Apologetics for the Masses #451 - A Facebook Conversation w/a Former Catholic (Part 3)

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

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

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

Topic

Part 3 of my Facebook conversation with a Protestant - this one an ex-Catholic - who, of course, knows everything there is to know about Catholic teaching and is out there to save us poor, ignorant, Hell-bound Catholics from the horrible eternal fate that awaits us.

Introduction

In the last couple of newsletters, I covered what was, essentially, the last of my Facebook conversations with an ex-Catholic by the name of Jim Anderson. This issue, and the next one or two, I'll give you the first conversation I had with him - how it all started. As usual, his comments will be in italics.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Jim Anderson
     We need to be reminded that the truth of God is contained in His truth, the bible. The gospel message is "repent and believe", wholly and truly in Jesus Christ. Natural man is lost in sin, cannot please God, cannot repent or believe, absent the saving grace of God, which is given at God's will, and at His appointed time.
     The emotional "high" of singing, of being with friends, is encouraging, but in and of itself is just like the feeling of "holiness" or "religion" that one gets in Catholic churches. It's shallow, and it's not a sign of a true repentant and regenerated heart. Let's hope we see the changed hearts (Ezekiel 36:26), the "new creation" (2 Cor 5:17) that always accompanies the saving grace of God. And that many of these young people truly become saved from their sins.
     Do not evangelize these people to Catholicism, as that religion teaches a false gospel, one of works (see CCC 2027), false worship (bread in a tabernacle) and an incomplete sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
     I wish you well, and at any time would be glad to discuss the truth of scripture with you.

John Martignoni
     Ah, yes, spoken like a true former Catholic. Sorry, Jimmy, but you wouldn't know what the Bible is without the Catholic Church. You wouldn't have your Bible without the Catholic Church. The authority of the Catholic Church is what you rely on, whether you realize it or not, for your belief that the Bible is indeed the inspired, inerrant Word of God.
     And, no, Jim, we do not teach a "gospel of works". You cherry pick one paragraph out of the entire Catechism, and remove it from its context, to "prove" this assertion? Did you by any chance read Paragraph 2025? Or 2023? Or 2020? Or dozens of others that put the lie to your assertion? Apparently not.
     Regarding the "bread" in the tabernacle, Jim. Are you willing to answer two questions to be shown the truth in that regard? If so, here's the first question: In John 6:51, Jesus says that He is the living bread which came down from heaven and that if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. He then goes on to say that "the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh". So, here's the question: When did Jesus give His flesh for the life of the world?

Strategy/Comments
     His initial post on my Facebook page was in response to a post I made regarding the "revival" that was then taking place at Asbury College in Kentucky (see Issue #443 - Asbury College "Revival"). And he just couldn't resist taking a shot at the Catholic Faith. Once he said that garbage, I knew I was dealing with someone who was not interested in learning, he just wanted to preach and condemn. And, after saying all of these things about my Church, he complains in a later conversation that I wasn't being polite to him! Really?!
     So, first I responded to his "works gospel" lie by giving him examples, from the Catechism, to demonstrate to him that he was selectively quoting the Catechism to "prove" he was right. Even the paragraph he quoted, #2027, doesn't say what he thinks it says, when read in context. But, asking a Protestant like this to read the Catechism...or even the Bible...in context, is generally like asking Hunter Biden to stop smoking crack cocaine.
     Next, I went after his "bread in a tabernacle" comment and hit him with my "setup" question from John 6:51 that, when followed by the "slam the door" question (see my next response below), absolutely destroys the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking figuratively, symbolically, metaphorically (take your pick) in John 6:51-58. Folks, anytime you get the chance to use those two questions - "When did Jesus give His flesh for the life of the world?" and then the follow up question, do it! I have asked these questions of many, many Protestants, and nary a one has yet come up with anything that could pass for a rational, logically consistent - and scripturally consistent - answer. Not one! And they never will - at least, not one that is consistent with Protestant theology. Even the folks at GotQuestions.org couldn't, or wouldn't, give a coherent response to the questions (see Newsletters #414 - 416, and #418 - 424). Those two questions absolutely fry the brains of Protestants.
     Again, use these two questions whenever possible to see if you can't maybe plant a seed of truth with someone. I've said it hundreds of times - Protestants do not go by the Bible alone, they go by their personal, seriously flawed, fallible interpretations of the Bible alone. It's our duty to make them try and realize that with questions like these. So do not be intimindated by a Protestant with a Bible in his hand. Just remember...he's holding our book!

Jim Anderson
     You asked "When did Jesus give His flesh for the life of the world?" On the cross, it was His death and then resurrection. And yes, I've read the entire catechism. And John, may I ask a question? Was God's word actually God's word when it was given by Him to the prophets and apostles, or did it depend on a committee to approve it before it was God's word?

John Martignoni
     So, 1st question was: When did Jesus give His flesh for the life of the world? Your answer is: Jesus gave His flesh for the life of the world on the cross.
     Now, here's the 2nd question: Was Jesus' flesh on the Cross real, or symbolic?
     And I'm glad you've read the entire Catechism. Given that, why did you take Paragraph #2027 of the Catechism out of context and try to make it say that Catholics believe in a "salvation of works"? Would Jesus want His followers to purposely distort the beliefs of others?
     Regarding your question for me: Yes, God's Word is God's Word whether anyone, or any "committee" approves it or not. However, there are a lot of claimants for God's Word out there. And, there were a number of writings in the early years of Christianity claiming to be God's Word, that are not now in the Bible. There were also a number of early Christians who disputed books such as James, Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, Revelation, and 1 or 2 others as being God's Word. So, someone had to decide which books were, and were not, actually God's Word. Someone had to witness to which books were the authentic, inspired, inerrant, Word of God and which were not. So, Jimmy, who was that witness? Whose witness do you accept that the books of the Bible that you have are indeed the inspired, inerrant, Word of God? Does the Bible tell you which books should be in the Bible?

Strategy/Comments
     First thing...when he admits that he has read the entire Catechism, then you can no longer credit him with ignorance when it comes to his misrepresentation of the Catholic Faith as having a "gospel of works". His misrepresentation is deliberate and is necessarily based on prejudice, bigotry, and malice. Because it is absolutely false that the Catholic Church preaches a "gospel of works". Notice how he does not reply in any way, shape, or form to my question about why he ignored paragraphs of the Catechism that put the lie to his statement about a "gospel of works"? CCC #2020: "Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism." CCC #2023: "Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of His life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul..." CCC #2025: "Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man's collaboration. Man's merit is due to God." How can you read those paragraphs, and the many others in the Catechism that say similar things, and come away believing the Catholic Church teaches a "gospel of works" - i.e., that we believe a man can "work" his way into Heaven based on his own merit? To say such a thing is a deliberate distortion of Catholic teaching. It is an outright lie.
     Secondly, he answered the setup question from John 6:51. And, he answered it correctly. Every Protestant I've ever asked that question of, has answered in the same way - Jesus gave His flesh for the life of the world...on the Cross. Absolutely! Which leads directly to the 2nd question: "Was His flesh on the Cross real...or symbolic?" That question slams the door on any theology that says Jesus is speaking symbolically in John 6:51-58 when He says, repeatedly, to eat His flesh and drink His blood. If John 6:51 was talking about eating His flesh that He gave on the Cross for the life of the world...His real flesh and His real blood, as every Protestant admits...then John 6:52-58 is also talking about that same real flesh that was nailed to the Cross and that same real blood that was shed on the Cross. But, Jim Anderson cannot admit to that, so let's watch how he tries to squirm out of the hole he has gotten himself into.
     Then, he asks me a question. Wonderful. But, why did he ask what he asked: "Was God's word actually God's word when it was given by Him to the prophets and apostles, or did it depend on a committee to approve it before it was God's word?" He asked his question that way because he is trying to set up his claim that we don't need anyone!, or any church, or any council, to tell us what is or is not God's word! If God speaks it, then it's God's Word no matter what any person - or church - says, by golly! He's trying to set up his coming denial that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible as we have it today.

Jim Anderson
     You do not seem to give any, or at least enough, credit to God for ensuring that His word be written (see 2 Peter 1:16-21) and kept. But, to answer your questions, since I will assume since you are asking that you do not know.
     1. You asked "Was Jesus' flesh on the Cross real, or symbolic?" Jesus was an actual human being, along with being God, and died an actual death on the cross. He was very real, and still is, sitting at the right hand of the Father, with His glorified body.
     2. You may not have been told, but the apostles wrote scripture, and all of their work was accepted as God's word, when it was written. And each and every book of the NT was accepted and acknowledged as God's word when it was written. The books that some committee had to reject were written in general much, much later, and were clearly in error. We do thank that committee for doing some basic research and discovering which false books were needing to be thrown out.
     Hopefully, you accept that the books of the OT were safeguarded virtually intact by the Jews in Palestine, and didn't need a "witness" in order to validate them? Do you do so? For example, no committee had to declare that the book of Isaiah was God's word. Why not? Because God validated it.
     But, since you asked "Whose witness do you accept that the books of the Bible that you have are indeed the inspired, inerrant, Word of God?" The correct answer is "God's witness", declared by His word itself, attested to by signs and wonders.
     3. You asked, because you do not know, "Does the Bible tell you which books should be in the Bible?" No, there was not a table of contents provided by any prophet or apostle, but when the canon was complete, around AD95, sometime later the books that were already accepted as scripture were compiled, bound together and pages and verse numbers assigned, a wonderful task of a library committee, and then a table of contents was written.
     Since you have your questions answered, since you didn't know these things (or you would not have asked) do you have any others? A sincere tip for you concerning the bible is never, ever to forget that God willed that His word be written and kept, and we should never, ever forget that the bible is the actual teaching of God to man, the highest authority because it comes from God, and the test of all human teaching.

John Martignoni
     Okay, first things first: 1) You and I agree - Jesus gave His flesh for the life of the world on the Cross, and that flesh was real flesh. Now, let's plug those agreed upon facts back into John 6:51, which states: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
     So, the "living bread" which Jesus says He is going to give us is, according to you, His real - not symbolic - flesh which He gave for the life of the world on the Cross. And what does He want us to do with this bread - with His real flesh that He gave on the Cross? He wants us to eat it. And, if we eat it, what happens? We live forever.
     Again, Jesus wants us to eat - according to you - His real flesh which He gave on the Cross for the life of the world. And, if we eat His real flesh that He gave for the life of the world on the Cross, Scripture says we will live forever. Or, as He repeats in John 6:54, "...he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life."

     Thank you for agreeing with Catholic teaching on this.

     2) Were all of the New Testament authors Apostles? Was Luke an Apostle? Was Mark? If so, where does Scripture say that? Also, you do know that we have the Letter of Barnabas, right? Since Barnabas was an Apostle, why don't we consider his letter part of the Bible? But, here's the thing, Jim - basically, what you were saying with your answer is that you accept the Bible as it is, based on TRADITION! I thought you were a Sola Scriptura kind of guy?
     Also, you stated the following: "And each and every book of the NT was accepted and acknowledged as God's word when it was written." Where does the Bible say that? Please give me book, chapter, and verse? Or are you accepting that based on...TRADITION?! And, if it's not in the Bible, then who told you that? Where does any early Christian writing say that? What source are you relying on for that non-scriptural belief? And, "accepted and acknowledged as God's word," by whom? And, if what you say is true, then why were there disputes, among Christians, as to the canonicity of books such as James, 2 and 3 John, Revelation, Hebrews, and 2 Peter into the 3rd and 4th centuries?
     One more on this: Who was it that wrote Hebrews? And how do you know, if indeed you do know?
     3) So, once more, the Bible doesn't tell us which books are or are not God's Word, which means it was some authority outside of the Bible that did so. Again, what authority was that? Was it indeed a library committee? Which library?
     4) Finally, you skipped this one in your last answer, but I want to get back to it. If you have indeed read the entire Catechism, why did you take Paragraph #2027 of the Catechism out of context and try to make it say that Catholics believe in a "salvation of works"? When #2025 says, "Man's merit is due to God," is that a "salvation of works"? When #2020 says, "Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ," is that a "salvation of works"? When #2023 says, "Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of His life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it," is that a "salvation of works"? And what about all the other passages in the CCC that put the lie to your claim? Is it kosher for a supposed "Christian" to deliberately misrepresent the beliefs of others?
     5) One last thing: Please give me the paragraph(s) from the CCC that say the Catholic Church teaches "an incomplete sacrifice" of Christ?

Strategy/Comments
     He admitted, without any hesitation, that John 6:51 is referring to the flesh Jesus gave for the life of the world on the Cross. Jesus' real flesh. Jesus' real blood. But, once I make him realize exactly what it is he was admitting to, he will start backtracking and saying all sorts of ridiculous things (as we'll see in his next response) to deny the very obvious meaning of Jesus' words in John 6:51 and the following verses.
     His entire reply was garbage. Completely made up. Absurd. He quoted no verses from Scripture, other than 2 Peter 1:16-21, which does absolutely nothing to support his position. "We do thank that committee for doing some basic research and discovering which false books were needing to be thrown out." How absolutely ridiculous is that?!
   So I just kept repeating my questions: What authority? Where in the Bible does it say that? Isn't that TRADITION? I love asking Protestants, "Where is that in the Bible?"

Jim Anderson
     1. Jesus did not, in any way, shape or form, say that people should literally chew on His flesh. He was referring, as you almost admitted, to His sacrifice on the cross.
     You can't eat Jesus. His body, His glorified body, is in heaven at the right hand of the Father. The belief that you can literally turn bread into the actual bones, intestines, hair and toenails of Jesus Christ is the most severely twisted interpretation of scripture imaginable. Stop. I have no idea why you would spend a single second even thinking about believing this, unless you have not read a single other chapter in all of scripture. You've never read Ezekiel 3:1-3, nor Jeremiah 15:16, nor Psalm 119:103 and apparently have never been taught the fairly common semitic idiom of "eating? The apostles knew it. That's why they never once taught that bread turned into God.
     2. You said, "But, here's the thing, Jim - basically, what you were saying with your answer is that you accept the Bible as it is, based on TRADITION!" No, tradition is not inspired, meaning it is not "God-breathed" a scripture is. Your teachers do you a severe disservice by telling you that the bible is simply "Tradition" and so you must believe the manmade "tradition" equally as the bible. CCC 82 says this. You don't seem to want to understand the difference between God's word, which is......wait for it.....God's word, and "tradition" which can be good or bad. So, now you will toss out 2 Thess 2:15, because that's the only verse that Catholics are led to believe mentions "tradition", ignoring all the others, most of which warn against tradition. What's the difference? Do you know? No, you don't, because your teachers intentionally mislead you.
     3. The authority of the "church"., the ekklesia, the assembly of all saved beleivers. It is not the Catholic church, which doesn't even teach (and explicitly rejects) the concept that God saves someone while they are alive on earth. I know, you will say that there was only the Catholic church, and since it rejected some false books, for some odd, strange and bizarre reason, that makes it the sole arbiter of what scripture says. Think that one through, critically, and you will reject it.
     But, let's test you on this. What if the Catholic church hadn't actually changed significantly since 325, or 382, or 546 or whenever, and was the actual committee that God caused to reject the unscriptural books. You should, of course, remember from your local church bible studies (if your local church is one of the very rare Catholic churches that has weekly in depth bible studies) that God uses human agents to accomplish His decrees. And those human agents are all sinful, and some are downright evil (good examples are Judas, Antiochus Epiphanes, Jereboam, and Saul). So, the question to you is, if God used a committee, whether it be good (though no man or group of men is good) or absolutely corrupt to set the table of contents of the bible, the question to you is: So what? Be specific in your answer.
     4. CCC 2027 isn't cancelled out by any other mandatory teaching in the catechism. If it says that you can merit part of your salvation, that's what it says. You cannot. So, do you now agree that you cannot, contrary to official Catholic teaching, earn any part of your salvation? That requires a yes or no answer.

John S. Martignoni
     Wow! Talk about using a lot of words to say nothing and to definitely not answer any of the questions I asked. Your answers boil down to, "Because I say so," as you wave your hand authoritatively in the air. Awesome!
     1) Let's try this one again. You sure added a lot of things that neither I, nor the Bible said. I was just going by the Bible and by what you said. Maybe if we break it down a little further, it might help you out a bit:
     a) Jesus says the following in John 6:51 - "I am the living bread which came down from heaven, if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever." Yes or no?
     b) Jesus also says, in John 6:51, that this bread which, if anyone eats they will live forever, is His flesh which He will "give for the life of the world". Yes or no?
     c) You stated that He gave His flesh for the life of the world on the Cross. Yes or no?
     d) You also stated that the flesh on the Cross was His real flesh. Yes or no?
     e) So, when Jesus says the bread He wants us to eat is His flesh that He will give for the life of the world, you contend He is telling us to eat His symbolic flesh that He will give for the life of the world? Yes or no?
     f) The question for you, then, is: Is the flesh that Jesus gave for the life of the world that He wants us to eat to have eternal life, His real flesh...or His symbolic flesh? Is John 6:51 talking about Jesus' real flesh or His symbolic flesh? Which one? It can't be both.

     2) Ah, yes...the knee jerk Sola Scriptura response to the word, "tradition". Which is exactly why I used that word. I noticed, though, that for all your words, you didn't actually respond to my questions here. Are you simply unwilling to answer, or unable to answer? Let me re-state the questions for you:
     a) Were all of the New Testament authors Apostles, as you claimed? Yes or no? E.g., was Luke an Apostle? Was Mark? Yes or no?
     b) Since Barnabas was an Apostle, why is the Letter of Barnabas not considered Scripture according to your criteria for what makes something Scripture?
     c) Also, you stated the following: "And each and every book of the NT was accepted and acknowledged as God's word when it was written." Where does the Bible say that? Where does any source say that? And who exactly was it being accepted and acknowledged by? Whose witness to the authenticity of Scripture are you relying upon?
     d) If what you say is true, then why were there disputes, among Christians, as to the canonicity of books such as James, 2 and 3 John, Revelation, Hebrews, and 2 Peter into the 3rd and 4th centuries?
     e) One more on this: Who was it that wrote Hebrews? And how do you know, if indeed you do know?

     3) The Catholic Church has not changed "significantly" in its teachings since the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, or any other century. You ever read Justin Martyr's description (ca. 150 A.D.) of a Christian worship service? Sounds just like what we do at the Mass in 2023.
     a) You stated that the "authority of the 'church', the ekklesia, the assembly of all saved believers," is the authority that determined which books should or should not be considered the Word of God. I agree it was the church that determined the canon. But, doesn't that then make the canon of Scripture a "tradition"? By the way, which assembly of believers? Where were they located? Can you name any of them? Or are you relying on some unknown, unnamed, group of folks from who knows where who have who knows what authority, if any, for your belief that the Bible is what it should be and that it is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God?
     b) So what if God used a "committee" to set the canon of Scripture? Really?! It is a big deal, not a "So what?!" because this "committee" would have to have the authority to decide such matters for the members of the church founded by Jesus Christ. This "committee" would have had to have been guided by the Holy Spirit in making their decisions because otherwise, all of Christianity would have no sure way of knowing that these books were indeed the inspired, inerrant, Word of God. In other words, this "committee" would have had to have been infallible in their decisions regarding the canon. Unless, of course, you are satisfied with having a fallible list of infallible books. Are you? And, since, as you admit, Scripture nowhere gives us a list of the books that are supposed to be in the Bible, then the decisions of this "committee" would, again, have to be considered a "tradition" that all of Christianity is obliged to follow. Or, as we Catholics would say, a "Sacred Tradition".
     c) And where did you get this lie - "...the Catholic church, which doesn't even teach (and explicitly rejects) the concept that God saves someone while they are alive on earth." Have you ever read the Church's teaching on Baptism? Well, of course you have...you claim to have read the Catechism. The Church teaches that everyone who is baptized is saved...while they are alive on earth. For you to claim otherwise means either you are a complete idiot, or you are a liar. Which is it?
     4) Regarding CCC #2027, your abject, willing, and intentional ignorance of Catholic teaching (resulting from your malice and bigotry) is showing. Are you incapable of reading a text in its full context? Or do you prefer pulling this paragraph out of context so that you can be content with your misrepresentation of the Catholic Faith? Which is absolutely shameful behavior for one who professes to be a Christian.
     Here, from the Council of Trent, is dogmatic Catholic teaching on salvation:
     “…we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because ‘faith is the beginning of human salvation,’ the foundation and root of all justification, ‘without which it is impossible to please God’ [Heb 11:6] and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and are, therefore, said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace itself of justification; for, ‘if it is a grace, it is not now by reason of works…’” Decree on Justification.
     “Canon 1: If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done either by his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law, and without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be anathema.” Decree on Justification.
     So, no, according to Catholic teaching you cannot "earn" your salvation. That is a free gift of God given through Baptism. Your problem is, you don't understand what the word "merit" means in Catholic theology. Plus, you don't understand what it means in the Bible, as I will demonstrate:
     Heb 13:16, “Do not neglect to do good…for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.” How can our sacrifices be “pleasing to God,” if we don’t merit anything? Shouldn’t it say that Jesus’ sacrifice is the only sacrifice pleasing to God?
     Heb 13:20-21, “Now may the God of peace… equip you with everything good that YOU may do His will, working in YOU that which is pleasing in His sight…” We can merit because it is Christ working through us. Christ is crowning His own merits manifested in us.
     Heb 10:35, “Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward.” Matt 5:11-12, “Blessed are you when men revile you… Rejoice and be glad for your reward is great in heaven.” 1 Cor 3:14, “If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.”
     There are many other passages that speak of a reward for what we do. How can we receive a reward for our works, if our works do not merit anything? A reward is something given in return for something we do.
     Read your Bible, Jimmy!

Strategy/Comments
     Don't get flustered by folks using a whole lot of words to say a whole lot of nothing. Do not let responses like this - incoherent, off the mark, non-scriptural, illogical, and flat out wrong on a number of points - distract you from the main points you are trying to make. He didn't really answer any of the questions I asked him. So, I ask them again. And I point out, again, the unassailable conclusion that falls out from his answers to those two questions I asked about John 6:51. Do you see why I ask those two questions of Protestants every chance I get? Because it causes them conniption fits, as it has here with Mr. Jim Anderson.

Closing Comments

I hope all of you have a happy and joyful - and safe - 4th of July holiday celebration. And please pray for our country, Lord knows it needs all the prayers it can get right now.

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!

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

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

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