Apologetics for the Masses - #281

Topic

Which Church Did Jesus Found (cont'd)...

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

1) I'll be on the radio today (Monday) from 2:00 - 3:00 PM (Central; 3:00 PM Eastern; 12:00 PM Pacific; 7:00 PM GMT) if anyone wants to call in with questions and comments. The number to call is: 800-565-9396 in the U.S. or Canada. From any other country the number is: 1-205-271-2985. If you don't have Catholic radio in your area, you can listen to the program at www.ewtn.com - click on "Radio" and then "Listen Live." You can also listen to EWTN through the iHeart radio app. You can also watch the show live on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/user/EWTN

2) I want to thank all of the people who came out to Holy Family Cathedral in Tulsa this past Wednesday night to hear me speak. Beautiful Cathedral, awesome priests, great crowd...all in all a wonderful evening!

3) If you ever need a speaker for an event at your parish or a conference in your area, let's talk!

Introduction

This is the third part of my response to an article by Michael Fackerell that was sent to me by a Catholic who is a prisoner at a penal institution here in Alabama. He was wanting help with how to respond to it as a Protestant prisoner had given it to him as proof of the falsehood of Catholic teaching. To read the 1st part of the article, and my response to it, click here: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/352-apologetics-for-the-masses-279. The middle part of the article, along with my response to it, can be found here: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/353-apologetics-for-the-masses-280.

I will continue with the last section of the article in this newsletter. I will follow standard procedure and print all of his material first, and then comment on it paragraph by paragraph.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Michael Fackerell Article

Which Church Did Jesus Found (cont'd)

Did the Gates of Hell Prevail Against the Church Christ Built?

The reasoning of the Roman Catholic church is circular on this point, because they assume and do not prove from Scripture that Jesus was describing their system as “His church”. Their point would be powerful if they could prove that at some point in history there were no disciples of Christ who did not acknowledge the bishop of Rome as their supreme pontiff. However, history just doesn’t support this view. The supremacy of the roman bishop indeed rose because of the political power of Rome as the capital of the empire, but there were always groups of Christian disciples who did not hold to the doctrine of the papacy. The doctrine of the papacy wasn’t really spelled out until the time of Gregory the Great in any case, in the 6th century.

The Eastern Orthodox church, for all its weaknesses, doubtless did include many true believers in Christ, and the schism which was formalised in the 11th century between Rome and the Orthodox church based principally at Constantinople reflected a major difference in opinion concerning the authority of roman bishops that had been going on already for centuries. At that time the pope and the Patriarch at Constantinople basically excommunicated each other because of their differences – a natural outcome of their common rejection of the Word of God as their highest and supreme authority. For their man-made traditions had evolved in different directions and because of this neither could accept the other as truly being of God.

Apart from this, I’m sure there were many Christian churches, such as the Celtic churches in the British Isles and many nameless faceless Christian groups with no political power who enjoyed the life of Christ without seeing the pope as their spiritual Father. (Incidentally Jesus himself taught against the use of the word “father” as a spiritual title for men (Matthew 23:9). I have never heard any reasonable Roman Catholic explanation on why this verse has been apparently abrogated in the favor of popes and priests!). In the middle ages various groups such as the Waldeneses, the followers of John Huss, Wycliffe and others were faithful believers in Christ and suffered cruel persecution for their stand against the roman catholic tyrants of the day.

Furthermore there were obviously people in the Roman Catholic system itself who, for all their loyalty to the pope, had a revelation of the true Christ and were truly the Lord’s children. A shining example of Christian discipleship was St. Francis of Assissi. Whichever way we look at it, the church was not utterly defeated by Satan at any time although obviously there were some pretty dark moments.

God has always had a faithful remnant, and today they number in the hundreds of millions – a fact for which we may praise God. Truly the gates of hell have not overcome the true church of Christ. Believers in Christ are more than ever on the increase today and with the increase of knowledge that is upon us today there is no way that we will ever return to the Dark Ages where men just simply did not have access to the Bible in their own language to check out things for themselves.

I hope it is noticed that I am not arguing that all believers who identified with Rome were not real Christians. I am sure that many Roman Catholics today are true born again Christians. But this is true in spite of, not because of, the teaching of the Roman Catholic church.

If Matthew 16:16-19 does not mean what the Roman Catholic church says it means, then what does it mean? We can get plenty of valuable truth out of Matthew 16:16-19. Firstly, God the Father Himself revealed to Peter the true identity of Jesus as being the promised Messiah, or Christ – the one whom God sent to save the people from their sins. Secondly, this had nothing to do with the fact that Peter saw Jesus physically as a man. This makes this kind of revelation available to us also. It is timeless. Thirdly, Peter confessed with his mouth the revelation which he received from God the Father. Fourthly, Jesus pronounced a blessing on Peter on account of this revelation of who Jesus was.

We too will be blessed if we received from God a true revelation of who Christ is and then confess Him before others. The surest way to open yourself up for such a revelation is to read the Bible for yourself with an open heart and mind. The Bible says, “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9). If you have not done this I urge you to believe the teaching of this Scripture here and begin to openly confess Jesus Christ as your Lord and Master in all you say and do.

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

Michael Fackerell

Which Church Did Jesus Found (cont'd)

Did the Gates of Hell Prevail Against the Church Christ Built?

The reasoning of the Roman Catholic church is circular on this point, because they assume and do not prove from Scripture that Jesus was describing their system as “His church”. Their point would be powerful if they could prove that at some point in history there were no disciples of Christ who did not acknowledge the bishop of Rome as their supreme pontiff. However, history just doesn’t support this view. The supremacy of the roman bishop indeed rose because of the political power of Rome as the capital of the empire, but there were always groups of Christian disciples who did not hold to the doctrine of the papacy. The doctrine of the papacy wasn’t really spelled out
until the time of Gregory the Great in any case, in the 6th century.

My Comments

There is no circular reasoning here on the part of Catholics. The fact that we do not "prove from Scripture" (at least, not in Mr. Fackerell's fallible opinion) that Jesus was describing our system as "His church" in Matthew 16:16-19 is irrelevant to the point we make about the gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church. Here's the argument. The Catholic Church claims, and offers ample evidence to back up the claim, that it can historically trace it's line of authority back to the Apostles and, specifically, back to the Apostle Peter, the holder of the keys - as given to him by Jesus in Matthew 16. Since we can give historical evidence to show that it is indeed our church that was founded by Jesus Himself, and that it has existed since the time of the Apostles, and that the authority of the keys has been passed down from one Bishop of Rome to the next, then if you claim that the Catholic Church went off the rails at some point in time, you are claiming that the Church Jesus founded went off the rails, which means, when Jesus said the gates of Hell will not prevail against His church, He must have been wrong. We do not just "assume" that the Catholic Church is the original church founded by Jesus, we give strong evidence - historical and scriptural - to support that claim. So, again, there is no circular reasoning here.

On Mr. Fackerell's part, however, there is indeed circular reasoning. He simply assumes that the Catholic Church is not the original church founded by Christ, and so then the Catholic argument regarding Matthew 16:18 does not apply. Poof! His problem is solved. Did he "prove" from the Bible that the Catholic Church is not the church founded by Jesus? No. Did he even attempt to do so? No. Which means he has one standard for the Catholic Church to live up to, but that standard does not apply to him. That is called hypocrisy. Does he "prove" from history that the Catholic Church is not the church founded by Jesus? No. Did he even attempt to do so? Well, sort of. But it's a pretty pathetic attempt, as you'll see below.

And, regarding Scripture, let's look at just some of the arguments that the Catholic Church can make to back up its claim to be the one true Church founded by Christ. In the Scriptures, we see that the Church founded by Jesus had an ordained priesthood that was set apart from the rest of God's people for a special role in matters of worship. We see this from Jude 11 and Numbers 16:1-40, as I discussed at length in Issue #278 of this newsletter - http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/admin/newsletters/350-apologetics-for-the-masses-278 (Korah's Rebellion and Protestantism). The Catholic Church has such a priesthood, Mr. Fackerell's church does not.

We see that the Church of the Bible had a rite of anointing the sick with oil (James 5:14), that was done by not just anyone, but by the elders of the Church - the bishops and the priests. The Catholic Church has such a rite, done by the elders, Mr. Fackerell's church does not. We see that the Church of the Bible laid hands on people to ordain them and to set them apart (Acts 6:6; 1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim 1:6). I don't know if Mr. Fackerell's church has such a thing, but the Catholic Church does.

We see that the Church of the Bible calls councils to decide doctrinal disputes (Acts 15:1-29). The Catholic Church has done that for centuries. Mr. Fackerell's church has not. We see that the Church of the Bible has one man that Jesus appointed to be the shepherd over all of His flock (John 21:15-17). The Catholic Church has that man, Mr. Fackerell's church does not. We see that the Church of the Bible has men in it who were given the power to forgive the sins of others on earth, or to retain the sins of others (Matt 9:6-8; John 20:21-23). The Catholic Church has such men, Mr. Fackerell's church does not.

The Church of the Bible was given the authority to bind and loose things on earth that are simultaneously bound and loosed in Heaven and to authoritatively decide matters of dispute between Christians (Matt 16:18; Matt 18:15-18). The Catholic Church has exercised such authority for 2000 years. Mr. Fackerell's church has no such authority. The Church of the Bible had men who could speak infallibly on Jesus' behalf (Luke 10:16). The Catholic Church has such men, Mr. Fackerell's church does not.

So I ask: Where is the scriptural "proof" that the Catholic Church is not the Church of the Bible? I have given scriptural descriptions of the Church of the Bible and I have shown that the Catholic Church fits those descriptions. Is that "proof"? No. But it is strong evidence. What will Mr. Fackerell offer as rebuttal? Were he to respond to this, he would give us his "opinion," based on his fallible interpretation of this or that Scripture passage, that the Catholic Church is wrong on this or that teaching. He cannot, however, provide sound biblical descriptions of the Church of the Bible that do not apply to the Catholic Church. He can't.

Now, let's look at his argument that: "Their point would be powerful if they could prove that at some point in history there were no disciples of Christ who did not acknowledge the bishop of Rome as their supreme pontiff."

This is a ridiculous argument. We see, in the Bible, that from the very beginning of the Church there were heresies and heretics, schisms and schismatics. Would Mr. Fackerell make the same point about Jesus? Would he have ever argued this: "Their point about Jesus being both man and God would be powerful if they could prove that at some point in history there were no disciples of Christ who did not acknowledge Him as both man and God" - ever hear of the Arian heresy? Besides, where in the Bible does it say that in order to prove you are the true Church founded by Jesus Christ that every one who claims to be Christian has to acknowledge the head of your Church? If that is a requirement for a church to "prove" it is THE church founded by Jesus Christ, then that means the true church founded by Jesus Christ no longer exists on this earth - if it ever did. Because there is no church, denomination, non-denomination, faith tradition, etc. whose head - whose pastor - can pass that test. Which means, Jesus was indeed wrong in Matt 16 when He said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church. Because His church - according to the test devised by Mr. Fackerell - does not exist.

Finally, let's take a look at his argument about the doctrine of the papacy not being "spelled out" until the 6th century. First of all, let's consider that doctrines were taught orally - without being "spelled out" in writing - quite often for centuries. It was often the case that a doctrine wasn't "spelled out" until it was challenged. The doctrines concerning the Trinity, for example, weren't "spelled out" until the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. 300 hundred years after Jesus died. Does that mean they are invalid doctrines...that they aren't really authentic Christian doctrines? Well, according to Mr. Fackerell, that is indeed what it means.

However, the fact of the matter is, the doctrine of the papacy was "spelled out" many times by many Church Fathers, beginning with Clement of Rome in the first century and continuing with many others - Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian of Carthage, Eusebius, Augustine, and many more too numerous to mention here. All before the time of St. Gregory the Great. I could give numerous quotes to support my claim, but I will offer two that should suffice to prove Mr. Fackerell as being utterly wrong on this count:

"...by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the traditions and the faith which comes down to us after having been annoucned to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition." St. Irenaeus, "Against Heresies," late 2nd century.

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance." St. Cyprian of Carthage, "Letter of Cyprian to Cornelius of Rome," 252 A.D.

Apostolic succession of Peter; Rome as the primary bishopric in Christendom; the "chair of Peter;" unity of all the faithful through Rome; infallibility - do you think Mr. Fackerell has ever bothered to research this issue? I doubt it. Both of those quotes obliterate the contention of Mr. Fackerell that the doctrine of the papacy did not come about until the 6th century. Either he is ignorant of all of the evidence to the contrary, or he simply chooses to ignore it.

Michael Fackerell

My Comments

Where is the evidence for Mr. Fackerell's contention that the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople both rejected the Word of God as their "highest and supreme authority"? And, how could there be "many true believers in Christ" in the Eastern Orthodox church if those believers accepted the doctrines and dogmas of the Eastern Orthodox church, which would have included - according to Fackerell - rejecting the Word of God as their "highest and supreme authority"? There are so many contradictions inherent in what Fackerell says all throughout this article, but his reasoning is so shallow on all of these points, that the contradictions never occur to him.

Furthermore, never has the Catholic Church "rejected the Word of God" as its "highest and supreme authority." If Mr. Fackerell could offer any kind of evidence of this, I would like to see it. He's very free with his accusations, very stingy with his evidence. Here is the official teaching of the Catholic Church on the authority of Scripture vis-a-vis the authority of the Pope and the Bishops (the Magisterium): "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from the single deposit of faith [the Word of God]." Catechism of the Catholic Church, #86.

The Catholic Church regards the Word of God as THE highest authority in all matters. Mr. Fackerell is making a false accusation here. Besides, Mr. Fackerell doesn't actually regard the Word of God as the highest authority, he regards his fallible, man-made, non-authoritative, non-binding, personal interpretation of Scripture as the highest authority. I can agree with the Word of God, but if I disagree with Mr. Fackerell's interpretation of it, then he condemns me to Hell. He has done exactly what he accuses the Catholic Church of doing - he has elevated his own private fallible interpretation of the Word of God, above the Word of God.

Michael Fackerell

My Comments

Did you catch the problem with his comments here? He is sure there were many Christian churches, "such as the Celtic churches...who enjoyed the life of Christ without seeing the pope as their spiritual Father." Would that be the Celtic churches that came into existence because of St. Patrick, who converted Ireland, and many in England, to the Catholic faith and who was sent there to do so by the Pope? Those Celtic churches? Must be, because there weren't any other Celtic churches at the time.

And please notice the whole of his evidence of the existence of these non-papal Celtic Christian churches consists of: "I'm sure..." He is sure of this. Isn't that nice. What makes him so sure? Well, we have no idea. But, he's sure. Always, always be on the lookout for statements like this. No evidence whatsoever to back up the claims being made. Just opinions. "I'm sure..." "It's my belief..." "It seems..." Anything that follows those statements, and other similar types of statements, that reflect negatively on the Catholic Church is nothing more than biased personal conjecture that usually contains no basis in history, common sense, or logic - not to mention Scripture.

Now, regarding his comments about "call no man father." Notice first what he does: He claims that Matt 23:9 is about the use of the word "father" as a "spiritual" title for men. But, when you read Matthew 23:9, does it say, "Call no man your spiritual father on earth...?" No, it says, "Call no man your father on earth." Makes no distinction between spiritual father and biological father. So, Mr. Fackerell has "interpreted" what it means for us. That's why I claim he puts his fallible interpretation of the Word of God as a greater authority than the Word of God itself. That's the first problem with what he says. The second problem is, if Mr. Fackerell has interpreted Scripture correctly, then why did Stephen, the first Christian martyr - right before he was martyred - use the word "fathers" as a spiritual title for men (Acts 7:1-2)? Why did Paul use the word "fathers" as a spiritual title for men (Acts 22:1)? Why does Paul use the word "father" as a spiritual title for Abraham in reference to the Gentiles (Rom 4:11)? Did Paul and Stephen not know they shouldn't do that? Or, possibly...just possibly...is Mr. Fackerell's interpretation wrong? We're left with the choice - either Paul and Stephen were wrong to say what they said, or Michael Fackerell is wrong in his interpretation of Matt 23:9. Which would you go with?

One other thing, make note of the fact that all of the "faithful believers in Christ" that he cites - Waldenses, Huss, Wycliffe - what do they have in common? Well, they all have in common that they broke off from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, in other words, was in existence before all of these others - yet, Mr. Fackerell claims it is not the original Church founded by Christ.

Michael Fackerell

My Comments

Isn't that nice of him to say that there were "obviously" some Catholics who were really Christian, in spite of their loyalty to the Pope - such as St. Francis of Assisi. Again, though, how can one be a true Christian and be loyal to the Pope if the Pope has placed himself above the Word of God, as Fackerell claims? This is, once again, a contradiction. St. Francis believed, and taught, all that the Catholic Church believed and taught. If the Catholic Church is a false church, then St. Francis could not have been a true Christian. And, if St. Francis could believe all that the Catholic Church believes, including obedience to the Pope, yet still be a true Christian, then any other Catholic who believes all that the Catholic Church teaches could also be a true Christian. Which makes Fackerell's rant against the teachings of the Church completely meaningless.

One more point here, he appears to be acknowledging the "Roman Catholic system" as the "Church."

Michael Fackerell

My Comments

He is correct that the gates of Hell have not overcome the true church of Christ. That is because, though, the Catholic Church is still here. He apparently does not understand the argument being made. If there were no longer a Catholic Church, then the gates of Hell would have prevailed against the church Jesus founded. By the way, how does he know that God has "always had a faithful remnant"? The only examples of the faithful remnant that he has given were either Catholic or former Catholic. And, how does he know that the "faithful remnant" numbers in the "hundreds of millions" today? Where does he get his numbers from? What criteria does he use to judge someone as being a member of the "faithful remnant" or not? And who exactly is deciding the criteria for faithful vs. unfaithful? Mr. Fackerell?

He states that the "dark ages" were those times when men did not have the Bible in their "own language" so they could "check things out for themselves." Turns out he is speaking, once again, of things about which he knows not. The Bible was indeed available early on in the native tongue of most countries where the message of Christ was taught. This is attested to by none other than the Preface to the King James Bible - "...most nations under heaven did, shortly after their conversion, hear CHRIST speaking unto them in their mother tongue, not by the voice of their Minister only, but also by the written word translated..." (You can read the entire Preface here: https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm.) So, he is on the wrong side of historical fact once again.

And, let me ask, do you realize how Fackerell once again contradicts his own arguments with what he says in this paragraph? Think about it for a moment before reading further. What were the "dark ages" according to Fackerell? That time when men did not have the Bible in their own language. Well, who was it, according to Mr. Fackerell's implication that kept men from having the Bible in their own language? The Catholic Church. So, on the once hand, it was the Catholic Church, during the Dark Ages - early Christianity up until the times of Wycliffe and Tyndale and Luther - that had kept the Bible out of the hands of "true Christians," but on the other hand, the Catholic Church, along with its papacy, was not the original church founded by Jesus and apparently did not come into existence as we know it today until the 6th century. How could a church that didn't exist for the first 500 years of Christianity have kept the Bible out of the hands of men all over the world? Can't have it both ways, Mr. Fackerell.

Michael Fackerell

I hope it is noticed that I am not arguing that all believers who identified with Rome were not real Christians. I am sure than many Roman Catholics today are true born again Christians. But this is true in spite of, not because of the teaching of the Roman Catholic church.

My Comments

Again, quite the magnanimous fellow, isn't he? He is allowing that there could indeed be Roman Catholics who are true Christians, in spite of the teachings of the Catholic Church. That is so nice! But, again, how is that possible? If the teachings of the Church are false, then how can anyone who believes them be a true Christian? Or, is he talking about people who call themselves "Catholic," yet reject the teachings of the Catholic Church? That would mean that the "true Christians" in the Catholic Church are the frauds and impostors who "say" they are Catholic, yet reject Catholic teaching. Essentially, the liars and hypocrites in the Catholic Church are the only ones who could be the "true Christians." Hmmm.... Furthermore, who is he to judge Catholics as being true or false Christians? What authority has been given to him to make such judgments?

Michael Fackerell

My Comments

Really?! That's the extent of his penetrating analysis on Matthew 16:16-19? No comparison of Jesus' words in Matthew to what was said in Isaiah 22:15-25? No mention of Jesus changing Peter's name - which is rarely done in Scripture - from Simon to Peter, which means "rock"? No mention of the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic and in Aramaic Jesus would have said, "Thou art Kepha [rock] and upon this kepha [rock] I will build my church?" This thing that happened with Peter is simply like any other revelation any one of us might get from God? Really?!

Michael Fackerell

My Comments

Mr. Fackerell goes by the Bible alone. And he purports to tell everyone they should do the same. So, where in the Bible does it say that "the surest way to open yourself up for such a revelation" is to read the Bible for yourself with an open heart and mind? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you shouldn't read the Bible with an open heart and mind (which Mr. Fackerell apparently does not do). All I'm saying is that Fackerell puts a lot of things out there that cannot be found directly in the Bible and he states them in a seemingly "infallible" manner. He wants to think what he says is straight from the Bible, when actually it is straight from Mr. Fackerell, with only Mr. Fackerell's authority behind it.

Here, and elsewhere above when he talks about the "Dark Ages" being the time when men did not have the Bible in their own language so that they could "check things out for themselves," he is implying that each and every person who can read the Bible is an authority on the Bible unto themselves. They need not answer to any authority outside of themselves for their interpretation of the Bible - as Mr. Fackerell certainly does not. They need no guide. Yet, in Scripture, we see that having a guide in order to properly understand Scripture, is scriptural. Acts 8:30-31, "So Philip...asked, 'Do you understand what you are reading?' And [the Ethiopian eunuch] said, 'How can I, unless some one guides me?'"

Finally, I always find it fascinating that folks like Fackerell talk a good game about everyone being able to read and interpet Scripture for themselves, but if you read Scripture and interpret it on your own, and come to a conclusion about what this or that passage says that differs from Fackerell's interpretation...well, then you are going to Hell. It's not so much Sola Scriptura as it is Sola Fackerell.

Closing Comments

I know a number of you have sent copies of these last few newsletters to Michael Fackerell, but I have not heard anything from him. Now that I have his email address, I'll go ahead and send something to him as well to see if he wants to come out to play...

I hope all of 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!