” 1 Corinthians 15:14. How is that for a creed?

John2: How, pray tell, have I misrepresented you? You asked me a question. And, when I answered your question, you gave my answer an “F”, because it didn’t meet some standard devised by you. If you don’t wish to call that a test, fine by me, but please forgive me if I continue to use that term. And, let me reiterate, the standard you compared my answer to was a standard chosen by you, not a standard that we can find in the pages of the Bible. So, that would make it man-made, wouldn’t it? Regarding 1 Corinthians 15:14, that makes for a wonderful creed. I assume your answer, though, is a tacit admission that a Christian in 50 A.D., when asked about the “essentials of the Christian Faith” would not have answered “the Bible,” as you did?

Matt3: And I assume that you would not answer with the apostle’s Creed, or the teachings of the Roman Catholic church as you have.

Matt1: So let me ask you, what makes this creed so essential? Why did you mention that creed? Why didn’t you give the Bible as your response instead of that creed?

John1: I believe I have answered this above. But, to summarize, in response to your initial question, I gave you the “core beliefs” of Christianity as laid out in the Apostles’ Creed. You did not ask me for the sum of my beliefs nor for the source of my beliefs. In answer to that question, again, I say, the sum and the source of my beliefs are the Word of God.

Matt3: But by the “Word of God” you really do mean more than the Bible, don’t you? Sometimes I feel like I am corresponding with a Jehovah’s Witness (this is a comparison of tactics, not doctrine). They say things like, “I believe Jesus is God.” But they really do not mean it. They really mean that they believe Jesus was “a god”. This allows them to fly under the heresy level of most people’s doctrinal radar. When you say, “the sum and the source of my beliefs are the Word of God,” you make it seem as if you are talking about the Bible. But you are not talking about the Bible, you are talking about the teachings of the Roman Catholic church and equating them with the Word of God. Oh, and just to be fair, you do include the Bible (Roman Catholic interpretation) somewhere under the umbrella of the “Word of God”.

Matt2: But, according to you, the sum and source of your beliefs are the Roman Catholic interpretation of the Word of God and also everything that the Roman Catholic church wants to add to the Word of God.

John2: I believe you won’t find anywhere that I have said those things. You are, once again, trying to make my beliefs fit into your distorted image of Catholicism. According to me, the sum and source of my beliefs is the Word of God. The Catholic Church adds nothing to the Word of God.

Matt3: The Roman Catholic church adds nothing to the Word of God!?!? Where should we start? Perhaps you can tell me where in the Bible we find the teaching that Mary was immaculately conceived (not Jesus, but Mary)? Perhaps you can tell me where in the Bible I can find a distinct class of priests in the Church. Perhaps you can tell me where in Word of God we are told that those “special” priests cannot be married. Perhaps you can tell me where in the Bible it is okay to make statues of people and pray to dead people. Perhaps you can give me just one clear example in the Bible of an infant being baptized. Shall I go on? But wait, your theology allows you to add things to the Bible. When the Roam Catholic church adds these things they say that God has entrusted them with these words. That allows them to add anything they want and still call it the “Word of God”, tricky.

John2: She merely passes on what she has been given by our Lord. And, I believe that the entire Word of God, the entire Deposit of Faith, has been entrusted to the Catholic Church to which I belong. You, who claim to go by the Bible alone, however, cannot seem to admit that Jesus told us that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life. Or, you will admit that He said that, but then you will add your own words, “But, what He really means by that is…” and then insert Matt Johnson’s fallible, man-made, non-authoritative opinion.

Matt3: You are the one who says, “What he really means is transubstantion.” This is your fallible, man-made, non-authoritative opinion. I am the one who does not add anything to the words of Jesus. I hope you can continue with that dialogue instead just making baseless claims.

John1: And, again, I ask, what’s wrong with the Apostles’ Creed? By what authority do you claim the Apostles’ Creed to be an insufficient answer to a question about the core beliefs of Christianity?

Matt2: I dealt with this above.

John2: Actually, you didn’t deal with this question above. You have dealt directly with very few of the questions I have asked you. By what authority do you claim the Apostles’ Creed to be an insufficient answer to a question about the core beliefs of Christianity?

Matt3: Again, you are back to authority. Yet I will be surprised if you do more than simply claim the authority of the Roman Catholic church (without proving it). I am beginning to figure a few things out about your tactics. When you get stuck, you pull out the “authority card” or the “infallibility card”. You say, “You don’t even claim infallibility, and have no authority to make these claims.” This allows you to feel good about your faith without actually dealing with biblical issues. When you stop hiding behind those claims we will be able to make some progress. (Or you could actually prove those claims – that would take care of everything.)

The problem with confronting a Roman Catholic about their beliefs is that they use circular reasoning. They say, “I am right because I agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine. Roman Catholic doctrine is right because God says it is right. God says it is right because Roman Catholic doctrine says that God says it is right.” You may call that a gross oversimplification, but you have proved nothing else.

Matt2: It is time for me to make what may become a perennial statement and request. I notice how you sometimes parade theologically quasi-Reformed, illogical quitters in front of your readers. We are hitting on some subjects and truths that I believe your readers should be allowed to hear. I realize that the man with the microphone always wins, but I am willing to look like a loser if it would help bring the light of truth to some people. I am not a Reformed theologian. I try not to be illogical. I am not a quitter (and I am only 31 years old so, Lord willing, I can go on for a long time). I realize that you only have so much space, but it would be nice for your readers to see something other than sound-bite, talk-point exchanges. I also do not believe that I fit into the description that you gave in “Apologetics for the Masses – Issue #16”, in which you said, “I keep thinking someone is going to come up with something new…that I’m not going to keep seeing the same old misrepresentations, half-truths, and lies about the Catholic Faith that we hear over and over again. That one of these folks is actually going to get it right in what they claim Catholics believe and teach. Alas, to no avail have I hoped.” So I request either some web space, or at the very least an admission that not all of the Roman Catholic critics are half-baked liars. Some of us still intend to convince you that all you need to be is a Christian, not a Roman Catholic.

John2: Again, with all due respect, you have not brought anything new to the table. The Catholic Church is a false church with false teachings (“mouse droppings”), man-made institution with man-made doctrines (although you have yet to list one that I am aware of); the Catholic Church adds false, non-biblical doctrines to its teachings; Catholics blindly follow the dictates of “Rome;” Catholics don’t go by the Bible; etc., etc., etc.. The problem is, we can’t go by the Bible alone because we’re not allowed to interpret the Bible for ourselves, at least, not by you. You don’t want us interpreting the Bible on our own, you simply want us to substitute what you believe to be “Rome’s” interpretations, for Matt Johnson’s interpretations.

Matt3: This is another one of your “go to” statements. You use this when you have not proved anything and have nothing of substance to offer. Yes, some of what I have to say will be similar to other things you have dismissed in the past. Some of it will be new. I will challenge you to consider my beliefs instead of dismissing them as you hide behind unproved claims of Roman Catholic authority and infallibility.

John2: You also claim to not want to discredit another believer’s faith, yet you compare our teachings to “mouse droppings.”

Matt3: It is a fair comparison. Can you imagine un-crushed pepper next to mouse droppings? It would be very difficult to tell the difference – especially if they were all mixed up together. This is why we need restoration. It is the difficult and sometimes painful task of purifying the Church.

John2: You claim to want to be inclusive, yet I am wrong and you are right on every point of the faith where we disagree…I am a mind-numbed robot of the Vatican and you are, apparently, an enlightened believer trying to teach this poor Catholic…how is that being inclusive?

Matt3: You have a strange litmus test for being inclusive. I believe you are included as pat of the Church if you are a follower of Jesus Christ – by his standards. That does not means that I am accepting of all of your beliefs. Being inclusive is not the same thing as blanket acceptance. Perhaps you have fallen into the worldly philosophical trap of tolerance and bled that over into our discussion. Tolerance used to mean that you disagreed with someone but were willing to tolerate the difference and accept the person. The modern, popular notion of tolerance means you have to accept every difference and everything about everyone – or else you are labeled intolerant. You seem to be saying that if I include you in my understanding of the Church then I cannot disagree with you – or I am being exclusive. So by your reasoning (or by the reasoning you are trying to impose on me) we must all agree with each other or go to hell.

Matt1: Obviously there is much more I could write, but I’d like to stay on point here.

John2: In all honesty, Matt, I don’t see that you have much of an understanding of what I believe and why I believe it.

Matt3: If you wanted to, you could tell me what you believe and why you believe it. That is what I have been trying to get from you and that is what you have been avoiding.

John2: It seems to make you feel good to believe that I simply spout the party line and apparently cannot think for myself.

Matt3: This does not make me feel good at all. In fact I lose sleep the state of the Church some 2000 years after Pentecost. Perhaps you should look within and consider whether it is you who feel good about thinking that I am simply spouting party lines (whatever my “party lines” would be). Honestly, I would be interested to know if you have ever even met a person who didn’t have to put an adjective in front of the name “Christian”. Please understand that I am not anti-Roman Catholic. I am simply pro-Christian.

John2: That’s fine. But, I have yet to see you give direct answers to my questions…questions about the Bible and about your authority to interpret the Bible and to declare my interpretations invalid.

Matt3: Then you haven’t been paying attention. Be careful with your wild accusations John. We have begun a potentially meaningful dialogue on the sixth chapter of John. Just because I do not agree with you does not mean that I have not given a direct answer.

John2: I’m open to continuing this exchange, but I need to see that you really are bringing something new…like answering a direct question with a direct answer…to the conversation.

Matt3: What seems to be one of your favorite tactics is to ask a lot of questions, then when one of them does not get answered the way you want it then you sidestep the actual debate and start with the accusation that your critic has no substantial response for you, and thus has no substance. Patience John, not rhetoric will serve you well. “The truth must dazzle gradually lest every man be blind.”

I have assured you in the past, and I will assure you again that I am willing to answer any question you ask me. Forgive me for not answering all of them, but you ask a lot (which I believe is one of your tactics for wining a debate). I’m not always sure which ones you think are more important. I deal with some things and cannot, in one letter, deal with everything. Realize that I am just responding to what you are writing. You are doing the same. If you have a burning question that you do not feel is being addressed, then ask it. I hope we are not just trading rhetoric here, but searching for truth.

Then my proposal is that we continue with our dialogue about John chapter 6. If you wish to discuss who has authority to interpret the Bible, then for your part you must stop simply claiming authority for the Roman Catholic church and actually prove it – lest you be accused of not bringing anything new to the dialogue.

John2: And, again, with all due respect, I don’t say that to offend or anger, but that is just my humble opinion…I am entitled to my opinion, am I not?

Matt3: Why would I be angry with that? Of course you are entitled to your opinion. But are we talking about opinions here – like what color of automobile I should buy? Or are we talking about doctrine here – like the deity of Christ? In matters of opinion Christians should allow liberty. In matters of doctrine Christians should seek unity. Are you perhaps confusing matters of opinion with matters of doctrine? (Are you saying that your belief that Roman Catholic church doctrine is infallible is just a matter of opinion?) Just because I disagree with you does not mean that I do not think that you are not entitled to an opinion. It may, however mean that I believe you have accepted a false doctrine.

I have this nagging feeling that you have enough material for your newsletter so you are about to drop me – before anything of substance is established. I believe that would be a disservice to everyone involved (including your readers). In fact, from my perspective, it would look like you got frustrated and quit – just like many of your critics have. Stick it out John. I am told that my wife’s grandfather prays every night that she will “return home” to the Roman Catholic Church (it’s his prayer, so I gave it a capitol “C”) and bring me with her. If you are right then be an answer to his prayer. If you are wrong then be an answer to mine.

In Conclusion

Well, don’t know if you got through all of it…I’m not actually sure that I read all of it…but just know that the conversation will hopefully be taking a turn in the next newsletter or two. If not, well, there won’t be much point in going any farther than that. Besides, I’ve got other folks calling me a coward and hypocrite and all sorts of things for not yet putting their emails in the newsletter – and I want to do my best to keep everybody happy! :-)

How to be added to, or removed from, the list

If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to www.biblechristiansociety.com and click on the “Newsletter” page to sign up. It will take you about 10 seconds.

$RemovalHTML$

Share this newsletter on: