Apologetics for the Masses #409: A Protestant Answers Some Catholic Questions

Social Media - Please Share This Newsletter On...

Please click one or more of these links to share this newsletter with folks on the various social media platforms you frequent...thanks!

Topic

Continuing the dialogue with a fan of Dr. James White

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter

General Comments

Hey folks,

The world has gone crazy. Men can declare themselves women. Women can declare themselves men. There are apparently something like 40+ genders. By the way, what the hell is Latinx? You can pay someone to literally rip the baby out of your womb piece-by-piece, but it's a crime to smoke while you're pregnant...it might hurt the baby. Conservatives are guilty until proven innocent...and then they're still guilty. Liberals are innocent until proven guilty...and then they're still innocent. Masks don't work. Masks work. Until they don't. Vaccines work. Until they don't. Lockdowns work. Until everyone goes crazy. Or until they don't. The government can spend $1.5 trillion dollars, but it won't cost anyone a penny. Liberals believe in free speech. Until you say something they don't like. Then they believe in gulags. The Latin Mass is banned in Rome. And, the Crimson Tide is only ranked #2. Absolutely bizarre world we are living in.

So, what to do about it? I have an answer for you - use the upcoming seasons of Advent and Christmas to grow in holiness and to help you realize that, in spite of how insane things might seem at times...God is still on His throne. And therein lies our hope.

Introduction

This week I am continuing my conversation with Cary L., who is a fan of Dr. James White and who took me to task for ripping apart some of Dr. White's arguments on the papacy and Peter as the first pope as found in White's book: The Roman Catholic Controversy. Cary was just about to back out of the dialogue, claiming that I had already made up my mind about things - as if he hadn't - and therefore I was "monologuing" not dialoguing - as if he wasn't. Well, I guess my response to his withdrawal from the dialogue/monologue got under his skin enough that he decided to step back into the ring and make an attempt to answer the questions I had asked him. Which is where we left off in the last newsletter.

So, I will repeat those questions, along with his answers, in their entirety, and then analyze his answers one at a time to, once again, show the logical inconsistencies that are at the very heart of his theology, and which cause him to say things that really do not make a whole lot of sense...as you will see. This one is a little bit longer than average, but I think you will find it worthwhile reading.

Hope you enjoy...

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Cary L.

1) For a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible? Yes or no? Real easy question to answer, Cary.

A: No, it is the "church of the living God," which is comprised of all elect believers of all time.

2) When you say that "Rome has added to Scripture," could you be wrong about that since you have admitted that you are fallible in your interpretation of Scripture, or is that an infallible statement on your part?

A: It is my Scripturally formed opinion, just as something you might say or type from the Bible. The only ultimate authority capable of being infallible is God, so to discredit an opinion, mine, yours, a Protestant, the pope, the Roman church, 1st Baptist anywhere, based on a fallible/infallible standard is a red herring.

3) Since I pray to the Holy Spirit before reading Scripture, does Dr. White's interpretation of Scripture, or yours for that matter, have more authority than my interpretation of Scripture? Yes or no?

A: No individual interpretation of Scripture is more authoritative than another's. Your praying to the Holy Spirit before reading Scripture does not provide assurance that you will then interpret Scripture accurately. One could pray to the Holy Spirit and still write the Book of Mormon. However, he who has eyes to see, let him see. He has ears to hear, let him hear. God will lead His elect children into all truth. But how do we know who is interpreting Scripture properly? We must have an authority to rely on, right? God equipping each and every saint to know the truth and be set free, the priesthood of the believer, the FINISHED work of Christ is not enough. We must have an infallible earthly authority because FALLIBLE men can never attain to the truth, right? And that is the Roman Church and the Bishop of Rome, voila!

4) If the infallible Holy Spirit is guiding individual Christians in their interpretation of Scripture, then why do you claim that there are no Christians who can infallibly interpret Scripture? Wouldn't someone who is guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of Scripture be infallible in their interpretation of Scripture?

A: The nature of a redeemed man is still the nature of a man, and a man remains in human form, which is finite and not all-knowing. A man has potential to properly interpret Scripture, but man is still limited by retaining his human nature, which includes the influence of the flesh that can cause Spirit-filled individuals to sin and err in understanding the kingdom of God. There is no scriptural basis supporting God's anointing "infallible Christians" or an "infallible Church." In fact, Scripture teaches the opposite, to wit, the Corinthian church, the 7 churches of Revelations, Paul's struggles with the flesh...

5) Are there Christians who are being guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretations of Scripture, who have belief systems that are not exactly the same?

A: Yes, God will purify His church, the Bride of Christ. It is a future event, a part of the new heavens, the new earth, the new Jerusalem I.e., while they agree on the vast majority of Christian doctrine and practice, they nonetheless differ on at least one, possibly more, of the doctrinal beliefs they hold? Yes, God loves variety and endures it, He is longsuffering, patient, slow to anger. There will come a day when all things become new (see above comments)

Now, sir, I think I gave reasoned responses, which I know you will disagree with most, if not every word I responded with. I also think that l have provided an answer that is given with gentleness and respect, as we are told by the Apostle Peter to give answers for the hope that lies within us. I do not think that even in my initial response, I came at you, yet because I did not wish to further engage, you came at me with a very terse and aggressive response that was not representative of Christian love, though you sign your name "In Christ."

Fallibly yours,

Cary L.

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

Cary L.

1) For a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible? Yes or no? Real easy question to answer, Cary.

A: No, it is the "church of the living God," which is comprised of all elect believers of all time.

My Response

He is exactly correct - the Bible is not the pillar and ground of the truth for the Christian, the church is. But, if what Cary L. has previously said about all "earthly institutions" is true - that you can't trust them when it comes to your salvation, and that the only authority capable of being infallible is God - then how can the Word of God tell us that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth - the upholder and foundation of the truth? How?! And why?! If no earthly institution is capable of giving us the truth with 100% certainty - i.e., infallibly - then how could the church be referred to as the pillar of the truth? Or the ground of the truth? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The Word of God tells us the church is the pillar and ground of the truth; Cary L. tells us, essentially, that it's not. Who should I believe...the Word of God, or Cary L.?

Furthermore, Cary apparently doesn't realize that, even though the church is an "earthly institution," it is also the Body of Christ, as the Word of God tells us. So he is basically telling us that we cannot trust our salvation to the Body of Christ, because it is fallible. But, he would of course tell you that you can trust him and his interpretations of Scripture for your salvation. I mean, after all, that's why he wrote to correct me about what I had said in regard to Dr. White's teachings and that is why he can say the things he says, apparently infallibly, about the Catholic Church being "apostate". And infallibly tell you that the Catholic Church has "added to Scripture". And infallibly tell you that Catholics are "insecure" because we trust in the church - in the Body of Christ - for our salvation. Cary's arguments lead us to the conclusion that we are not to trust any human institution for the infallible truth, or any human person for the infallible truth, but, we can of course trust what he says for the infallible truth. Makes sense, huh?

One last point I would ask Cary about is this: How exactly does the "'church of the living God,' which is comprised of all elect believers of all time," perform its role as pillar and ground of the truth, especially since you have previously stated that we cannot trust any human institution in regard to our salvation?

Cary L.

My Response

Oh, it is his "Scripturally formed opinion" that the Catholic Church has added to Scripture. Well, that settles the question, right?! Uhmm...maybe not. What Cary is doing here, is indirectly admitting that he could be wrong about the Catholic Church adding to Scripture, but he won't actually say it. It's the old, "Fallible in theory, infallible in practice" sleight of hand that so many Protestants use. They'll say that, of course they are fallible in their interpretations of Scripture, but then they absolutely refuse to admit that anything they say about the Bible or the Catholic Church could be wrong...at least, not when talking to a Catholic.

Well, what if it is my "Scripturally formed opinion" that the Catholic Church has not added to Scripture, but that Cary L. has taken away from Scripture? What do we do then? Who, then, decides who is right and who is wrong? In Cary L.'s theology...in Protestant theology...there is no one who has the authority to decide a dispute between Christians. This is the point I was making. Who, in Protestant theology, has the authority to definitively decide, in a binding manner, what is true and what is false when it comes to interpreting Scripture, deciding true or false doctrine and dogma, deciding what is or is not authentic Christian practice, and, even more basically, deciding which books are or are not inspired, inerrant Scripture? Who, Cary...who?! Who has the authority to make such decisions and to bind on earth what is bound in Heaven? Who?!

How does he respond to this most central of questions about the Christian faith? The only way he can respond...by ignoring it. He calls it a "red herring," i.e., it is an unimportant or irrelevant question according to him. Here's the thing, Cary L. will never...NEVER!...answer this question...because his theology has no answer for the question. It's as if I was asking a 4-yr. old what the derivative of 4x²-7x+6 is. The 4-yr. old has no ability to respond because the answer to that question is outside the realm of his limited understanding of math. Just so Cary has no ability to respond to the question of: "Who has the binding authority to definitively decide disputes between Christians over matters of doctrine, dogma, Christian morality and practice, and the authentic books of the Bible?" The answer to that question is outside the realm of his limited theological system, which causes his understanding of Scripture to itself be limited and rather shallow.

Which is why, again, he had to cast shadow on my question by calling it a "red herring". He said, "The only ultimate authority capable of being infallible is God, so to discredit an opinion, mine, yours, a Protestant, the pope, the Roman church, 1st Baptist anywhere, based on a fallible/infallible standard is a red herring." Here is the fundamental problem with Cary's statement: If I am not allowed to discredit an opinion about scriptural interpretation because the person giving me the opinion is not infallible - which means, by definition, that he could be wrong in what he is saying - then what standard can I use to discredit that person's opinion? Oh, I know, I can use whatever standard Cary L. decides is acceptable. After all, Cary apparently has some standard in mind if he's able to say that the Catholic Church is apostate and that it has added to Scripture. But, what standard might that be? We'll see in his next set of comments. But, before we do, I wish to also note that Cary has already discredited the Catholic Church by saying it is not infallible. It's a red herring when I use it, it's perfectly acceptable when he uses it. Didn't see that one coming.

Cary L.

My Response

There it is! There is Cary's standard for being able to decide who is or is not apostate when it comes to Christianity. Who has or has not added to Scripture. Who has or has not correctly interpreted this or that passage of Scripture. His standard is: "He who has eyes to see, let him see. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. God will lead His elect children into all truth." Awesome! If ever there was a completely objective standard for determing truth when it comes to scriptural interpretations, that has to be it, right?! I don't think so.

First question that comes to my mind is: How do we know who has eyes to see and ears to hear, and how do we know who the elect children of God are? Oh, and how is it, exactly, that God leads them into "all truth"? Does He give them visions? Does He give them inner locutions where He speaks directly to them? Does He infuse them with that knowledge? If so, where does it say that in Scripture?

And, if they have been led into all truth, wouldn't that then make them infallible in their interpretations of Scripture? But, no one is infallible, Cary says. I'm confused. How can they be said to have been led by God into all truth, yet not be infallible in their interpretations of Scripture? If they're not infallible in their interpretations of Scripture, then they haven't been led into all truth! Do you see the absolute inanity of his response? The absolute absence of logic or common sense in what he is saying? His position on this is actually pretty bizarre and his total inability to even see, much less admit, the illogic and contradictions in the very foundation of his theology, is rather stunning. He who has eyes to see, let him see. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. God guides His elect children into all truth but none of them are infallible in their interpretations of Scripture. Really?! Tell me, Cary, since you obviously believe yourself to be a child of God that has been led into all truth, what proof do you have that you have indeed been led into all truth? And, could you be wrong about that, since you're not infallible?

And he asks the question, in a derisive way, about authority: "But how do we know who is interpreting Scripture properly? We must have an authority to rely on, right?" And he basically denies that we need any authority whatsoever in order to be able to properly interpret the Scriptures. He even says that no one's interpretation of Scripture is more authoritative than anyone else's interpretation of Scripture. He admits that, under Protestant theology, Dr. James White's interpretation of Scripture is no more authoritative than mine. And that his - Cary L.'s - interpretation of Scripture is no more authoritative than mine. Yet, he obviously believes his interpretations of Scripture, and Dr. White's interpretations of Scripture, are indeed more authoritative than mine, and definitely more authoritative than the Catholic Church's...or of any church for that matter. I mean, how else can he say that I'm wrong and the Catholic Church is wrong? What authority does he have to make those claims?

Do you see, folks, why I always go straight to the question of authority in discussions of the Bible and of the Catholic Faith? Because the issue of authority: 1) Is the central issue, bar none, when it comes to Christian doctrine, morals, and practice - Who has the binding authority to decide what is true and right as opposed to what is false and wrong? 2) Protestant theology has no mechanism for dealing with the issue of authority when they are confronted with it head on...none. All they can do is what you see Cary L. doing here - avoiding the issue and/or talking himself into logical contradictions and circular reasoning.

Also, look at the straw man argument he sets up. He is claiming that if an infallible authority is needed to decide disputes between Christians over matters such as doctrine, morality, Scripture, etc. - which is what the Catholic Church essentially claims - then that means "God equipping each and every saint to know the truth [and]...the FINISHED work of Christ is not enough". How did he come to that conclusion? And what a ridiculous, and completely unscriptural, conclusion it is. I mean, what does needing an infallible guide in order to properly understand Scripture have to do with Jesus' death on the Cross somehow being "not enough"? And, exactly how does God "equip each and every saint to know the truth"? Visions? Inner locutions? Infused knowledge? Emails/texts? Apparitions of Mary?

Look at Scripture. Does not Jesus give Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16)? Does not Jesus give Peter the authority to bind and loose on earth that which is then bound and loosed in Heaven (Matthew 16)? Does not Jesus give the other Apostles along with Peter the authority to bind and loose on earth that which is then bound and loosed in Heaven (Matthew 18)? Does not the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8), when asked by Philip if he understood the Scripture he was reading, respond with, "How can I unless someone guides me?" How does that fit into the "God equips each and every saint to know the truth" model that Cary has fallibly infallibly interpreted from Scripture? If what Cary says is true, then why did the Ethiopian eunuch need a guide to properly understand Scripture?

And was not Philip infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in explaining the Scriptures to the eunuch? Do not the disciples receive authority to heal the sick, to cast out demons, and even forgive sins (Matthew 10:1; 9:8; John 20:21-23)? Did Jesus not send out the Apostles with the authority that He was sent by the Father with (John 20:21-23; Matthew 28:18-20)? Do Peter and Jude not talk about wicked men who "reject authority" (2 Peter 2:10; Jude 8)? Well, how can it be bad to reject authority if, as Cary L. claims, no one has authority here on earth?

And, I would ask Cary L., why does Jesus give first Peter, and then also the other Apostles, the authority to bind and loose on earth if, as he claims, there is no one on earth who can bind and loose on earth what is then bound and loosed in Heaven? And I say he claims that because, to be able to bind something on earth that is then bound in Heaven, would require the gift of infallibility because God would not put Himself in the position of binding anything in Heaven that had even the remotest possibility of not being true. Cary claims no one on earth is infallible...that it's not even possible, due to man's fallen nature, that anyone on earth could be infallible...yet he believes the books of the Bible were written without error under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Which means, the writers of Scripture were infallible when they were writing Scripture. If he doesn't believe that, then how can he be confident the books of the Bible are wihout error? Also, Jesus sends out the disciples in Luke 10 with His authority. Jesus' own authority! That's why He tells them, whoever hears you, hears Me and whoever rejects you, rejects Me. That means the disciples were infallible in their preaching because they were speaking for Jesus and with His authority. If they weren't infallible in what they preached, then Jesus could not say, "He who hears you, hears Me."

Over and over and over again Cary L. contradicts himself, contradicts Scripture, uses bad logic, and just asserts some of the most ridiculous things, as we will see in this next answer of his.

Cary L.

My Response

Here Cary L. is showing his ignorance of the Catholic Faith. He apparently thinks the dogma of infallibility has to do with a person being sinless or some such thing. Wrong! Paul's "struggles with the flesh" and the situations of the "7 churches of Revelations" and the "Corinthian church" have absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic dogma of infallibility. Nothing! Infallibility simply means that God will not let the Pope, or the Church that He has founded and sent the Holy Spirit to guide, teach error as truth, in matters of faith and morals, to all the faithful. It's all about God giving His people some sure means - other than the fallible opinions of each person who can read the Bible - by which they may know the truth and be made free. Why does Jesus tell us that if there is a dispute between two Christians that we are to "take it to the church" (Matthew 18) so that the church may settle the matter if, as Cary states, there is "no scriptural basis supporting God's anointing 'infallible Christians' or an 'infallible Church'"? Again, if the Church is not infallible, how can it be called the pillar and ground of the truth? If the Church can make mistakes in its decisions, why take matters of dispute to the Church? And, for that matter, what does it mean, Cary, to "take it to the church"? Who acts as the Church's representative in such a situation?

Also, I did indeed give scriptural support for the teaching regarding infallibility (see #3 above). Where is Cary's scriptural support for his belief that Jesus just left each one of us on our own to figure things out by ourselves? Or that only God's elect children will be given the truth...in some apparently mystical and mysterious way that the Bible never tells us about? (That sounds kind of like the teaching of the Gnostics, doesn't it?) But, how can one even know if you are one of God's elect children when, as Cary claims, the flesh "can cause Spirit-filled individuals to sin and err in understanding the kingdom of God"? So, how does God give his "elect children" the truth if even being filled with the Holy Spirit can't guarantee that you will get things right? But, through all of this, of course we know that Cary L. is right in his understandings and interpretations of Scripture. That's how he has the audacity to claim the Catholic Church adds to Scripture and is an apostate church.

What a crock his answers are. People, use these questions in the conversations you engage in about the faith with any and all Protestants. They will not...they cannot...answer these questions in a logically or scripturally consistent manner.

Okay, let's look at one more example of logical contradictions in Protestant theology:

Cary L.

5) Are there Christians who are being guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretations of Scripture, who have belief systems that are not exactly the same?

My Response

The scriptural answer to my question is: No! There are no Christians who are being guided by the Holy Spirit into differing belief systems. The Holy Spirit does not teach one set of truths to this person and a different set of truths to another person. The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself. So, either Cary has to believe that the Holy Spirit can make mistakes, or he has to admit that people who believe different doctrines are not being guided by the Holy Spirit into believing those differing sets of doctrines. It has to be one or the other. The Holy Spirit is infallible. If the Holy Spirit is guiding you, then while you are under His guidance, you are infallible in your interpretations of Scripture and understanding of Scripture. If you are not infallible in your interpretations and understandings of Scripture, then the Holy Spirit is not guiding you when you come to those interpretations and understandings. Period.

Jesus prayed at the Last Supper that we, His followers - both current and future - would be one as He and the Father are one. Do the Father and the Son disagree on doctrine and practice? Any doctrine and practice? No! So, for Christians to be in the same church, to be one as the Father and Son are one, to be truly guided by the Holy Spirit - they need to be one in doctrine and practice. Does Scripture not say, "Let there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment," (Cor 1:10)? Does Paul not tell Timothy to make sure that no one teach ANY different doctrine, (1 Tim 1:3)? Does not Scripture say the believers were of one heart and one soul (Acts 4:32)?

What are the hundreds of thousands of Protestant denominations? They are hundreds of thousands of dissensions. Are they one as the Father and Son are one? No. Are they united in the same mind and the same judgment? No. Are they teaching ANY different doctrine? You bet they are! They're teaching all sorts of different and contradictory doctrines. Are they of one heart and one soul? Absolutely not. All of which shows, from Scripture, that the Church founded by Jesus Christ, is not to be found in Protestantism. The Church guided by the Holy Spirit, is not to be found in Protestantism. And, that Cary L. has absolutely no claim on being able to accurately and trustworthily interpret and understand Scripture. After all, he claims that the Church founded by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit, is capable of teaching error. Shame on him for not trusting the power and the authority and the faithfulness of God.
And did you notice the contradiction in what he said about God loving variety? First of all, where does the Bible say that God loves variety in doctrine? In dogma? In morality? In truth? Please Cary, give me those Scripture passages that back up what you say. Or, was that one of those fallible infallible "Scripturally formed opinions" of yours? The contradiction in his statement is that, on the one hand, he says God loves variety, but, on the other hand, that God has to "endure" that variety that He loves so much. And, also in that regard, God is "longsuffering, patient, slow to anger". Why, if God loves variety, does He have to "endure" it? I have never had to "endure" or "longsuffer" anything that I loved. If Alabama wins another national championship this year, I guess I will just have to endure it and suffer through it. And, hopefully, I will be slow to anger over it. God "loves" variety in doctrine but He has to "endure" it and "longsuffer" through it. Cary's arguments make absolutely no sense! And they have absolutely no backing in Scripture.

Cary L.

Fallibly yours,

Cary L.

My Response

Finally, let me address his comment that he did not, even in his "initial response," come at me, but that I was "very terse and aggressive" in my response to him and that means that he was being representative of "Christian love," but I was not being so. Well, let's see. In his "initial response" to my newsletter, which he signed up for of his own free will, and for which I never asked for him to comment on, he accused me of "mocking" Dr. White, he said that "Rome" (which is a term he uses in a derogatory manner) is "adding to Scripture," and that Revelation has a "stern warning about those who add or take away from the inspired word of God" - that warning being that the plagues mentioned in Revelation will be added unto you and that you shall lose your share of the tree of life and the holy city...in other words, that you will be damned. So, he accused me of mocking Dr. White, he said that the Catholic Church - and by extension me, as a Catholic - is adding to Scripture, and that I will, as a Catholic, be damned to Hell. No, no...he didn't come after me, did he?

Then, in his next response, he said the Catholic Church is "apostate," which means I, as a Catholic, am apostate. He also indirectly states that I, as a Catholic, do not have eyes to see nor ears to hear, and that the Holy Spirit is not teaching me anything. That I am, essentially, not a believer and that I do not understand God's Word. Oh, and that I am "insecure" and that I do not have faith. So, yeah, I guess he wasn't coming after me after all. My bad. Then, in his next response, he accuses me of slandering him with "uncharitable accusations" regarding his motives. Yet, I can find nowhere prior to that where I addressed his motives. I addressed his "style of argumentation," and the "contradictory assumptions" his arguments are built on and the "logical inconsistencies" of his theological system. In other words, I attacked his arguments and his style of argumentation and his logical inconsistencies; however, I did not ever say he was damned to Hell, that he was being dishonest or insincere, or that he lacked faith, or in any way questioned or impugned his motives.

Look, am I direct and merciless in attacking the error and inconsistencies and illogic in his arguments and his beliefs? Absolutely! Error has no rights. But I had not impugned his motives at that point. I had not accused him of apostasy. I had not said he lacked faith. This is a classic case of projection. He is accusing me of doing to him, what he is actually doing to me. He believes he can say all of those things about me and my Church - which is, actually, saying something about me indirectly - and that it's all okay. That he is being reasonable and civil and perfectly respectable. After all, everyone knows Catholics are going to Hell, so what's the big deal? Well, that's a load of Martin Luther.

It was only after he said he was not going to answer my questions nor engage in dialogue, that I did indeed impugn his motives, and rightly so, because He seemed to think it was okay to attack me, but how dare I - a poor, ignorant, non-believing, damned-to-Hell, insecure Catholic - hold his feet to the fire by asking him some difficult questions and demanding that he answer them. He gets to throw his bombs and then run for the hills and he expects me to quietly acquiesce to that?! No sir. I will not tolerate such hypocritical and cowardly behavior and I will call it out every single time. And so should you when it happens to you...and it will happen to you.

In conclusion, if the relatively mild things that I said to him, have him accusing me of lacking Christian love, I wonder how he would characterize Jesus' tossing over the tables of the merchants and moneychangers in the Temple? Wow! That's really a lack of Christian love, right? What about Jesus calling Peter, Satan? And then in Matthew 23, Jesus calls the scribes and Pharisees blind guides, a brood of vipers, children of Hell, sons of murderers, liars and hypocrites, and white-washed tombs - lack of Christian love there, right, Cary? He called the Canaanite woman a dog. And there are many other instances in the Gospels where Jesus was less than nice with folks. Does that mean, Cary, that He was lacking Christian love in those instances?

Cary, if you're going to go after Catholics, and their Church, you need to realize that they just might come back after you. And, if they do, when you then take insult at their audacity for questioning your arguments and your beliefs, you are being just a tad bit hypocritical. As my mom used to always say, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Closing Comments

I hope all of you and your loved ones have a very happy and holy Thanksgiving holiday!

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!