Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #34

General Comments

For those of you who had those weird and annoying characters pop up in last week’s newsletter, please let me know if this week’s is better. My web guys tell me that we should not have those same problems this week. By the way, the guys I use for my website stuff (Miriam Technologies) are incredible…if you’re ever looking for website help for your business or for anything…just let me know and I’ll hook you up with them.

Upcoming events:

1) I’ll be in Wichita on Feb 17th, speaking at a Conference sponsored by the Catholic radio station there. It will be at the Beech Activity Center. For more information, go to www.kexs.org.

2) In Birmingham, at St. Patrick’s Church on Tuesday, 2/27, at 7:00 PM. Talk: “The Challenge of Being Catholic.”

3) Savannah, TN, St. Mary’s, on March 4th and 5th.

4) Troy State University, Troy, Alabama, 7:00 PM on March 14 @ the Trojan Center.
Ball room A and B.

Introduction

In this issue, I’m continuing the exchange with Matt Johnson. Below is his reply in its entirety, and then his reply with mine mixed in. His words, as usual, will be in italics. Mine will be in bold. However, to aid in distinguishing between the two (because I was having a little problem with the “bold” function), I will set his comments off with his name, “Matt,” and mine with my name, “John.”

Challenge/Response/Strategy

John,

Since you asked some questions in your reply, I will start with those.

You asked: “Are you infallible?”
Response: It would be blasphemous for any person (other than God) to answer “yes” to that question.

You asked: “Who is there who can tell you you’re wrong? Or that you’re right?”
Response: 1 Corinthians 2:10ff. Also, perhaps you have already answered this question indirectly, but I would like to directly turn that question around on you.

You asked: “Do you have the responsibility to teach the truth, the fullness of the truth, to all believers?”
Response: Yes that is, in part, what I am doing right now.

You asked: “Do He [Jesus] and the Father disagree on doctrine? Any doctrine?”
Response: No.

You asked: “Even the so-called ‘non-essential’ doctrines?”
Response: You are the one who introduced the phrase “non-essential” to this dialogue, not me.

You asked: “Did the Apostles disagree on doctrine? Did they teach all kinds of different doctrines to their disciples?”
Response: I believe my approach more accurately represents the way Apollos’
deficiencies were treated by the church than yours (Acts 18:24ff).

You asked: “Have you looked at Protestantism lately”
Response: Protestantism is an attempt to purify or restore the Church to its New Testament design. Surely you understand this as Rome is guilty of attempting the same thing. Does 1054 A.D. ring a bell?

You asked: “Besides, didn’t the Apostles break fellowship with folks who were teaching false doctrines? Well, why don’t you draw the line at the truth? Isn’t that a good place to draw the line?”
Response: It is clever the way you claim to be the one on the side of truth here. I find it interesting that you did not respond to the only two items I brought up as “less significant.” These were the dates that Christmas and so-called Easter are celebrated. Could it be that you recognize that the RC church draws lines that are not always concurrent with truth?

You asked: “Is it discrediting someone’s faith to tell them they’re wrong in some aspect of their belief? Or is that the ultimate in charity?”
Response: Telling someone they are wrong is one thing. If they are wrong and need corrected it is actually an act of grace if truth is spoken in love. Yet you may have misdirected the argument. You seem to have taken your position so far that if someone fails to celebrate Christmas on Dec.
25, then they have fallen from the grace of God and fellowship of the church.

You asked: “Which would you rather have…unity or truth?”
Response: I believe both are achieved through the Word of God.

You Asked: “Didn’t Jesus demand conformity? Didn’t He say the truth will cause division? Didn’t the Apostles demand conformity?”
Response: You seem to be guilty of what one of my theology professors called “proving too much.” The RC church is infamous for this.

You asked: “I have a question: why, if you ‘disagree strongly with many teachings of the Roman Catholic church,’ do you feel excluded from parts of the corporate worship of the RC Church? Isn’t it understandable that if you strongly disagree with many of our teachings, that you would be excluded from certain parts of our corporate worship? I mean, you don’t believe what we believe…particularly the part, the Eucharist, which signifies unity! Why would you want comm-union in the Church if you are not in union with the Church?”
Response: Be careful with that Church with a capitol “C” It is misleading. The RC church chooses to exclude me. I, however, consider the RC church included in the universal Church. I am in union with the Church, whether you recognize it or not. The Church is much bigger than those under the instruction of the Vatican. The Church includes all who are disciples of Jesus Christ.

You asked: “How can you be one with a Christian who believes things about God, about Jesus, about the Church, about Christian teachings and practice, about Christian morals, that you do not believe?”
Response: It is easy, Jesus prayed for me to do this and I intend to be an answer to his prayer.

You asked: How are you one with that person? Are you one with a person who believes in error? Is there room for error in the teachings of the Church founded by Jesus Christ? Is there room for contradictory teachings in the Church founded by Jesus Christ?
Response: There is no excuse and no reason to accept false teaching. It is wrong. It is unacceptable, just like when my son misleads my daughter. Yet at no time do I disown either of them. I believe in absolute truth. I believe that many well meaning Christians, including those in the RC church teach falsely. I also believe in grace. It is time that we recognize that
grace covers not only error in action, but also error in doctrine. We had better pray it does not take perfect theology to get into heaven or to achieve Christian fellowship.

Well, there it is. By my account, we have broached these subjects:
The Spirit’s role in interpreting the Bible; History of the early Church; History of the Roman Catholic Church; Denominations and how they came into existence; Distinction between Christian fellowship and Christian teaching; Absolute truth; Authority of the Roman Catholic church; The Eucharist; Essentials vs. Non-essentials.

Shall we narrow this list?

My point in bringing up everything I have thus far goes back to my first
question, “What do you consider essential to Christian faith?” You responded with the Apostles’ Creed. Would it be fair to say that your first response could be simplified? Instead of the Apostles’ Creed, would it be fair to say that your true essential is papal infallibility?

Grace and Peace,

Matt Johnson

Dear Matt,

My responses are below yours…

Matt: Since you asked some questions in your reply, I will start with those.

You asked: “Are you infallible?”;
Response: It would be blasphemous for any person (other than God) to answer “yes” to that question.

John: Then you do not believe the Apostles were infallible? Also, if you are not infallible, could what you are representing to me as truth, be wrong? After all, you are not infallible…so you could be wrong, right?

Strategies: Again, this goes to the “But That’s My Intepretation” Strategy that I mentioned in last week’s newsletter. He’s not infallible, by his own admission, so why should I believe what he says over what “Rome” says? Or over what Martin Luther says? Or over what John Calvin says? Or over what Dr. Scott Hahn says? Or over what I say? And, if he doesn’t believe anyone is infallible when it comes to interpreting the Scriptures, then the best he can say is that he believes his fallible, man-made, non-authoritative interpretation is better than the next guy’s fallible, man-made, non-authoritative interpretation. He cannot declare the next guy’s interpretation to be absolutely wrong, without contradicting his own position, because he has already admitted (by denying infallibility) that he could be the one who is wrong.

The other thing is, he says that it would be “blasphemous” for anyone other than God to claim infallibility. Yet, he obviously believes those who wrote the Scriptures were infallible, and he also obviously believes that whoever it was that told us which books belong in the Bible was infallible. Paul pretty much claims infallibility in 1 Cor 14:37 when he says that what he is writing a “command of the Lord.” And then we have Luke 10:16 where Jesus says, “He who hears you, hears Me; and he who rejects you rejects Me.” We also have Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 where Jesus gives first Peter and then all the Apostles in union with Peter the power to bind and loose on earth. And, we have 1 John 4:6 which states: “We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” All of those passages speak to the gift of infallibil ity. So, obviously, folks other than just God can be infallible.

Matt: You asked: “Who is there who can tell you you’re wrong? Or that you’re right?” Response: 1 Corinthians 2:10ff. Also, perhaps you have already answered this question indirectly, but I would like to directly turn that question around on you.

John: Are you trying to tell me that you are guided by the Holy Spirit, and, as a result, cannot be wrong? In response to your question, the Church can authoritatively tell me whether I’m wrong or right on a given issue of faith or morals.

Strategies: This is the first instance, of several, in this exchange where he doesn’t answer my question. I asked point blank, “Who is there who can tell you you’re wrong? Or that you’re right?” He answered with 1 Cor 2:10 and following, which is all about the Spirit of God. Which, would seem to contradict his earlier statement that for anyone to proclaim infallibility is blasphemous. Because, if you claim to be guided by the Spirit of God, then either you must be infallible, or you think the Spirit of God can make mistakes when He guides you…which is indeed blasphemous.

Matt: You asked: “Do you have the responsibility to teach the truth, the fullness of the truth, to all believers?” Response: Yes that is, in part, what I am doing right now.

John: Again, though, if you are not infallible, how do you know that you are teaching the truth, and not error?

Matt: You asked: “Do He [Jesus] and the Father disagree on doctrine? Any doctrine?” Response: No.

John: Then do you agree that the Church founded by Jesus Christ cannot have conflicting and contradictory doctrines existing in harmony with one another?

Matt: You asked: "Even the so-called “non-essential doctrines?”
Response: You are the one who introduced the phrase “non-essential” to this dialogue, not me.

John: I’ll take that as a “no,” based upon your answer immediately above.

Matt: You asked: “Did the Apostles disagree on doctrine? Did they teach all kinds of different doctrines to their disciples?” Response: I believe my approach more accurately represents the way Apollos’ deficiencies were treated by the church than yours (Acts 18:24ff).

John: You didn’t answer the question. Did the Apostle’s disagree on doctrine? Yes or no? Your reference to Apollos is not relevant to the question. Apollos wasn’t teaching different doctrines, was he?

Strategies: Again, he avoids answering the question. Sending me off to a scripture passage about Apollos which has nothing to do with the question I asked. If you read Acts 18:24 and following, you read that Apollos was teaching “accurately” (“diligently” in some translations) the things of the Lord. Priscilla and Aquila took him aside and taught him the way of God more “accurately” or more “perfectly.” Nowhere does it say that Apollos was teaching different doctrine…in fact, the Bible records that he was indeed teaching “the things of the Lord.” Can the “things of the Lord” be considered to be different doctrine than what the Apostles taught? Don’t think so. Again, the very popular tactic among folks of not giving a direct answer to a direct question. I have almost come to believe that “yes” and “no” are words that are not often used in the Protestant vocabulary. Why does he have to avoid the question? Because he seems to believe that you can have true unity within the church even if you don’t have doctrinal unity. A belief which I can nowhere find in the Scriptures.

Matt: You asked: “Have you looked at Protestantism lately?” Response: Protestantism is an attempt to purify or restore the Church to its New Testament design. Surely you understand this as Rome is guilty of attempting the same thing. Does 1054 A.D. ring a bell?

John: Protestantism is an attempt to purify the Church? How, by breaking it up into thousands of different groups, each with their own set of doctrines based on the latest and greatest “correct” interpretation of Scripture that someone “guided by the Holy Spirit” comes up with?

Matt: You asked: “Besides, didn’t the Apostles break fellowship with folks who were teaching false doctrines? Well, why don’t you draw the line at the truth? Isn’t that a good place to draw the line?” Response: It is clever the way you claim to be the one on the side of truth here. I find it interesting that you did not respond to the only two items I brought up as “less significant.” These were the dates that Christmas and so-called Easter are celebrated. Could it be that you recognize that the RC church draws lines that are not always concurrent with truth?

John: Again, you didn’t answer the question. Did the Apostles break fellowship with folks who were teaching false doctrine…yes or no? Of course I claim to be on the side of the truth here. Do you not think that you are on the side of truth? Are you saying that I have no right to claim to be on the side of the truth, but you do? Have no clue what you are talking about in terms of the Church and the dates that Easter and Christmas are celebrated. What lines do you believe the Church has drawn that are not “concurrent with truth” in terms of Easter and Christmas?

Matt: You asked: “Is it discrediting someone’s faith to tell them they’re wrong in some aspect of their belief? Or is that the ultimate in charity?” Response: Telling someone they are wrong is one thing. If they are wrong and need corrected it is actually an act of grace; if truth is spoken in love. Yet you may have misdirected the argument. You seem to have taken your position so far that if someone fails to celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25, then they have fallen from the grace of God and fellowship of the church.

John: Please tell me where, in the official teaching of the Church, it says that if someone does not celebrate Christmas on December 25, then they have fallen from the grace of God and fellowship of the Church? I believe there are Orthodox Churches that celebrate Christmas on another date…the Catholic Church does not teach that they have fallen from the grace of God as a result. Talk about a straw man.

Strategies: This is not uncommon for folks to do…bring up something that makes you go, “Huh?!” If he really believes what he’s saying here, then he’s a bit off in his knowledge of Catholicism. Whenever anyone claims the Church does this or that, and it sounds a bit strange to you, ask them to give you a clear reference for what they’re saying…and demand a reference from the Church itself, such as the Catechism…don’t accept a reference from some website somewhere. Accept evidence about Church teaching from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. From the Church. Unlike any other church that I am aware of, the Catholic Church puts its teachings out there for all to see. So, if someone claims the Church teaches this or that, tell them to show you an official magisterial source for their claim.

Matt: You asked: “Which would you rather have…unity or truth?”
Response: I believe both are achieved through the Word of God.

John: Interesting, doesn’t the Word of God Himself say that he came to bring division? Why is that, you think? Could it be because truth causes division? Some believe and some don’t. In other words, if you don’t believe the same thing on doctrines and morals, you cannot have unity. You can not have true unity unless you agree on the truth. You can have the appearance of unity, the appearance of harmony…as we see in many places in Protestantism, but you do not have true unity because they all believe in a different set of doctrines.

Strategies: Again, as in much of Protestantism, what they say sounds kind of good on the surface of it, but once you start asking questions and getting underneath the surface, things tend not to flow together too well. He wants unity among Christians, but this unity of his doesn’t depend on doctrinal unity. Truth appears to be important, but doctrinal unity doesn’t appear to be. Well, I’m sorry, but you can’t have unity without truth. If you don’t have doctrinal unity, you don’t have truth. So, if you don’t have doctrinal unity, you don’t have unity…at least not when it comes to Christianity. Yet, everything he believes is supposedly based on the Word of God. But, when you read through the New Testament, can you can find a place where it was okay to not have doctrinal unity within the church?

Matt: You Asked: “Didn’t Jesus demand conformity? Didn’t He say the truth will cause division? Didn’t the Apostles demand conformity?” Response: You seem to be guilty of what one of my theology professors called “proving too much” The RC church is infamous for this.

John: Again, you didn’t answer the questions.

Matt: You asked: “I have a question: why, if you ‘disagree strongly with many teachings of the Roman Catholic church,’ why do you feel excluded from parts of the corporate worship of the RC Church? Isn’t it understandable that if you strongly disagree with many of our teachings, that you would be excluded from certain parts of our corporate worship? I mean, you don’t believe what we believe…particularly the part, the Eucharist, which signifies unity! Why would you want comm-union in the Church if you are not in union with the Church?”
Response: Be careful with that Church with a capitol “C.” It is misleading. The RC church chooses to exclude me. I, however, consider the RC church included in the universal Church. I am in union with the Church, whether you recognize it or not. The Church is much bigger than those under the instruction of the Vatican. The Church includes all who are disciples of Jesus Christ.

John: Again, you didn’t answer the question. The Church does not exclude you. Everyone who believes as we believe, everyone who is in union with the Church (the RC Church), is welcome to participate in the Eucharist. If you do not believe as we do, then you would be a hypocrite and a liar to receive Communion in our Church. When you receive Communion in our Church, you are stating with your body that you believe as we believe. If you don’t, and you receive anyway, then you are a liar and a hypocrite. Again I ask, why do you want to participate in a ritual that you do not believe to be what we believe it to be?

Also, do you check what you write for logic? You consider the Catholic Church as part of the universal Church. You consider yourself in union with the universal Church. Yet, you are not in union with the Catholic Church. How can the Catholic Church be “included in the universal Church,” if you are in union with the universal Church, but you are not in union with the Catholic Church? That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. And, if the Church includes all who are disciples of Christ, then are you saying that doctrine doesn’t matter in this universal Church of yours? Or, maybe doctrine doesn’t matter when it comes to being a disciple of Christ? Which is it?

Matt: You asked: “How can you be one with a Christian who believes things about God, about Jesus, about the Church, about Christian teachings and practice, about Christian morals, that you do not believe?” Response: It is easy, Jesus prayed for me to do this and I intend to be an answer to his prayer.

John: So, you believe you can have unity without truth. Seems to contradict what you said above.

Matt: You asked: “How are you one with that person? Are you one with a person who believes in error? Is there room for error in the teachings of the Church founded by Jesus Christ? Is there room for contradictory teachings in the Church founded by Jesus Christ?”
Response: There is no excuse and no reason to accept false teaching. It is wrong. It is unacceptable, just like when my son misleads my daughter. Yet at no time do I disown either of them. I believe in absolute truth. I believe that many well meaning Christians, including those in the RC church teach falsely. I also believe in grace. It is time that we recognize that grace covers not only error in action, but also error in doctrine. We had better pray it does not take perfect theology to get into heaven; or to achieve Christian fellowship.

John: Again, you didn’t answer the question. Can you be one with someone who believes in false doctrine…yes or no? It takes truth to get into Heaven (John 8:32). Are you not aware that you can leave the faith by believing in the doctrines of demons? You say its wrong to believe in false doctrines and that there is no excuse for it…yet, you seem to also be saying that you can believe in false doctrines and still be saved? Where does the Bible say that? And, if I can believe in false doctrines and still be saved, then why are you trying to teach the truth, as you see it, to me? I’m saved anyway, am I not?

Regarding disowning…again I ask, did the Apostles disown folks who believed in false doctrines or not? Besides, the Church disowns no one. They disown themselves. Regarding Christian fellowship, Catholics fellowship with non-Catholic Christians all the time. Do you contend that we don’t?

Matt: Well, there it is. By my account, we have broached these subjects: The Spirit’s role in interpreting the Bible; History of the early Church; History of the Roman Catholic Church; Denominations and how they came into existence; Distinction between Christian fellowship and Christian teaching; Absolute truth; Authority of the Roman Catholic church; The Eucharist; Essentials vs. Non-essentials.

Shall we narrow this list?

My point in bringing up everything I have thus far goes back to my first question, “What do you consider essential to Christian faith?” You
responded with the Apostles’ Creed. Would it be fair to say that your first
response could be simplified? Instead of the Apostles’ Creed, would it be
fair to say that your true essential is papal infallibility?

John: No, it wouldn’t be fair to say our true essential is papal infallibility. Papal infallibility is a gift that allows us to know what is the spirit of truth and what is the spirit of error. You say one can know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error on any given doctrine by simply picking up the Bible and reading for themselves to authoritatively decide for themselves what is true doctrine and what is false doctrine. Show me where the Bible says anything of the sort? Because of papal infallibility, we have a sure guide in being able to distinguish truth from error. We rely on the Church. You rely on yourself. And, furthermore, your theology gives everyone else the right to rely on themselves. The problem is, what happens when Pope Matt’s interpretation of a verse differs from Pope Sally’s interpretation? Or Pope Jimmy’s interpretation? Or Pope Bubba’s interpretation?

Grace and Peace,

Matt Johnson

In Conclusion

As always, your comments are welcomed and all will be read. And, as always, if you like what you read, if you’re learning something from it, please tell others about this newsletter (or just forward a copy to them) and please let them know about all the free apologetics materials available at our website (www.biblechristiansociety.com). Thanks!

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: