Apologetics for the Masses #344 - An Evangelical Pastor and Mary (Part 5)

Social Media - Please Share This Newsletter On...

Topic

The Sinlessness of Mary - A Debate With an Evangelical Pastor (Part 5)

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter

Introduction

This newsletter is continuing my debate on the Sinlessness of Mary with Evangelical pastor Greg Smith. This is the 2nd half of my reply to his last response (for the 1st half, see last week' newsletter: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/452-apologetics-for-the-masses-343-an-evangelical-pastor-and-mary-part-4).

I gave you a homework assignment last week to think about how you would respond to his comments. See if you and I are on the same page. But, if your response isn't like mine, remember - there is not necessarily just one right way to respond. I'm simply offering mine as one possibility.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Pastor Greg Smith
Romans 5:18 – 19

"Through one man’s transgression, there resulted in condemnation to all

and through one act of righteousness, there resulted justification of life to all men.

For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners,

even so through the One the many will be made righteous."

John, you were quick to point out in verse 18 that all includes all people and asked me if I believed in universalism because justification resulted to all men. Did you not continue reading one more verse for context? Did you not notice the parallelism in verse 19? I have included it here for you.

These verses are not teaching universalism, as is obvious when you read the whole book of Romans and see Paul’s arguments (see 1:16 – 17; 3:22 – 28; 4:5, 13). So, let’s see what Paul means here. It is teaching that salvation only comes to those who have faith in Jesus Christ. Paul mirrors the thought of verse 18 but now applies it to many individuals. The all who become saved are all those who put their faith and trust in Christ. Note that it will not be all, only many.

My Response

Either you're not following the argument, or you are deliberately trying to avoid a direct response to it. In either case, Greg, you are making my case here, and I thank you for that. Let's go through the argument one step at a time so I can show you, and all 40,000 of my readers, the error of your ways:

1) You claimed Mary is a sinner. Why? Because Paul says, in Rom 5:12, "All have sinned." The key word here is: "All." You interpret "All" in Rom 5:12 as an absolute that encompasses absolutely all - as in every single - human being. Since Mary is a human being, that would include her. Therefore, you interpret Rom 5:12 as saying, "Mary has sinned."

2) I pointed out to you that in Rom 5:18, which says essentially the same thing as Rom 5:12, the word "all" is used twice. Once to say that one man's sin leads to condemnation for "all," and once to say one's man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for "all." We already know, from what you've said, that "all" means absolutely every single human being who has ever or will ever live. So, if "all" - every single human being who has ever or will ever live - are condemned because of Adam's sin, then "all" - every single human being who has ever or will ever live - are acquitted and given life by Jesus' death on the Cross. I'm just being consistent in interpreting the word "all" in accord with your interpretative methodology.

3) I know you agree that one man's sin leads to condemnation for "all" - every single human being who has ever or will ever live. However, there is a problem with the second "all" in Romans 5:18. It says "all" men were acquitted and given life by Jesus' act of righteousness. Well, if all men are acquitted and given life, and, if once saved always saved is true - and you believe it is - then if "all" means every single human being who has ever or will ever live, as you have defined the word, then Rom 5:18 is saying that by Jesus' death on the Cross, "all" - every single human being who has ever or will ever live - is saved. I mean, that's what it means to be acquitted, right? And that's what it means to have life, right? It's talking spiritual life not physical life. In other words, by Jesus' death on the Cross, there is universal salvation, that is, if "all" really means what you say it means. That's why I asked you about universal salvation. I don't believe in universal salvation. You don't believe in universal salvation. Yet, if we interpret the word "all" as you interpret it - then you wind up with universal salvation in Rom 5:18.

4) "No, no," you say, "these verses are not teaching universalism." And you point to Rom 5:19 which says, "many will be made righteous." "Paul mirrors the thought of verse 18 but now applies it to many individuals...Note that it will not be all, only many." Oh, I get it, so what you're saying is the word "all" isn't necessarily an absolute, right? That it doesn't actually mean absolutely every single human being who has or ever will live. "All" can actually mean "many." Which is exactly the point I was making, Greg. I appreciate you agreeing with me on that account.

But, that doesn't work so well for your argument, does it? Because, just as Paul takes one "all" and turns it into "many," when it comes to those who will be saved, he also takes the other "all" in that same verse (Rom 5:18) and turns it into "many" when it comes to those who have sinned. So, just as "all" are acquitted and given life means "many" - not absolutely every single human being as you had previously interpreted it - are saved; just so "all" are condemned means "many" - not absolutely every single human being as you had previously interpreted it - have sinned.

5) Do you see the parallel Greg? "All" are acquitted = "Many" are saved; "All" are condemned = "Many" have sinned. That is Paul himself saying that. Many does not mean absolutely all. I appreciate you agreeing with me on that. But, if only "many" have sinned, then you cannot assume, as you have done, that Mary has absolutely sinned. Again, you are agreeing with what I have previously stated in regard to Rom 3 and Roman 5:12, that the word "all" is not necessarily an absolute.

6) Which pretty much nullifies all of your proof texts for saying Mary did indeed sin. So, do you yield on that point?

Strategy

Now do you see why I started off asking Pastor Greg whether or not he is seeking God in his life? It's because in order to be "consistent" in his theology, Pastor Greg has to be inconsistent in his interpretations of Scripture. His theology leaves him no choice but to back himself into this kind of corner. "All" is interpreted as an absolute in some places, but it is not interpreted as an absolute in other places, depending, of course, on which interpretation best fits his pre-determined beliefs. And, if he tries to say, "Well, it was Paul himself who said 'all' is actually 'many,'" when it comes to salvation, that won't help him because it was Paul himself who also said 'all' is actually 'many' when it comes to sinners. In order for his theology to be consistent, he has to go so far as to interpret the same word in the first half of a sentence one way, and then interpret it another way in the second half of the sentence (Rom 5:18-19). It's like I always say: ask a question, pay attention to the answer, and then when you ask your second question, their second answer will almost always be inconsistent with their first answer. But, you have to be paying attention and you have to ask the right questions!

Pastor Greg Smith

Commission

John, who are you to judge that “the laying on of hands” that I received when I graduated from seminary was just some formality that I indulged in, and that nothing significant was passed on to me through the laying on of hands. I find your uninformed conclusion judgmental and insulting, especially since you were not even there, nor do you understand. As I mentioned above, godly men laid hands upon me and prayed as a commission going forward. In addition, I am using my spiritual gifts given by the Holy Spirit to pastor and lead the church, obeying God’s command to preach, as commissioned by the elders of my church. At our church we are seeing God’s blessing in the growth of individual lives in a stronger relationship with the Lord. Can we trace my commission back to Peter? No. But maybe that is a problem with the Roman Catholic church in the way it is commissioning its priests and the falling into sexual sin that so many have fallen into.

My Response

Well, Pastor, if what I said is "insulting" to you, all I can say is that you have a pretty low threshold for allowing yourself to be insulted. Besides, I was just basing my conclusion that, as I worded it, "...for you, the laying on of hands was just some formality that you indulged in, but nothing significant was passed on to you through the laying on of hands, right?" on your own words.

Here's what you previously stated: "Our authority to preach comes from the Scriptures alone. Paul wrote to Timothy in II Timothy 4:2 to, “Preach the word.” Pastors are also responsible to teach (I Timothy 3:2, 5:17; Ephesians 4:11), lead (I Timothy 3:5, 5:17), pray (James 5:13 – 16), and shepherd the church (I Peter 5:1 – 4). This authority is delegated by Jesus Christ, the rock, the cornerstone, and the head of the church, directly to pastors and elders. Nothing else is authoritative."

So, if your authority to preach, to teach, to lead, to pray, and to shepherd the church is delegated to you "directly" by Jesus Christ through the Scriptures alone, then what, pray tell, could the "godly men" who laid hands on you pass on to you through the laying on of hands? Did they give you authority through the laying on of hands? Did they give you some spiritual gift? What did they give you through the laying on of hands?

And, if they did give you some sort of authority, what authority could they give you that Jesus could not? Furthermore, from whence does their authority come? In other words, who gave it to them? Which goes back to one of my previous questions: These people who laid hands on you, who laid hands on them, and who laid hands on those people, and so on? How far back in time does the chain of laying on of hands go in your church? You've already admitted that it doesn't go back to the Apostles, so how far back does it go?

Strategy

Again, a contradiction. This is why I ask about where he got his authority from. According to him, he received his authority to preach, teach, lead, pray, and shepherd directly from Jesus, through the Bible. That's where his authority comes from. Yet, there were these men who laid hands on him...why?! What purpose did that serve? Except for those guys that went out and just started their own church - with or without some sort of theology/divinity degree - most pastors have hands laid on them. Again, the question to ask is - why? What authority did the laying on of hands convey? And, more importantly, whose authority did the laying on of hands convey? The authority either came from man, or from God. If it came from man - who cares?! If it came from God, then there should be a chain of laying on of hands that can be traced back to the Apostles - the first Christians to receive authority from God. Authority they then passed on through the laying on of hands. If it can't be traced back to the Apostles, then somewhere in history - maybe 40 years ago, maybe a hundred years ago, maybe 300 or 400 years ago, or maybe even 500 years ago - somewhere in history some man, or group of men, simply gave themselves authority to start a church and started laying hands on others to pass along their man-made authority. That is exactly what is going on in Pastor Greg's case.

Pastor Greg Smith

You brag about the numbers of followers to your newsletter in justifying your role. God is never interested in quantity, but quality, in seeing lives changed, in people growing in their relationship to Christ, or even in coming to salvation in the Lord. If God has given you 5 talents and me 2, do not be prideful about your 5 talents becoming 10 and mine growing to 4.

My Response

Well, as Walter Brennan used to say in the Guns of Will Sonnet, "No brag, just fact." If I was bragging, then you, too, were "bragging," about receiving your gifts and opportunities directly from Jesus through the Bible alone - I mean, wow! And, about getting a doctorate and all - again, wow! I simply shared that I, too, have been given gifts and opportunities by God. And if that is boasting, then I am simply doing what Paul said, "Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord." Because, you see, you speak of feeling the call of God in your heart - which kind of contradicts this directly from Jesus through the Bible alone thing you claim - but I don't claim that God spoke to me in my heart. I simply claim that God opened doors for me and then dragged me through them. I never had a "calling" to be an evangelist or an apologist. So everything good that I have been able to accomplish, is all by the grace of God. If you wish to call that "bragging," you have at it.

Pastor Greg Smith

You ask if you can start your own church? Has the Lord laid on your heart the call to preach, to be a priest? Probably not because you are doing something else that you enjoy. If God wanted you to preach and be a priest, He would provide the opportunity, opening, and especially the training. Keep praying about it if this is truly the call God has laid on your heart. I do not know if you are married or not. I have never understood why priests have not been allowed to marry. The restriction is not in the Scriptures. In fact, since you take Peter to be your first pope, do you not realize that Peter had a wife? Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law. If your first pope was allowed to marry, why are not popes and priests today allowed to marry, following the example of your greatest pope? Perhaps if they did, there would not be all the sexual sin that is in the Roman Catholic leadership.

My Response

What do you know about what I do or do not enjoy? And, sorry, but I don't necessarily go by what "calling" God has laid on my heart. You are apparently unfamiliar with the Scripture that says, "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes," (Prov 12:15). The only capacity of man that approaches the infinite, is man's capacity to fool himself. That's why so much of what you say to me rings so hollow. On the one hand you say "Bible alone," "Jesus alone," yet, on the other hand you say, "I felt...in my heart." You felt. You rely so much on your feelings. You claim it's the Bible you are going by, but it is really just your feelings. You answer to no authority outside of your feelings. "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes."

But, you still didn't answer my question: "May I, according to your theology, start my own church and come up with my own set of doctrines and dogmas, based on my private fallible interpretations of Scripture, that I can then teach to people? Yes or no?" And, just for your sake, let's say that I "feel in my heart" that God is leading me in that direction.

"If your first pope was allowed to marry, why are not popes and priests today allowed to marry, following the example of your greatest pope?" First of all, yes, I know that Peter was married. Secondly, are you not aware that Jesus said, "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven?" And, Paul said, "The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided." Combine those two, and you have the reason priests, in general, are not allowed to be married - so as to better serve the Lord and His people. So, as great an example for a priest as Peter is, Jesus is an even better example.

One other thing, it is very obvious to me that you have nothing more than a rudimentary understanding of Catholic teaching. I would think that, if I were going to comment on another man's faith, I would want to comment intelligently on it, and so I would do a little homework before I said anything. Knowledge about what the Catholic Church teaches, and why, is very easily gained. Ever heard of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? You might want to pick up a copy. I would be glad to send you a copy for free. Even if you disagree with what we teach and why, you ought to at least be familiar with it before you comment on it, don't you think?

Pastor Greg Smith

Apostolic Succession

I will wait for your answer to my many questions before I try to answer your trap.

My Response

Here is an example of what I was just saying about your ignorance of Catholic teaching. This is your stated belief on apostolic succession: "How could there be apostolic succession when the requirement of being an apostle was to be a witness of Jesus Christ and His resurrection. Only the apostles and some (500 at one time) in the first century saw the risen Lord! Apostolic succession ended with the apostles."

Apostolic succession means exactly what it says. There were Apostles, and they appointed others to succeed them and those others that they appointed had authority given to them by the Apostles through the laying on of hands. We call those people successors to the Apostles. We also call them bishops. Apostolic succession does not mean, nor does it even imply, that everyone who succeeds one of the Apostles is themselves an Apostle in the same sense as the Twelve, or as Paul. Those successors may have been disciples who had seen Christ, but that is not a requirement for someone to have authority passed on to them, as we see with Timothy and Titus.

Anyway, apostolic succession is indeed in Scripture, as is the primacy of Peter. I will give you several Scripture citations for each.

Apostolic succession:

1) Matt 28:19-20; Christ tells them to teach and make disciples of all nations. Not possible for the Twelve. Only possible if the Twelve have successors.

2) Acts 1:15-26; we see the Apostles hold offices, or bishoprics (KJV) - the office of bishop. (By the way, do you have bishops in your church?) If the officeholder dies, the office needs to be filled - apostolic succession. We see Judas' office being filled in Acts 1. So, the Bible does have a direct example of apostolic succession.

3) Matt 16:16-19; Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom and in so doing uses almost identical language to Isaiah 22:20-22 where we see God replacing one officeholder - the office of Steward of the Kingdom of David (essentially the Prime Minister of the kingdom) - Shebna, who was "over the household," with another officeholder, Eliakim, who will be a "father" to the house of Judah. Succession.

4) John 21:15-19; Jesus appoints Peter the shepherd of the flock. If the shepherd dies, will the Lord leave the sheep without another shepherd?

5) 1 Tim 3:1 - "office" of bishop. Office denotes succession.

6) 2 Tim 1:13-14, 2 Tim 2:2, Titus 1:5-7, 1 Tim 1:3, 4:11-13 - passing on of apostolic authority.

7) 2 Tim 1:6, 1 Tim 1:18, 4:14, 5:22 - Authority passed on throught the laying on of hands.

Peter as the chief Apostle:

1) Matt 16:19; Peter is the only one given the keys of the kingdom. Keys connote authority.

2) Isaiah 22:20-22 (see explanation above)

3) John 21:15-19; Peter is given the responsibilities of shepherding the flock of Christ.

4) Acts 1:15; "Peter stood up" to decide that Judas was to be replaced.

5) Acts 10; Peter given the vision to open the door for bringing the gospel to the Gentiles.

6) Matt 17; Jesus has temple tax paid for just Him and Peter.

7) Matt 14; Peter is the only one, other than Jesus, who walked on water.

8) Luke 22:31-32; Jesus prays only for Peter and for Peter to strengthen his brethren.

9) Acts 15; Peter ends debate at the Council of Jerusalem and makes the decision regarding the Gentiles and circumcision.

Pastor Greg Smith

Teaching of the Scriptures

If you want to mimic me and add things that I did not say by your so-called “Translation: . . .,” that is fine. I stand by what I wrote. I guess you would prefer that when I write to you, I only quote Scripture. And that would be fine. The problem is, as I have shown above in multiple places, you misinterpret and do not even read the Scriptures. Again, for example, you mixed up and did not understand that Revelation 12 was speaking about Israel and not Mary. You did not realize that it was Elijah who was taken up in a fiery chariot. So, when I respond back to your misinterpretations, I give you the Scripture and try to explain it to you. You rely upon the traditions and misinterpretations of the church, instead of realizing that this is in error. Again, I say to you, and this is my conclusion, not from Scripture, that all spiritual commands that we must obey come from God through the Scriptures alone.

My Response

Nowhere have you shown that I have misinterpreted Scriptures. In fact, I have shown that the opposite is true. Regardless, the best - the absolute best - you can do in regard to commenting on my interpretations of Scripture, is to say that my interpretation disagrees with your fallible interpretation. You cannot say, infallibly and/or authoritatively, that I am wrong - at least, not by your theology which allows everyone to pick up the Bible and interpret it for themselves as they feel led by the Holy Spirit in their heart, right?

And, thank you for admitting that your claim "that all spiritual commands that we must obey come from God through the Scriptures alone," is not in the Bible. But, unfortunately for you, that leads to a contradiction: Would you not consider your statement: "All spiritual commands that we must obey come from God through the Scriptures alone," a spiritual command? Which means, you are wanting me to accept a spiritual command, that you admit, is not from Scripture. You are wanting me - demanding, really - that I accept the word of Greg as if it were the Word of God! What right?! What authority?! Who do you think you are? On the one hand you say that all spiritual truth comes from Scripture, and then here you are trying to pawn off on me a spiritual "truth" that you have come to "by your own conclusion, not from Scripture."

You have a doctoral degree! Do you not recognize the inherent contradictions in the words and beliefs and "conclusions" you have been trying to get me to swallow?! Furthermore, since you have admitted that you are not infallible, will you admit that your non-scriptural "conclusion" could be wrong?

Strategy

Do you see what he is doing? On the one hand: "Everything has to come from Scripture alone." "All spiritual truth is from the Bible alone." "Well, you need to accept my truths, too, as if they were from the Bible." Folks, they will do this every single time! They admit to being fallible in theory, but in practice they act as if they are infallible. Call them on it! This man is trying to get me to gamble the salvation of my soul not on what the Bible says, but on what he thinks the Bible says according to his fallible "conclusions" and his fallible interpretations.

Pastor Greg Smith

Let me try to go further into understanding the truth. I have told you that Scripture is our only true source of knowing the truth from God. We are not under obligation to obeying the traditions of the Roman Catholic church, only the Scriptures. This does not mean that there is no value in church history. We have volumes of writings from the early church fathers, godly men, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, Tertullian, Athanasius, and so many others. There is great value in reading and studying these writings from godly men. I am preaching through the book of Daniel now, and there is great value in the Apocryphal books of Maccabees. There is great value in the writings of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. There is great value in listening to the preaching of Billy Graham or John MacArthur. There is great value in the early church councils of men who studied the sources and the books of the New Testament and declared them to be authoritative. Please understand this John, that all these sources fall under the final authority of Scripture. I am sorry if I did not explain that clearly before. Now, we do not follow everything Polycarp or Calvin wrote. Why? They were fallible. They made mistakes, though not as big of mistakes as popes who promoted indulgences. How do we know that these men made mistakes? We compare what they wrote with what the Scripture says. Scripture is the final and only complete authority.

My Response

Oh my. Other than saying that you do know that all of the "early church fathers" you mention were Catholic, I will focus on one sentence of what you said above: "There is great value in the early church councils of men who studied the sources and the books of the New Testament and declared them to be authoritative."

Are you, or are you not, aware that the "early church councils of men" that you reference, were councils of Catholic bishops? Which means, that you rely on the tradition of the Catholic Church in order to know which books are or are not the inspired Scripture? Yet, just a sentence or two earlier you state that you are "not under obligation to [obey] the traditions of the Roman Catholic church, only the Scriptures." Greg, were it not for the tradition of the Catholic Church, you wouldn't have your Bible. Also, is the canon of Scripture not a spiritual truth? Yes it is. Do we know of it from the Scriptures? No. So, here is another example that proves you wrong - here is a spiritual truth, one that all Christians rely upon, that is not found in the Bible.

There is no list in the Bible that tells us which books should be in the Bible. Which means, we rely on some authority, outside of the Bible, in order to have the Bible in the first place. And, you have admitted that your authority in this instance are these "early church councils of men" - Catholic Church councils.

And, how is it that these "early church councils of men" that decided which books should be in the Bible, fall under the authority of Scripture? Which book of Scripture gives us the list of books that should be in Scripture that these "early church councils of men" could go by? And, besides, what authority did these "early church councils of men" have that allowed them to authoritatively decide on the canon of Scripture? Do you not understand the logical and theological problems you have with so much of what you are saying?

Let me ask you this: Do you know who any of the men at these "early church councils of men" were? And, if you don't know who they were, why exactly is it you trust their decisions concerning the canon of Scripture?

Pastor Greg Smith

Evangelical Protestants compare Scripture with the edicts and traditions of the Roman Catholic church. There are certain doctrines that do not agree with Scripture, and when they do not agree, they are wrong. Scripture is the final authority, not the Roman Catholic church. The Roman Catholic church has misused their religious authority numerous times. Why did Luther finally break away from the Roman Catholic church? The roots of why, found in his 95 Theses, are the sale of indulgences, among many others. This was a Roman Catholic church doctrine authorized by sinful popes, NOT FOUND IN THE SCRIPTURES. Do you agree John? Is it wrong to be able to buy someone’s salvation by giving money to the Roman Catholic church? Of course it is.

My Response

Again, your ignorance of the Catholic Faith is showing. An indulgence has nothing to do with one's salvation. You are also showing your ignorance of history. The Catholic Church has never condoned the sale of indulgences. It is an abuse. Should I judge your church by the actions of those in it who do not obey your teachings?

You stated: "Evangelical Protestants compare Scripture with the edicts and traditions of the Roman Catholic church. There are certain doctrines that do not agree with Scripture, and when they do not agree, they are wrong."

That is absolutely and categorically false! Evangelical Protestants do not compare the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church to Scripture. Rather, they compare the teachings of the Catholic Church to their fallible, man-made, non-authoritative interpretations of Scripture. Big, big difference.

Pastor Greg Smith

I told you about my call to be a pastor. Is that authoritative? No. And you point out the obvious that Scripture does not call my name out. Thank you John for explaining the obvious. But my call is compared to the final authority of Scripture. For example, do I meet the requirements of a pastor as found in I Timothy 3, Titus 1, and I Peter 5? Do I have the spiritual gifts of pastoring and teaching? All of this is compared under the final authority of Scripture.

And John, let’s not get ridiculous before your audience of 40,000 subscribers. I said that all spiritual commands fall under the Scriptures. Do you really think that mathematical and scientific truths, such as 2 + 2 = 4 or Ohm’s Law, fall under the heading of a spiritual truth? Let’s not be dramatic! And by the way, when science conflicts with the Scriptures, as evolution does, then evolution is thrown out. Evolution is a lie from Satan and propagated by Pope Francis when he says that evolution and creation are not at odds (https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/28/pope-francis-comments-on-evolution-and-the-catholic-church). He is wrong. I guess the Roman Catholic church believes this because it discourages taking the Bible for what it says (https://www.uscatholic.org/articles/201508/do-catholics-believe-evolution-30288 ) found in Genesis and other passages of the Scriptures (Exodus 20). If you discourage accepting the Bible for what it says here and there, no wonder you follow the traditions of the church when they disagree with Scripture. The Bible says in Genesis chapter 1 that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. This is confirmed in Exodus 20:11, that man is to work six 24-hour days and rest on the seventh, just as God worked in six days and rested on the seventh – a direct comparison. Do you believe this John? Are you a creationist or are you an evolutionist?

My Response

Here is exactly what you said: "Where else would truth come from [other than the Bible]? There is no other source of truth." "What else is truth [other than the Bible]? Nothing else." "[Man shall live by] Only Scripture. Nothing else."

Sorry if I interpreted "There is no other source of truth [other than the Bible]," as meaning what it says. And, I believe every single word of the Scriptures. Whether I am a creationist or an evolutionist is immaterial in that regard.

And, how, if your call to be a pastor came directly from Jesus through the Scripture alone, can it not be authoritative? So, are you saying that your call to be a pastor might be false? It might be the result of your ego and not the movement of the Holy Spirit in your heart? I mean, who did this call come from if not from Jesus?

Pastor Greg Smith

In conclusion, John, please do not just read over what I have written. Please pray about it. Please study it. Look especially at the cross references from Scripture that I have provided. I hope your audience will at least see that my intent is to show that the Bible is our final authority, and that everything else must be examined to what the Word of God says!

My Response

Oh, I never just "read over" what you have written. As you can see for yourself, I pay very careful attention to everything you write. Every error, every contradiction. And I do pray - I pray for you to be able to recognize that God is not a God of contradiction and your words are filled with contradictions. I pray for you to recognize how often you stray from the Word of God into the word of Greg, yet try to present the word of Greg as the Word of God. I pray for you to submit to the authority of the Church founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. Yes, indeed...I pray.

Closing Comments

Hey folks, I hope this newsletter has been helpful to you - and will be of use to you in your conversations with Protestants. You will rarely find a Protestant who does not make all the same mistakes and fall into all the same contradictions that Pastor Greg has here. You just have to be patient and you just need to ask questions. Hope you have a great week.

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations, or send a check to: Bible Christian Society, PO Box 424, Pleasant Grove, AL 35127. Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter