Apologetics for the Masses - #279

Topic

Which Church Did Jesus Found?

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

If you did not sign up for this newsletter and you would like to be removed from our distribution list, just click on this link: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe, then enter the email address that this newsletter comes to and click "Unsubscribe." 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 http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and put your email address in the box at the top of the page. Either way, it will take you about 10 seconds.

General Comments

Hey folks,

A few things before we get to the newsletter:

1) Thank you to all of you who called in to be a part of my OpenLine radio program that we taped this past Monday. If you want to listen to it, it will be aired this coming Monday from 2:00 - 3:00 PM Central (7:00 - 8:00 PM GMT). You can listen by going to www.ewtn.com, clicking on the "Radio" tab, and then "Listen Live." To all of you who tried to call but got either a busy signal or the phone just kept ringing but was never answered - my apologies. It seems that so many of you tried to call in that they just couldn't handle the volume. So thank you to you, as well!

2) The call ins were so successful, and the questions were so good, that it occurred to me that giving you guys the opportunity to call in each week would be a very good thing. So, I am going to continually remind you that if you would like to call in to my OpenLine program to ask me a question, you can do so by calling 1-800-585-9396, which is toll free in the U.S. and Canada. From outside the U.S. or Canada, the number to call in the U.S. is: 1-205-271-2985. If you are calling from outside the U.S. or Canada, your calls get moved to the front of the line. As I mentioned above, I'm on every Monday afternoon from 2:00 - 3:00 PM Central time (3:00 - 4:00 PM Eastern; 12:00 - 1:00 PM Pacific; 7:00 - 8:00 PM GMT). Although, this Monday's program is pre-recorded due to the Memorial Day holiday, so don't call this Monday.

3) A reminder about my being in Tulsa on June 8th. I'll be at Holy Family Cathedral. I believe my talk starts at 6:30 PM, but you might want to check with the Cathedral to make sure.

Introduction

I received a letter from a Catholic prisoner in the Limestone Correctional Facility here in North Alabama. The letter contained an article that he had received from a fellow prisoner who is Protestant. The article was written by a guy named Michael Fackerell who, near as I can determine, is some sort of non-denominational pastor in Australia. The Catholic prisoner was asking for help on how to respond to this article. So, what I thought I would do is answer this article through my newsletter. Fackerell's article is too long to print here in its totality, so I am going to break it up into a few chunks and respond to it over the next few newsletters. The first part of his article is a presentation, as he sees it, of Catholic belief regarding tradition and Peter and the papacy. I'll print that first part in its entirety and then respond to it paragraph by paragraph.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Michael Fackerell Article

Which Church did Jesus Christ found?

A concerned Roman Catholic wrote to me, "...we cannot only look at the Bible without looking at the tradition of the Church. It says in scripture (2 Thess 2:15) "Stand firm in the teachings passed on to you by WORD and in letters." So we must also look at the teaching of the Catholic Church which Jesus began. In the purity of the faith, is there any other Christian church, group, or otherwise that has had the same teachings since the time of Jesus? The Traditions (foundational teachings of the church) of the Catholic Church have been the same since the days of the apostles and nothing has been changed since then. The traditions (small t - or in other words the way things are done) have changed and can continue to change (married priesthood, the language the Holy Mass is celebrated in, etc.)." And later he writes: "If Peter is not the Rock then why did Jesus call him such, and then say on this rock I will build my church?"

I believe it is really important to address these issues, because the question of religious authority is fundamentally important. Who or what truly speaks for Christ? Many claim to represent Christ today, and the contradictory claims have caused a great deal of confusion in the world.

The Roman Catholic church does not claim to be merely one valid expression of the Church which Christ founded. It claims to be the church which Christ founded. It claims that it has faithfully preserved the Traditions given to us by Christ and the apostles, which, although not written in the Scriptures of the New Testament, have equally binding authority upon all who wish to enjoy God's favor.

The biblical foundation for these ideas is derived from the Roman Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:16-19: "And Simon Peter answered and said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal [this] to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'" (NASB).

Roman Catholics understand this as follows: When Jesus said, "this rock" he meant Peter. Therefore Peter is the rock upon which the true church of Christ is built. Peter was to receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, giving him the authority to make authoritative decrees concerning doctrinal truth, tradition, practice, and to exclude or include people from the Kingdom of Heaven. Peter was therefore the first pope and as bishop of Rome he passed the keys onto a successor, Linus (the second pope). The keys were passed in this way from pope to pope and the full authority of Christ Himself has always been invested in the pope. It follows therefore that anyone not submitting to the pope is in rebellion against God.

Roman Catholics are taught that the Catholic church headquartered at the Vatican in Rome is the only true church. Many believe that salvation is only to be found in the Catholic church. In the Roman Catholic worldview, the Bible derives its authority from the Church, not the other way around. The Bible is seen as just another Tradition of the church - one that was written down. From this viewpoint, any attempt to use the bible to show the errors of Catholic tradition is a misuse of the bible - because it is only really the official living teaching organ of the Church which correctly interprets the true meaning of the Bible.

Roman Catholics argue on the basis of history and Christ's words that the Catholic Church must be the church of which Jesus spoke, since he promised that "the gates of hell would not prevail against (or overpower) it." It is clear enough that the view of the Reformers was not the general view of the church during the dark and middle ages. This is seen as proof enough that Jesus was in favor of the views of the Church at this time. To deny this would be to imply that somehow the gates of hell did prevail against the church, which would be a contradiction of Jesus' own words on the subject.

I invite any Roman Catholics who feel I have misrepresented the Catholic viewpoint in the above paragraphs to email me on this, because it would not be fair on my part to attack a "straw-man" - a misrepresentation of the official Roman Catholic position.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Fackerell

Which Church did Jesus Christ found?

My Comments

It seems the "concerned Roman Catholic" who wrote him had some pretty good questions to ask. I particularly like the question about "...is there any other Christian church, group, or otherwise that has had the same teachings since the time of Jesus?" What do you think the odds are that Mr. Michael Fackerell will answer that question? Will Mr. Fackerell, at any point in his article, respond to 2 Thes 2:15? We'll have to wait and see. And why did Jesus call Peter "Rock" if Peter is not the rock? Like this "concerned Roman Catholic," we need to always ask questions of those who disagree with what the Church teaches. We'll see how Mr. Fackerell responds to these questions as we go through his article paragraph by paragraph.

Michael Fackerell

My Comments

Aye, there's the rub...authority. Mr. Fackerell correctly pinpoints the main issue here...as it is in all disagreements between Christians on matters of doctrine...the question of religious authority. And he rightly states that it is "fundamentally important." "Who or what truly speaks for Christ?" he asks. Amen! Many do in fact "claim" to represent Christ today, but if they are making "contradictory claims," then how do we know which of these folks "truly speaks for Christ"? I have to give him kudos for honing in on the central issue here. But, again, I have to ask - what are the odds that he will actually try to answer his own question? You see, here's the thing: he's not going to attempt to answer his own question because implicit to his system of theology is the fact, as he sees and believes it, that HE truly speaks for Christ. His interpretation of the Bible is THE correct interpretation of the Bible and anyone and everyone who disagrees with him - especially Catholics - are putting their own souls in danger of eternal damnation!

Now, of course, he won't make that direct claim. He will say something along the lines of: "Oh, no, I am not infallible. I make no claim that I have it absolutely right on everything pertaining to religion and the Bible." He will say that, yet he will act as if he is right on everything pertaining to religion and the Bible. I call it being fallible in theory and infallible in practice. He believes his interpretation of the Bible is way better than other folks' interpretations of the Bible, especially if those other folks are Catholics. That's why he can write an article like this one where he is slamming Catholic belief and practice and the way Catholics interpret the Bible. So, keep this particular paragraph of Mr. Fackerell's in mind as we go through and examine the rest of his article.

Michael Fackerell

My Comments

He is indeed right, the Catholic Church does not claim to be "merely one valid expression of the Church which Christ founded." It is THE Church which Christ founded, in its fullness. I essentially agree with what Fackerell has written here about the Catholic Church. But, it is what he is implying here that I wish to take a closer look at. First of all, he is implying that his church, whatever church that may be, is "merely one valid expression of the Church which Christ founded." "Merely"? Who would want to be a part of a church that claims to be "merely" one valid expression of the Church which Christ founded?

Secondly, what the heck does that mean? How many "valid" expressions of the Church which Christ founded are there? How many can there theoretically be? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? And what does a "valid expression" of the Church Christ founded look like? Who defines what is or is not a "valid expression" of the Church which Christ founded? Does Michael Fackerell decide such things? Obviously he does, because he has decided that his church is indeed merely one valid expression of the Church which Christ founded while the Catholic Church is not. What is this coming down to? The question of authority. Who gave Michael Fackerell the authority to be able to definitively decide such things? And, since he goes by the Bible alone, where in the Bible does it mention anything about various churches or various faith traditions being "merely one valid expression of the Church which Christ founded"? I wish he would give us book, chapter, and verse on that.

Now, let's really consider the question of how one defines a "valid expression" of the Church which Christ founded. For example, does every "valid expression" of the Church which Christ founded have correct doctrine? If not, then how could it be considered a "valid" expression of the Church? I mean, can one valid expression believe in once saved always saved while another valid expression does not? Can one valid expression believe in the Rapture while another valid expression does not? Can one valid expression believe in baptismal regeneration while another valid expression does not? In other words, can one "valid expression" of the Church which Christ founded have doctrinal teachings that contradict the doctrinal teachings of another "valid expression" of the Church which Christ founded?

And what about moral teaching. Does a "valid expression" of the Church which Christ founded have to have correct moral teaching? I mean, could one valid expression believe in same sex "marriage" while another valid expression does not? Could one valid expression believe in contraception while another valid expression does not? What about divorce and remarriage? Could two expressions of the Church which Christ founded disagree on the morality of divorce and remarriage and both be "valid"?

What I'm getting at here, is this: Can a valid expression of the Church which Christ founded contain error in its teachings on faith and morals? I would think not, since the Church was founded by Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit. But, with so many apparent "expressions" of the Church which Christ founded being out there, and with so many contradictory teachings among them as to what are true and correct doctrinal and moral teachings, how does one tell which of these are "valid" expressions and which are not? I guess we have to rely on Mr. Michael Fackerell to tell us, right?

Do you see the can of worms he has opened up here. The funny thing is, he doesn't even realize the implications of what he is saying. And the reason he doesn't realize the implications, is because he has a very shallow theological system. He hasn't thought it through. And he hasn't thought it through because he just assumes that he is right in all of his interpretations of the Bible...he just assumes that he "truly speaks for Christ." And if you disagree with him on this, then you obviously do not truly speak for Christ. I love it!

Folks, you have got to always analyze what is being said to you. Look below the surface. Look for the implications of what they are saying. Look for the contradictions in their theological systems. Analyze, and then ask questions, as I would be if I were to get into a direct conversation with this man.

Michael Fackerell

The biblical foundation for these ideas is derived from the Roman Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:16-19:

"And Simon Peter answered and said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal [this] to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'" (NASB).

My Comments

I agree in part with his description of Catholic belief here. I disagree on these two points:

1) He states that the "biblical foundations for these ideas [about the Church, Tradition, and authority] is derived from the Roman Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:16-19." Technically, that is not correct. I would ask Mr. Fackerell this question: Which came first, the Church or the Bible? The Church existed before the Bible - at least the New Testament portion of the Bible - did. So, the Catholic belief and understanding of "these ideas" about the Church and Tradition and authority existed before Matthew was ever written. So it is not technically proper to say that these beliefs are "derived" from a particular passage of the Bible when the beliefs existed before that book of the Bible was ever written. It can be said that that passage of the Bible supports our beliefs on those subjects, but not that our beliefs are derived from that passage.

Now, it can be said that our beliefs are based on and derived from what Jesus said to Peter, which was recorded in Matthew 16, as well as what He said at other times to Peter and the other Apostles; but, again, it is not exactly proper to say they came from the Bible. The deposit of faith - the beliefs of our faith - was handed on to the Apostles by Jesus Christ orally. These beliefs were first passed down by the Apostles to their successors, the bishops, orally. That's why Paul tells Timothy (a bishop), "What you have HEARD from me before many witnesses ENTRUST to faithful men who will be able to TEACH others also." (2 Tim 2:2). The passing on of oral tradition. Notice, nowhere did Paul tell Timothy, "Make sure everyone has their own copy of the Scriptures so that they can decide for themselves what is true or not."

It was only after some years had gone by that parts of the oral tradition originally given to the Apostles by Jesus started to be written down. That's a long way to say that the Bible reflects the beliefs of the Catholic Church, but our beliefs are not "derived" from the Bible. We can have the Church without the Bible, but we cannot have the Bible without the Church - I doubt Mr. Fackerell would agree with that, but it is historical fact.

2) In his last sentence he says, "It follows therefore that anyone not submitting to the pope is in rebellion against God." I would say that anyone who is aware of Catholic teaching on the Pope and who summarily rejects it is, in essence, in rebellion against God as he would be knowingly refusing to accept the authority that God has given to the Church and has placed over him. Those who are ignorant of Catholic teaching on this matter cannot be said to be "in rebellion" against God as much as they are simply ignorant of what God has done. Their ignorance could excuse them or possibly accuse them on their day of judgment (Rom 2:14-16).

Michael Fackerell

My Comments

Salvation is only to be found in the Catholic Church. I'll bet that Mr. Fackerell would agree with me when I say that salvation is only to be found in Christ. Well, the Church, the Bible tells us, is the Body of Christ. So, if salvation is only found in Christ, and the Church is the Body of Christ, then it can be said that salvation is found only in the Church. Now, you may disagree with me, as Mr. Fackerell does, that the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ, but we are being biblically consistent in our belief on this matter.

I would also disagree with Fackerell's statement that, "In the Roman Catholic worldview, the Bible derives its authority from the Church, not the other way around." That is not entirely correct. The Bible derives its authority from the fact that it is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God. However, the Bible is recognized as being the Word of God, only because of the witness of the Church. The Bible was written and compiled by the Church - it did not write itself. It's authenticity was witnessed to by the Church. Furthermore, Mr. Fackerell's statement implies that he believes the authority of the Church is derived from the Bible. Well, how can that be if the Church existed before the Bible? Is Mr. Fackerell saying that the Church had no authority until the books of the New Testament were written? The Church had no authority for the first 15 or 20 years or more of its existence? That is indeed what he is saying. Again, this is an instance of Mr. Fackerell not really thinking through what he is saying. His theological system has all kinds of holes in it. The problem is, he's never done a very deep examination of what he believes and why he believes it. That's the same with most Protestants. That's why it's your job to ask them questions...

Michael Fackerell

My Comments

Essentially he has this part right. We, as Catholics, do indeed argue on the basis of history and Christ's words that the Catholic Church is the church Jesus founded and of which He spoke. And it is most certainly true that the Deformers did not hold to the teachings of the Church of the 1500's. Let's see if Mr. Fackerell will also argue his point on the basis of history as we go through his article.

Michael Fackerell

My Comments

I want to congratulate Fackerell on his desire to accurately portray the teachings of the Church. That is something that is rather rare these days among Protestants like him. So, on that, I again give him kudos. The question is, though, if a Catholic did email him, with corrections like the ones above, would he actually adjust and correct his represenation of Catholic beliefs? No email address was attached to the article that I was given, or else I would email him with these corrections. If any of you wish to look him up and are able to get an email for him, feel free to send this newsletter to him.

Closing Comments

I'll continue with more of my analysis and commentary on Michael Fackerell's article next week. I hope all of you have a very good Memorial Day weekend. And please pray for the repose of the souls of all those who have died in service to our country.

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!