Share on
Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #149
General Comments
I hope all of you are doing well, and that you are starting to see hints of the change in seasons that is fast approaching. We’ve had a record string of 90+ degree weather here in Alabama this summer – I think it was something like 45-50 days in a row. Cause? Global warming, of course. And, in South America, I think it was in Bolivia, they had record cold temperatures this winter that resulted in massive fish kills in the rivers and such. Cause? Global warming, of course. Hey, makes sense to me…
If we apply the kind of logic and common sense that we should be using in apologetics, to this global warming hysteria, we can sift fact from fiction much more readily. The earth is always either warming or cooling, that is a fact. But, which way it is going right now and what the cause is, seems to be the subject of more fiction right now than fact.
Just my two cents worth, but the point is, use logic and common sense to analyze everything that is put in front of you – from the Bible claims of Protestants, to the claims of the high priests and priestesses of global warming, to the claims of politicians and news anchors, and so on.
Introduction
Well, Mr. Gendron did indeed send another reply to me. And, he actually answered some of the questions I asked…I’ll have to give him credit for that. I guess I’ll have to change from thinking that he won’t respond to my emails, to thinking that he might respond, although not in a comprehensive manner, as you’ll see below.
Anyway, below is his response to the last email I sent him (which you can read in the last newsletter). It seems I have caught him, as you will see, in some scriptural/theological contradictions, which I hope he will endeavor to explain away if he responds again. The more they talk on one specific subject, the more trouble they get into.
His response is in full, and then I repeat his response with my comments intermingled.
Challenge/Response/Strategy
John,
I think if you would look at the Scriptures apart from your Catholic indoctrination, you would be able to see what God has revealed (2 Cor. 3:16).
Sincerely,
Mike Gendron
———————————————————————————————————————————————————
Mike Gendron
John,
Well, thank you for being honest enough to admit that your interpretations of Scripture are fallible and, therefore, that your interpretations of Scripture could be wrong. Which means you also admit that my interpretations of Scripture could be right. I have run across very few of your Evangelical brothers and sisters who will actually admit such a thing in such a direct manner.
I find it very interesting, however, that you “have confidence” that you have believed the true Gospel. That’s not quite the same as “absolute assurance” is it? Yet, do you not believe that you have absolute assurance of salvation? And do you not rail against Catholics who do not, in your opinion, have assurance of their salvation as you define it?
Yet, how can you have absolute assurance of salvation, when the foundation of your belief in this absolute assurance is your own admittedly fallible interpretation of the Bible? How can you say you have “absolute assurance” of salvation, when that belief is based on a “fallible” interpretation that “could be wrong” and in which you have only some subjective degree of “confidence?”
You say that you “have confidence” in your interpretations because you have been studying the Scriptures for “30 years now.” Well, I have a great deal of confidence in my interpretations, too, and I have been studying the Scriptures for some 20 years now. Does that mean anything to you? I doubt it. So, why should it mean anything to me that you’ve been studying the Scriptures for 30 years now? Besides, I put my interpretations of Scripture to the test by comparing them to the interpretations of the Church which has been studying Scripture for some 2000 years now. Do you submit your interpretations of Scripture to the judgment of any church, or do you just go with them based on your own authority?
Now, speaking of fallible interpretations of Scripture, let’s look at this whole “legal declaration” business that you’ve pulled out of Heb 10:14. Heb 10:14, "For by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." You claim this refers to justification as being a “legal declaration.” Uhm…exactly where does it say that? Being “perfected” doesn’t really mean being perfected, it simply means being “legally declared” innocent? So, you are simply declared innocent, but not really made innocent, eh? If that is the case, then how can you be said to be a “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15)? You’re not really a new creation, you’re just “legally declared” a new creation, right? And, how can this mere legal declaration of innocence be described as the “washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,” (Titus 3:5) when you weren’t really washed or regenerated or renewed? Does that mean you were “legally declared” washed and regenerated and renewed?
And, in Matt 5:48, where Jesus tells us to “be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect,” what He is really saying is for us to “be legally declared innocent, therefore, as your heavenly Father is legally declared innocent?” And why in 2 Cor 13:9 is Paul praying for the “perfection” of the Corinthians if they’ve already been perfected? They’ve already been legally declared innocent, or “perfected” according to your fallible interpretation, so why is Paul still praying for them to be perfected if that word means what you think it means. Have you ever seen “The Princess Bride?” “You keep on using that word and I dunna think it means what you think it means.”
In 2 Cor 3:18, it states, “And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into His likeness from one degree of glory to another.” Why does it say we are being “changed into His likeness from one degree of glory to another,” when all that has happened is that we were “legally declared” innocent? No, Mike, we are not merely declared innocent in some legal mumbo jumbo manner, God actually makes us innocent through the power of His Word.
So, we see that your fallible interpretation of Heb 10:14 that leads you to develop this fallacious “legal declaration” claptrap is really not a very scripturally-consistent interpretation of that verse, is it?
One last comment on your 1st paragraph. You said that Jesus is the “only infallible teacher the world has ever known.” So, the Apostles were not infallible teachers? Peter and Paul did not teach the Christian faith infallibly? They may have taught error? James and John and Andrew did not teach the Christian faith infallibly? Yet, did Jesus not send the Holy Spirit to teach them unto “all truth” (John 16:13)? Did the Holy Spirit fail to do His job? And, if the writers of the books of Scripture were not infallible in their teachings, then how can you say that the Bible is inerrant? There could be mistakes in them if the writers were not infallible, right?
Mike Gendron
Spurious works are works done before justification/conversion, for self glory and not for the glory of Christ. Ted Turner can give a billion dollars to charity but since he has never been converted to Christ, it is a spurious work. Obviously it is not a sin to give money If, as you say, sin is what is purified in Purgatory this is inconsistent with your belief.
Now, regarding these spurious works that you claim are what is being spoken of in 1 Cor 3:13-15, you haven’t really thought this through before, have you? The spurious works that are burned up are, according to you, those “works done before justification/conversion.” Yet, according to the Bible, the works that are being burned up are works that were built upon the foundation “which is Jesus Christ.” Oops. You have just stepped into a theological pile of Martin Luther, Mike. Look at verses 11 and 12: “For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble…”
Can someone “build on the foundation which is Christ before their conversion, Mike? No, they can’t, because they don’t have Jesus Christ as their foundation. So, these “spurious works” that are being burned up cannot be works done “before justification/conversion,” can they? This passage is referring to the works – good and bad – of believers, Mike. These works are works done after “justification/conversion,” not before, otherwise they could not have been said to be built on the foundation which is Jesus Christ! Besides, do you think the “spurious works” of an unbeliever could be described as gold, silver, and precious jewels? Not to mention the fact that, as you have pointed out previously, Scripture says that God remembers our sins no more after our conversion. So, you believe He doesn’t remember our sins but that He does indeed remember our spurious works? If that is the best you can do after 30 years of studying Scripture, Mike, then may I suggest that you might want to re-think this whole depending on your own fallible private interpretation model that you are using.
Finally, you still haven’t answered the questions about where and how these “spurious works” are burned up in fire? Where does that take place, Mike, and exactly what is the nature of this fire?
No, you have not shown anything inconsistent with my belief, Mike, rather you have shown your belief to be wholly inconsistent with the very clear meaning of Scripture in this passage. So, again, here are the questions for you:
1) Do you wish to retract your statement that the “spurious works” that are burned in the fire are done “before justification/conversion?” If not, please explain how the spurious works of unbelievers could be built on the foundation which is Christ Jesus and how these works could ever be described as being gold, silver, and precious jewels.
2) Where does this burning up of works as through fire take place?
3) What is the exact nature of the fire that burns away these “spurious works?”
Mike Gendron
I think if you would look at the Scriptures apart from your Catholic indoctrination, you would be able to see what God has revealed (2 Cor. 3:16).
John Martignoni
Actually, Mike, I started truly believing the teachings of the Catholic Church after I started my serious study of Scripture, not before. After I came back into the Church in my early thirties, I was a Catholic who was probably a lot like you. I was ignorant of much of what the Church taught and why it taught it. And, I disagreed with certain things I did know the Church taught. I was a Cafeteria Catholic, picking and choosing what Church teachings I accepted and what ones I did not accept. Only after a serious study of Scripture did I come to believe that the Catholic Church was right in all of its doctrinal teachings on faith and morals. I saw verse after verse, passage after passage, that fit perfectly with Church teaching and which countered my own fallible opinions. Before reading Scripture I doubted the Church in a number of areas. Not so after reading Scripture. So, you cannot say that I believe as I do because of my "Catholic indoctrination." I received no such indoctrination.
You are the one who has been deceived by your Protestant indoctrination, Mike. You were taught the Bible said certain things that it does not in fact say. But, your pride has blinded you to that fact. You don’t want to admit that, as a Catholic, you were actually very ignorant of Catholic teaching and that now, as a Protestant, you have rejected the true Church founded by Christ and the truth of its teaching. Yet, just look at the disaster of an interpretation you have made of 1 Cor 3:11-15, Mike. Your interpretation that these works spoken of are the "spurious works" of unbelievers before they are "justified/converted" is ridiculous given the actual words contained in those passages. Your private fallible interpretation of Scripture is a bust. And, let me remind you once again, that the very fact that you admitted that your beliefs are based on your fallible interpretations of Scripture and that you can indeed be wrong in your interpretations, means that you cannot have "absolute certainty" of your salvation, Mike. Truly, think about that. I actually have more assurance of my salvation than do you. The path you have chosen, Mike Gendron, is a path that is not in accord with the Word of God and I admonish you to turn from it for the sake of your immortal soul.
In Conclusion
Gendron has really dug himself a hole with this whole “spurious works” thing from 1 Cor 3:11-15. I’m tellin’ ya, folks, you get these guys talking, and you pay attention to what they say, and it doesn’t take them long to twist themselves into knots of theological absurdities.
I hope all of you have a wonderful Labor Day weekend!
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:
