Apologetics for the Masses #362 - An Objection to My Last Newsletter

Dear John,

     I received your latest newsletter, “Apologetics for the Masses #361 - A Few Questions,” and I am afraid you are incorrect in a couple of your statements. One person wrote in asking about your use of the phrase, "tens of thousands times tens of thousands." You corrected this person by saying what you actually said was “tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of Evangelical and non-denominational denominations.” This is incorrect. You are apparently counting each and every single local church congregation as a denomination. A single church does not make a congregation. Many of those churches belong to a specific denomination. That lowers the number significantly. Non-denominational churches are just that, non-denominational. They do not represent a denomination, they are not affiliated with a denomination, and they are, by definition, not a denomination and so cannot be counted. That lowers the number of denominations even more significantly. So, as you can see, your statement regarding this is very much incorrect.

 

My Response

     First of all, let me correct his “quote” of my remarks: I did not say “tens of thousands of Evangelical and non-denominational denominations.”  My exact words were: “tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of Protestant denominations and non-denominations.”  There is a difference between the words “Protestant” and “Evangelical”.  Evangelical denominations are a subset of Protestant denominations.  I.e., all Evangelical denominations are Protestant, but not all Protestant denominations are evangelical.
     Secondly, Robert is incorrect when he says that I am counting each and every single local church congregation as a denomination.  I thought I was pretty clear as to what I am counting - there are denominational churches (e.g., Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.), independent churches, non-denominational churches, mom and pop churches, evangelical churches, etc.  I  count a denomination as any church that answers to no higher earthly authority other than themselves.  
     I mean, what is a denomination?  A denomination is nothing less than a division within Christianity.  So, a denomination is made up of one or more persons and/or one or more individual churches that answer to no other earthly authority than their own.  They are an independently operating segment of Christianity with its own authority structure and/or its own set of doctrines, dogmas, moral teachings, and practices.  And, yes, a denomination can be a single independent church, and it can even be a single individual, if that church or individual considers itself or himself to be the sole authority for determining doctrine, morality, and practice for that church or individual.   
     “Non-denominational churches are just that, non-denominational,” Robert says.  Well, I don’t care what they call themselves - independent, evangelical, non-denominational - they are still a division within Christianity that answers to no one other than themselves.  They are a denomination/division of Christianity.  
    So, no, my statement regarding this is not “very much incorrect.”

 

Robert T. - Objection

     Furthermore, you make the claim that you “doubt a single one of them could trace their church back more than 100 years.” This is only correct in the sense that you doubt it. Historically speaking, there are congregations in America that can trace their congregation back to the founding of America, and some to even before that. But again, the subject is denominations, not individual congregations as I have already shown. There are only five foundational denominations in the United States. They are the Presbyterian, the Lutheran, the Baptist, the Anglican, and the Pentecostal denominations. Virtually all of the denominations (of which there are many, but certainly not tens of thousands upon tens of thousands) sprang from these four foundational denominations. Therefore, they can each trace their roots back to the founding of these denominations.

 

My Response

     This is where it is useful to pay attention to what you are reading so that you do not reply to arguments that were never made.  Robert here acts as if I said there is no Protestant denomination that can trace its beginnings back more than 100 years.  But, that is not what I actually said.  I said that I doubt a single one of the “Evangelical and non-denominational churches” could trace their church back more than 100 years.  I know there are a number of Protestant denominations that are more than 100 years old - Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.  In other words, the traditional mainstream Protestant denominations.
     However, for the evangelical and non-denominational churches, that is quite a different story.  Most of these have their roots in Protestant fundamentalism and broke from that movement in the 1930's, 40's, and 50's.  Oh, there are probably a few that might claim that their church was founded in the 1800's, but that would be rare, as Robert himself essentially admits in his next paragraph.  

 

Robert T. - Objection

     The Pentecostals cannot trace their roots back legitimately any further than the Azusa Street Revival in the early 20^th century. About 100 years ago. Some of their core teachings and practices find their roots in the early heresy of Montanism and Pelagianism. So as far as the Pentecostal denominations, I would say you are correct. The Baptists can trace their roots back to Menno Simmons and the Anabaptist movement. The Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Anglicans can trace their denomination back to the Protestant Reformation (not “Deformation” as you put it – be careful, your bigoted biases are showing).

 

My Response

     If I have a "bias," it is a bias against error and in favor of the truth.  The Protestant “Reformation” is called the Protestant “Reformation” because of the success of early Protestant propaganda.  The Reformation, so-called, did not reform Christianity in any way, shape, or form - as Martin Luther himself lamented.  All it did was rupture and divide Christianity and unleash the anarchical forces of individual interpretation of Scripture that have led to the tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of Protestant denominations that we have today and eventually led to non-Christian religions such as Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostalism, and such, and even, ultimately, led to the widespread increase of atheism.  
     Think about it - first the authority of the Church and the Pope was rejected.  Then the authority of tradition was rejected.  Then the authority of the various pastors and denominations was rejected as more and more rips appeared in Protestantism.  All of this allowed the Bible to be interpreted as any individual saw fit to interpret it, without regard to what anyone else says, leading to the rejection of traditional doctrines and morality and ultimately to the rejection of the Bible as the Word of God, leading, finally, to the rejection of the authority - and the existence - of God by a whole lot of people.  
     So, yes, I will call it the Protestant Deformation because it deformed, not reformed, Christianity.

 

Robert T. - Objection

     That being said, however, the Reformation did not start with Luther and Calvin and Simons. The Reformation actually began about a century before them with Hus and Wycliffe, and even before that with the Waldensians. While it is true that each group held to some beliefs that may or may not be questionable, they all had essentially the same core foundational beliefs that can be traced back to the Apostles. Therefore, the roots of these denominations can be traced back to the Apostles.

 

My Response

     I always get a kick out of Protestants who say they can trace the roots of their denomination back to the Apostles.  Yes, they can, because the original Protestants, along with the Waldensians, Hus, and Wycliffe were all originally Catholics.  So, most of what they believe as Christians - the Trinity, the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible, the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, Heaven and Hell, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, sin, redemption, whatever Sacraments they may have, etc. - can indeed be traced back to the Apostles...through the Catholic Church.  But, what about Sola Scriptura?  Sola Fide?  Once Saved Always Saved?  The Rapture?  Can those be traced back to the Apostles?  Absolutely not.  They are nowhere to be found in the writings of the Church Fathers.
     In other words, the teachings of the Catholic Church that they did not reject, those roots of their denominations can be traced back to the Apostles.  Everything else?  Not happening.

 

Robert T. - Objection

     You then make some claims about the Bible. You begin by telling your readers to ask a Protestant “if they go by the Bible alone. When they say, ‘Yes,’ ask them how many books the Bible they go by has.” As many Romanists do, you conflate Sola Scriptura with Solo Scriptura. At least that is what your statement appears to imply and what it seems to lead up to. Protestants do not hold to Solo Scriptura (or only the Bible and nothing else), but Sola Scriptura (or the Bible alone as the final authority. In other words, any teaching or belief that contradicts God’s established word is a false teaching).

 

My Response

     I am well aware of the “supposed” difference that some Protestants will try to make between “Solo” and “Sola” Scriptura and have treated this difference between the two in a previous newsletter -  Apologetics for the Masses #232 - but I will take a brief moment to mention it again here.
     Essentially the difference between “Solo” Scriptura (which, by the way, is bad Latin) and “Sola” Scriptura is a distinction without a difference.  Let’s look at Robert’s definition of the two: Solo Scriptura (or only the Bible and nothing else) vs. Sola Scriptura (or the Bible alone as the final authority. In other words, any teaching or belief that contradicts God’s established word is a false teaching).
     Why is this a distinction without a difference?  First of all, the folks who make this distinction actually argue with me as if Scripture is indeed the only authority on matters of faith and morals.  In other words, they may talk about other types of authority in Christianity besides Scripture, but when it comes down to arguing matters of doctrine with Catholics, what do they do?  They tell the Catholic that if it isn’t found in Scripture, then it can’t be an authentic Christian belief.  I have never, ever, had a Protestant appeal to the authority of the Church, or to a Church Council, or to tradition, or to one of the Ecumenical Creeds to tell me I was wrong.  Never!  
    Secondly, think about it: What these folks are saying is that Scripture is not the only authority, but if whatever other authority the are talking about doesn’t agree with Scripture in what it teaches, then it is not truly an authority.  I.e., Scripture is, ultimately, the sole authority in matters of doctrine, dogma, and morality.  Yes, pastors have the authority to buy a new refrigerator for the church’s kitchen, and the Board of Deacons has the authority to hire and fire the pastor, and such; but, when it comes to faith and morals, Scripture is indeed the sole authority.  So, no, I am not “conflating” Solo and Sola Scriptura.

 

Robert T. - Objection

     You state that until the Protestant Reformation there was “no such thing as a Bible with only 66 books.” Again, this is untrue. The canon as recognized by Protestant churches is the same canon recognized by the early Church. Nothing has changed for us since the canon was closed with the writing of the Book of Revelation. We accept the same books that Melito accepted, that Origen accepted, that Athanasius accepted, and all the early church accepted up until Augustine and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage added the Apocrypha to the canon. And not everyone accepted Apocrypha, not even in the Roman church, at least until Trent when the Roman church made the Apocrypha officially part of the canon. But that’s another issue for another time.

 

My Response

     Robert said, “The canon was closed with the writing of the Book of Revelation.”  Oh, really?  Who closed it, Robert?  By what authority was it closed?  Can you give me a date for when the canon of Scripture was closed?  Can you give me the name(s) of the person(s) who closed it?  Can you give me book, chapter, and verse of the Bible that says the canon is closed after the writing of the Book of Revelation?  
     And, please, don’t try to tell me that Rev 22:18-19 shows that the canon was closed.  For one thing, how do you know Revelation is the inspired Word of God?  Who told you that?  Secondly, as you should know, Revelation was written as a separate book (it was on a scroll, actually), and there was no such thing as the Bible as we have it now when Revelation was written, so when it says not to add to or take away from “this book,” it is talking about the Book of Revelation, not the entire Bible.  There is a similar passage in Deuteronomy 4:2 about adding to or taking away from the Word of God; yet, a whole bunch more was added to the Word of God.  So, if you interpret Rev 22:18-19 as not adding anything else to the Bible as a whole, then you have a problem with Deut 4:2.
     Now, regarding Robert’s statement: “The canon as recognized by Protestant churches is the same canon recognized by the early Church...We accept the same books that Melito accepted, that Origen accepted, that Athanasius accepted, and all the early church accepted up until Augustine and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage added the Apocrypha to the canon.”  
     Lot of problems with that statement: 1) Why do you accept the authority of certain individuals - all of whom, by the way, were Catholic (Melito and Athanasius were bishops) - but not the authority of two councils of the Church?  2) Do you accept the Book of Esther as part of the canon?  I hope you said, “No,” because you said you accept Melito’s canon and Melito did not accept the Book of Esther.  So, do you accept Melito’s canon or not?  3) Origen considered 2nd Peter and 2nd and 3rd John to be disputed books.  So, much for “all the early church” accepting them, huh?  Do you consider them to be "disputed" books?  4) Athanasius considered Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, and Baruch to be a part of Scripture.  Do you have those books in your Bible?  5) The Muratorian Fragment - 175 A.D. - leaves out James, Hebrews, 3 John, and 2 Peter, but it does include the Apocalypse of Peter.  Eusebius - the first Church historian - identifies James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2nd and 3rd John as “disputed books”.  St. Hilary included Tobit and Judith in his list of the canon.  
     All of that is to say it would seem there wasn’t the consensus you speak of in the “early church” regarding the canon.  Books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament were disputed.  Books that are not now in the Bible were sometimes considered to be part of the canon.  Who ultimately decided which books were, and were not, part of Scripture?  Who had the authority to do such a thing, Robert? 

     So, there was no such thing as a 66-book Bible in the early Church.  The Protestant Bible (66 books), did not come about until Martin Luther threw out 7 books of the Old Testament that all Christians, everywhere, considered to be inspired Scripture from the late 4th century on - i.e., after the Church had made an authoritative ruling on the matter to settle the disputes about the canon.

 

Robert T. - Objection

     So you see, history, common sense, and reality all show your comments to be incorrect. I hope you will see fit to change your incorrect commentary on the Bible as it appears in this newsletter.

     Yours in Christ,

     Robert T.

 

My Response