Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #66

This is a follow-up to last week’s exchange with Cary. He sent a reply to my response and this week’s newsletter is my response to that reply. I did something that I told myself I wouldn’t do again, but I didn’t listen to myself. I inserted my response into his and then he did the same with his follow-up and now I’m pretty much forced to do the same again with my follow-up. You’ll see what I mean below. Anyway, the sections labeled “Cary1” and “John1” are from last week’s newsletter. If you want to just read Cary’s latest response and then my reply to it, just read the sections labeled “Cary2” and “John2.” That will save you a little bit of time.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Cary1

John,

I have been listening to your messages over the last several weeks as a Protestant who likes to do primary research on subjects rather than rely on what I’ve been told. I did not grow up with any religious training and only encountered Christian doctrine upon being born again in 1992. The pastor of this church was of Polish descent and was raised Roman Catholic, so that formed the background for my exposure to Roman Catholic doctrine. Now, as I continue to pursue Protestant apologetics, my interests have turned to understanding Rome better.

With that introduction, I would like to respond to your rebuttal of Russell in your newsletter that I received via email (thank you) and signed up to receive subsequently as well. I agree that Russell did ramble a bit, but I think you could condense his arguments against Rome as objecting to sacerdotal sacramentalism as a sufficient expression of practical Christianity, that the 10 commandments are not a valid basis for measuring one’s acceptance by God, and that Christ alone is the mediator between God and man. Therefore, it seems disingenuous and disrespectful to not address those arguments, so it is little wonder that he has not responded, although you imply that his failure to respond connotes the inabiliy to respond. My response to such tactics from opponents I have discussions with is I’ll address your question(s) when you answer mine. Changing the subject is bad form, whether you are discussing family matters with a spouse or child, or discussing competing religious views. It also demonstrates an unwillingness to take the other person seriously.

John1

Cary,

I disagree with every one of your contentions here. First, with all due respect, I wouldn’t call anything that Russell said an “argument.” And, he didn’t just ramble “a bit,” he rambled throughout both his emails. He wasn’t trying to engage in a dialogue or discussion, he wasn’t formulating arguments, his intent was merely to call names and to condemn.

Even after Doug responded by saying that Russell didn’t seem to understand Catholic teaching, and giving Russell some resources to read up on Catholic teaching, how did Russell respond? Did he check out the sources given to him? Did he come back with counter-arguments to anything he had read? No. He doesn’t care to read what a Catholic says about the Catholic Faith, because he already “knows” everything there is to know about the Catholic Faith. He doesn’t care to hear a contrary point of view. Again, his only intent and purpose seems to be to rant about the evils of Catholicism. I found it quite humorous when he said that he is always “pursuing reconciliation” with Catholics. How, by calling them stupid and ignorant?

Second, if you simply must pin the “disingenuous” and “disrespectful” labels upon someone, then I think you’re looking at the wrong person. I would be more than happy to address any arguments that he had, but I saw no arguments in either of his emails. I’d be more than happy to answer any questions he had. But he had none. I got the fact that he had problems with the priesthood and with prayers to the saints and that Catholicism is evil and Catholics are idiots bound for Hell, but he was not arguing a point, he was merely condemning my beliefs and all those who believe them. I do not consider it disingenuous nor disrespectful to not respond to someone who merely wants to condemn me and my Church and who shows no inclination to being open to rational, respectful, mature discussion.

Third, in truth, I didn’t change the subject. Because the subject truly is a question of authority: “Why is your interpretation of Scripture more valid than mine?” If the underlying issue in every problem he has with the Catholic Faith is an issue of authority, which it is, then why is getting to that issue quickly and directly considered “changing the subject?” It’s not changing the subject, it’s getting to the heart of the subject.

One last point here, I did not imply that a failure to respond on his part would connote an “inability to reply.” What I stated very directly, no implying whatsoever, is that if he didn’t reply it would mean that he really isn’t serious in engaging in a dialogue about these matters and about truth. It would mean that he is more concerned with simply condemning people than he is in trying to teach them.

Cary2

Shift the paradigm was the wording you used. I’m going to basically ignore what he said and start off the argument where I choose to start it from. You obviously see it as a clever tactic, I see it as dismissive and a diversionary tactic for one to promote their own agenda through monologue rather than formulate a response in dialogue fashion. In other words, you are not attempting to have a conversation with Russell, you are using his letter as an opportunity to say what you want to say. Also, I was able to enumerate arguments, as were you, so there were available arguments in which to respond, yet you still chose to not respond to them. Rather, you started your own line of argumentation. It would seem if your intent was to teach, you would not choose a discussion that you consider unintelligible. However, if it was to paint a picture that this is the garden variety Protestant that your students will encounter, then your non-responsive rebuttal makes sense.

Further, my response was toward your arguments in this one letter, which I considered disingenuous and disrespectful. This was actually the first newsletter that I received, so I took the conversation that was presented and would have no basis to label anyone.

John2

Cary, your beliefs are the result of following ignorant preachers who teach whatever they want to teach in order to scratch the itching ears of their listeners (2 Tim 4:3) and people who ignore the very plain text of Scripture when it comes to what Jesus said (John 6:51-59) and they are leading you and many others like you straight to Hell because you are believing the doctrines of demons (1 Tim 4:1) and because of these teachings that go against the very clear teaching of the Word of God which is what we get by following the leaders of the Church which teaches us the spirit of truth vs. the spirit of error (1 John 4:6) and you think that your personal interpretation of Scripture is the final say in doctrinal matters even though Scripture tells us that personal interpretation of Scripture is not scriptural (2 Ptr 1:20) which makes it demonic because it is not in accord with the Word of God and I hope and pray that you will recognize that baptism will save you (1 Ptr 3:21) and that we must do the will of God (Matt 7:21) in order to reach Heaven and you had better confess your sins to others (James 5:16) because God gave men the authority on earth to forgive sins (Matt 9:6-8) and if you don’t do so you are headed straight to Hell and its too bad that there are so many ignorant, duped, undiscerning, immature folks who believe all of those doctrines of demons that you have fallen for.

Now, please tell me, what “arguments” did I make in that rant? None. Lots of accusations and lots of name calling and lots of very judgmental statements, but I don’t see any arguments. Do you honestly believe Russell was trying to dialogue with the person he wrote that email to? That he was trying to formulate cohesive and coherent arguments against any particular Catholic teaching? You are accusing me of not answering his arguments, yet he presented no arguments. He asked me no questions. So yes indeed I ignored what he said and I did indeed “shift the paradigm.” I shifted the paradigm by ignoring his rants and condemnations and name calling and getting to the very heart of his “arguments” sooner rather than later. That is not disrespectful nor is it dishonest. It’s called saving a whole lot of time by getting to the point right off the bat.

And yes, I see it as a clever tactic, but as an honest clever tactic and one which will, hopefully, bring the other guy into an actual dialogue rather than just a one-sided rant about how evil my beliefs are, even though he won’t take the time to actually find out what my beliefs are. Tell me, what is the fault in that? Why do you consider it “diversionary” to get to the heart of the matter – authority? And, again, I will be happy to answer any argument he makes or any question he asks…if he ever makes an argument or ever asks a question.

And, again, with all due respect, but I find your comments that I was not attempting to have a conversation with Russell as a reversal of reality. Russell is the one who could care less about a conversation. His was the monologue, as was your first email to me. Did you see a single question in either of his emails? Did you ask me a single question in your last email? No. Did you notice how he simply dismissed outright Doug’s suggestion to read up on the Catholic Faith before condemning it?

What did I do in my response to him? I asked questions. Questions that get to the point of why he believes what he believes and by what authority he believes it and teaches it. I am genuinely curious to know. Furthermore, you accuse me, once again, of dishonesty by saying that I chose to start a discussion with Russell that I “consider unintelligible.” I do not consider the discussion to be one that is unintelligible. Maybe you do, but I don’t. I think it is at the very heart of the matter with him, and with you. Why do you think your interpretation of Scripture is more valid than my interpretation of Scripture? And, by what authority do you consider my interpretation to be wrong? You haven’t touched either of those questions, have you? And, in this instance, I will state very plainly and clearly, less there be some doubt, that I do believe a non-response to these questions on your part will clearly indicate an inability to answer…at least, an inability to answer and not contradict your own theology.

Cary1

Regardless, I will give you the respect and address your response regarding infallibility. While I agree that some non-Catholic Chrisitians and professing Christians (I hesitate to lump all such folks into the category of Protestants since so few base their faith and practice on the Reformers’ positions in American Christianity) do read and interpret in a way that would seem to indicate personal revelation that differs from person to person, there are careful, thoughtful Christians who seek to follow the Apostles’ doctrine as recorded in the New Testament.

John1

First, when I’m speaking at a very general level, I lump all non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians into the “Protestant” category because, as far as I can see, all of these Christians have one or more of the Protestant “Reformers” as their spiritual forefathers, even if they do not currently believe and practice what the “Reformers” believed and practiced. Pretty much every denomination and non-denominational denomination is a splinter of a splinter of a splinter that can be traced to Luther, Calvin, and the Gang. I realize, however, that there are differences between the thousands and thousands of non-Catholic non-Orthodox Christians, and that you cannot lump them all together when speaking of various doctrines and practices.

Next, again, with all due respect, but I got a chuckle out of what you say here. You apparently see yourself as a “careful, thoughtful Christian who seek[s] to follow the Apostles’ doctrine as recorded in the New Testament,” (and I’m not saying that you aren’t). The implication being, though, that folks who disagree with you are not “careful” nor are they “thoughtful” nor are they seeking to “follow the Apostles’ doctrine as recorded in the New Testament.” Is that being respectful to the folks who disagree with you?

Cary2

There is no such implication. This was written to show that it is a broad brush generalization to say that …under their theology, you have the right to read the Bible and decide for yourself what it means. There is no assertion by me that such Christians arrive at the right answer and that those who disagree with me are careless, thoughtless, and wrong. It is the mischaracterization of their theology that I am addressing. A Protestant does not believe that one can decide for themselves what it means. That may be practiced by some, but that is not our theology. A Protestant should generally seek to interpret Scripture according to the intent of the author to its original hearers.

John2

I believe you have here, tied yourself into quite a knot, and, in so doing, you are making my point for me. You readily admit that you may not arrive at the “right” answer and you make “no assertion” that Christians who disagree with you are wrong. Which means, that they could be right. And, if they are right, and they disagree with you, then that would make you wrong, wouldn’t it?

So, let me ask you this, I assume that you believe Jesus was speaking metaphorically, or symbolically, when He said in John 6 to eat His flesh and drink His blood? But, apparently, all of the original hearers of Jesus’ words did not take Him to be speaking metaphorically or symbolically. I also understand Him in the same way His original hearers understood Him. My question to you is: Could you be wrong in what you believe about your interpretation of John 6, and could I be right in what I believe about my interpretation of John 6?

In other words, an individual’s interpretation is just that…an individual’s interpretation. It is whatever they interpret it to be. You can say a Protestant “does not believe that one can decide for themselves what it means,” but when the rubber meets the road, that is exactly what is happening. If the individual Protestant reader of Scripture is not deciding for themselves what each passage means, then who is it that is deciding for them? What authority do they submit to that can supercede their individual interpretations? If the individual Protestant does not decide on meaning, then who decides for you? You state that “A Protestant should…interpret Scripture according to the intent of the author to its original hearers.” Well, who decides the intent of the author if not each individual reader? What authority do you submit to in interpreting the Bible other than yourself?

Cary1

These same Christians rely on those who have gone before them, from the church fathers to the apologists up through the Reformers, and continuing on through the ministry of those who came after them. These Christians also recognize that the Holy Spirit reveals all truth and is able to aid men in understanding the Biblical writers’ intended meaning to the original hearers of each and every inspired text.

John1

I have to ask you, which Church Fathers do you rely upon? Augustine? Ignatius of Antioch? Justin Martyr? Polycarp? Clement of Rome? Which ones? What do you do with all of the Catholic teaching that these guys have in their writings? What do you do with the historical fact that we can trace our line of bishops back to the Apostles? The “Reformers” invented doctrines that had never before been taught by the church fathers and dispensed with doctrines that had been taught for 15 centuries. Plus, the “Reformers” disagreed among themselves as to what was true and what was false doctrine. How do you determine whether or not to be guided by a particular Church Father vs. a “Reformer” or by a particular “Reformer” vs. another “Reformer?” Doesn’t it boil down to…your fallible opinion?

Cary2

That is the beauty of relying on Scripture alone. One can compare all men’s teachings to Scripture, which is the final court of arbitration. No Christian needs to rely on any other man for interpretation of Scripture. However, he would be unwise to not stand on the shoulders of giants, ignore the historical positions of orthodox Christianity, and take off with a me and my Bible attitude. This is the proper use of those who have gone before us.

John2

You’re going in a circle here. You don’t have to rely on the “giants” that came before you, you rely on Scripture alone. But, it would be unwise to not rely on the “giants” that came before you. Huh? You might need to run that by me one more time. Back to my original question: If it is unwise to not “stand on the shoulders” of the giants, which giant’s shoulders do you stand on when the giants contradict each other? What happens when Lutheran and Calvin conflict? What happens when Wesley and Augustine conflict? Oh, then you just go to the Bible and see what it says and you decide who is right and who is wrong, correct? Furthermore, you said it would be unwise to ignore the “historical positions of orthodox Christianity,” but that’s exactly what Martin Luther and John Calvin and the rest did. So which “historical positions” do you choose to accept or ignore? Ones that are 2000 years old, or ones that are 500 years old?

The problem with relying on Scripture alone, is that you’re not actually relying on Scripture alone – you are relying on your individual judgment, your fallible opinion, as to what Scripture says and as to which of the “giants” comes closest to your interepretation of what Scripture says. Your opinion of what Scripture says is the “final court of arbitration,” not Scripture itself. You, as an individual, are the final judge for what Scripture says and in deciding which of the Church Fathers or “Reformers” you will believe on any given matter of doctrine. There are thousands of Protestant denominations that all rely on Scripture alone. Yet, each one of them has a body of doctrine that differs from the others. Why is that, if the Holy Spirit is leading all careful, thoughtful Christians unto all truth?

Cary2

As for historical facts, one is struck by Protestant teachings of the church Fathers as well. As you well know, Protestants understand Augustine to teach that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. But then, Augustine was a fallible man, just like you or I, and could be right about some things while holding inconsistent views about others. Let Scripture decide instead of committing the Corinthian error:

For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, I follow Paul, or I follow Apollos, or I follow Cephas, or I follow Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Corinthians 1:11-13 ESV)

John2

Now, I will confess that I have not read all of the writings of all of the Church Fathers, but I will also confess that in the ones that I have read, I have not found any peculiarly “Protestant” teachings. No faith alone, no scripture alone, no once saved always saved, no left behind rapture – none of these things. You state that St. Augustine believed in salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Well, he actually believed in justification by God’s grace alone through faith – as do all Catholics – but he also believed that works were a necessary part of the process of salvation and that through works one could merit increases in grace – as do all Catholics. He also taught that an infant was indeed justified through Baptism, even before he/she could make a personal statement of faith, and in many places he talked of Purgatory. So, we can see that a reading of St. Augustine as believing in the distinctly Protestant version of salvation by faith alone, is a very selective reading of St. Augustine. I mean, Purgatory and regenerative infant baptism and meriting increases in grace are not teachings that are in line with salvation by faith alone, are they?

“Let Scripture decide,” you say, “instead of committing the Corinthian error” – the Corinthian error being quarreling which leads to a divided Body of Christ. Which causes more quarreling and division: Each person reading and interpreting Scripture on their own; or each person following the leaders of the Church that God has appointed them to follow? Sola Scriptura is a dogma that was born of the Protestant deformation of the Church and it has done nothing but cause division within the Body of Christ. Again, I come back to the questions: If two careful, thoughtful Christians, both of whom are seeking to follow the teaching of the Apostles, read a certain passage of Scripture and come up with two contradictory interpretations, which interpretation is correct, and how do you know? Who has the authority to decide a dispute between Christians so that we can all avoid the error of the Corinthians? Please tell me.

Cary2

Additionally, even if you were able to trace a line of bishops back to the Apostles, what exactly would that prove? Where in Scripture is that a prerequisite for a Roman bishop that is the vicar of Christ? Where is the bishop of Rome enumerated in Scripture as the bishop of bishops? And yes, I have listened to your talk that attempted to provide Biblical support for the papacy and was not persuaded. In fact, it makes me wonder why the Catholic apologist would even attempt to appeal to Scripture when establishing a tradition by Rome’s authority is a wild card at the ready, which is a predictable consequence of departing from sola scriptura.

John2

So, you weren’t persuaded by my talk, huh? Oh, well, I guess you must be the first one. Which simply means that you do not accept my interpretation of the Scriptures, right? You will prefer to stick to your interpretation of the Scriptures for the time being on that subject, eh? (By the way, what do you mean, “Even if you were able to trace a line of bishops back to the Apostles…?” We are able to do just that. It’s not something we’ve made up, it’s something that we have historical documentation for.)

The fact of the matter is, that you don’t even claim a link to the Apostles in your church leadership, do you? Then by what authority do the leaders of your church claim to teach and preach? Do we see biblical examples of people starting churches that they just up and started by themselves and proclaimed themselves to be pastors and bishops and deacons and presbyters and preachers without authority being given to them by the Apostles or someone ordained by the Apostles?

Who laid hands on your pastor to ordain him? Who laid hands on the man who laid hands on your pastor? Who laid hands on that man? And on that man? You are basically admitting, that somewhere in the chain of folks who ordained your pastor, there is a man, or group of men, who basically laid hands on themselves and ordained themselves to ministry, without any authority being given to them by anyone to do such a thing. They basically usurped authority for themselves.

In the Catholic Church, we can trace our line of authority back to the Apostles and what it proves, is that our leaders have the authority given to the Church by Jesus Christ Himself to the Apostles and as given by the Apostles to their successors. If tracing Church leadership back to the Apostles means nothing to you, it is because any authority outside of yourself means nothing to you. Again, we come back to you and your interpretation of the Bible. “No,” you protest, “I don’t believe I have the right to interpret for myself what Scripture means.” Then who does have the right to decide what Scripture means? If not you, who? And, if you say no one has the right to authoritatively decide what Scripture means, then of what use is Scripture? What use is the inerrant Word of God, if you cannot come up with inerrant interpretations of it? If the best you can do is hope that your fallible interpretation is the right interpretation?

John1

And, regarding being guided by the Holy Spirit…how do you determine who is and isn’t guided by the Holy Spirit when you’re dealing with folks who teach different and contradictory doctrines, yet who all claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit? Can two people who teach contradictory doctrines both be guided by the Holy Spirit? And when you said that some Christians “read and interpret in a way that would seem to indicate personal revelation that differs from person to person,” what exactly are you saying? Are you saying that if the Holy Spirit is truly guiding folks, then personal revelation will not differ from person to person? And, if that is what you mean, then that gets back to my question: How do you know who is and isn’t being guided by the Holy Spirit?

Cary2

Again, you have a sola Scriptura issue. Try these out for starters:

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. (John 14:16-17 ESV)

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. (Acts 17:11 ESV)

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1 ESV)

It is as if you assume that Christians should agree on each and every doctrine all the time in all places. There were disagreements recorded in Scripture even as the Holy Spirit was inspiring men and leading them into all truth. What are we left with? Comparing one’s doctrine to Scripture. Does this mean there will not still be disagreements? Of course not, but the problem is with man, not with the Word of God or the Holy Spirit. The ironic thing is that you cannot claim that the RCC has had the same position on some matters historically, e.g. the development of papal doctrine and Marian dogma. So how do you legitimately reconcile this with any claim to infallibility?

John2

Of course I assume Christians should agree on each and every doctrine all the time and in all places. Did Jesus teach conflicting doctrine? Did Paul teach doctrine that conflicted with Peter or with James or with John? If the Apostles did not teach contradictory doctrines, then why do you accept them so cavalierly? Doesn’t Paul say that Christians should be of “one mind” (Phil 1:27) and that there should be “no dissensions among you” (Cor 1:10)? Doesn’t he also say that someone can “leave the faith” by believing the “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim 4:1)? Doesn’t he tell Timothy to “charge certain persons not to teach ANY different doctrine” (1 Tim 1:3)? Doesn’t he tell Titus that a bishop should “hold firm to the sure word as taught” and that he should be able to confute those who contradict sound doctrine (Titus 1:9)? I don’t know, but it sure sounds like Paul expected Christians to agree on each and every doctrine. And, that if they didn’t agree, then someone was definitely wrong and needed to change their beliefs. Wouldn’t you say so?

You say we are left with comparing our doctrines to Scripture. Are we? Is that what the original Christians did? Did the Council of Jerusalem consult Scripture as to whether or not circumcision is a necessary practice? Did the early Christians consult Scriptures to decide which doctrines were true and which were false, or did they go to the leaders of their Church to decide such matters? Check out 1 John 4:6 for an answer to that one. Indeed the problem is with man. That is the point of everything I’ve been writing to you. Thank you for admitting that. Maybe we can build on that mutually agreed upon point. This is why it is necessary to know that there is an infallible guide appointed by God that Christians can turn to when a dispute arises between them, because the problem is with man. The early Christians did not consult Scripture on doctrinal matters, they had someone there to decide the matters for them. They went to Peter or to Paul or to someone else who could speak infallibly on the matter. They called a Church Council. They didn’t each pick up their Bible and start reading to decide the matter. If that is indeed what we are supposed to be doing, then how, in the name of God, can we have all these divisions?

Why do you so easily accept conflicting and contradictory doctrines? Because your system of theology – sola scriptura, each individual deciding for themselves what Scripture really means and what is true doctrine and what is false doctrine – cannot exist if you don’t.

I can and I do claim the Catholic Church has historically had the same position on all matters pertaining to doctrine. Have some doctrines…like the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the Marian dogmas, papal infallibility, and others developed over time? Absolutely. Doctrinal development does not mean different doctrine. Is not the oak tree contained in the acorn? It means deeper and fuller understanding of a particular doctrine. For example the Trinity. You accept the doctrinal development of the Trinity, do you not? Do you believe, then, that the Trinitarian beliefs changed between the 1st and 4th centuries, when the doctrines were hammered out at the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople? Of course you don’t. You need to read the book “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” by John Henry Cardinal Newman.

John1

There is one thing in this paragraph of yours that really got my attention: that we need to understand “the Biblical writers’ intended meaning to the original hearers of each and every inspired text.” Would you please answer this question: What was Paul’s intended meaning to Timothy in 1 Tim 3:15-17? Particularly, what “scripture” is Paul referencing here?

Cary2

I assume you mean 2 Tim 3:15-17. Paul is referencing all Scripture, NT and OT. 2 Tim is one of the later epistles and most of the letters were written at this time, and those that were not written but were still circulating orally at the time would be included as well. Taking the word church here to signify Rome is simply stunning, especially when it is contained in a letter written to the pastor of the church at Ephesus.

John2

Yes, indeed, I meant 2 Tim 3:15-17. You say that Paul is referencing all Scripture. Yet, it is very clear that he is speaking to Timothy of the “sacred writings” that Timothy has been acquainted with “from childhood,” verse 15. Now, even though Timothy was a relatively young man, probably very few if any of the NT books had been written when Timothy was a child. So, Paul is very likely referring specifically to the OT books in this letter. And, you have very clearly stated that in the reading of Scripture it is very important that we come to the meaning that was being conveyed to the original hearers, or readers, of Scripture. So, Paul is specifically saying that all OT Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching and so on, that the man of God may be complete. How does that fit in with your Sola Scriptura beliefs? Remember, we have to read Scripture as it was originally read.

Cary1

However, there is also the possibility, because ALL men are fallible, that one can still misinterpret Scripture because of a remaining sinful nature that sometimes impedes our interpretations. In fact, the writers of the Biblical record were fallible men, with a sin nature that competed against the things of God (see Romans 7). Yet, these men, as led by the Holy Spirit, penned the inspired text of Scripture, while being unable to even follow their own teachings because of their sinful flesh that remained to play a part in their sanctification.

Of course, men much more knowledgeable than myself have written against the doctrine of papal infallibility, so I will not attempt to wax eloquent on that subject. But I will say it is quite a leap to say that because some men are fallible some of the time, there must be an infallible man appointed to properly interpret Scripture for all men. Nor is the evidence of varying interpretations that gives rise to factions a sign that an infallible human interpreter is needed. That much is evident by simple deduction.

John1

I like how you back up your statements here by saying “that much is evident by simple deduction.” Is it? Really? How is it that the “varying interpretations that gives [sic] rise to factions” are not a sign that an infallible human interpreter is needed? Are you arguing that all the divisions in Protestantism are indeed a sign that an infallible interpreter is not needed? Are you arguing that it’s a sign that we’re doing okay with a bunch of fallible interpreters each deciding for themselves what is true and what is false? Doesn’t scripture say we need to know the truth to be set free? If we can’t be sure of the truth, which is why we have varying interpretations that give rise to factions – people arguing over what is and is not truth – then how can we be set free?

And regardless of your answer, you have things a bit backward here. There was no “leap” to the doctrine of infallibility. It is a doctrine which we see clearly in the pages of Scripture. For instance, if the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), then, by simple deduction, it is evident that the Church must have the charism of infallibility…it must have the ability to definitively decide what is and what is not truth. If there is no one who can authoritatively declare what is true and what is false in the areas of faith and morals, then what are we left with? Protestantism.

Cary2

I will try one more time to explain this point to you. It is one thing to way that one man and another man is a fallible interpreter of Scripture. It is quite another to say that this makes an infallible local church and leader of that church as the sole authority over all Christians necessary. It’s a reductionist argument— we have this, therefore the solution can only be that.

John2

That is not my argument. I am not arguing that the Pope is infallible because it is necessary for him to be infallible. I am arguing the Pope is infallible because that is the way Jesus Christ set up His Church – with an infallible leader. Jesus gave His Church the gift of someone being able to authoritatively decide right and wrong on matters of faith and morals. And, I believe He gave this gift to His Church not just during the early years of the Church, as recorded in the Scriptures, but throughout time. Why give a gift and then take it back? And, I argue that point from Scripture and from the living tradition of the Church.

Cary1

Further, your response to Russell is self-defeating, since even if there is an infallible man, I believe you stake no claims to the papacy and have written words that may be fallible, including your disagreement with Russell’s interpretation of any Scriptural evidence he provided in his argumentation. Thus, we are left with two fallible men speaking words that apparently no one can trust because one must apparently need to be infallible to be able to accept anything they say as truth. While that is a great way to uphold the idea of the papacy and ecclesiastical authority to a single body, it is not taught in Scripture. Of course, since I am infallible as well, there is no sense in even considering anything I might have to say, including the preceding sentence. Hence, the position is rendered trivial and begs the question.

John1

Actually, my position is not self-defeating. I never argue anything that is outside of Church teaching. And, since the Church teaches infallibly, I can argue that all of the doctrines and dogmas that I put forth, are indeed infallible. Thus we are not left with two fallible men speaking words that no one can trust…we are left with one man speaking fallibly and one man speaking infallibly, as long as he teaches what the Church teaches. Under your theology, we are indeed left with two fallible men speaking fallible words that no one can be 100% certain of, but not under my theology.

The argument I make is not an argument that nothing can be known with certainty. The argument I make is that I can be sure that Russell, and you, and anyone else who argues against infallibility, is not infallible. I argue that because you freely admit it. And, regarding the doctrine of infallibility, I am speaking of it only in the realms of faith and morals, which biblical interpretation would fall under. Do you not admit that any single one of your interpretations of Scripture…said interpretations being the basis of your whole theological system…could be wrong?

Cary2

My friend, you cannot resolve a self-defeating argument by appealing to another self-defeating argument. Rome is called infallible by Rome, therefore when I interpret Scripture according to Rome, my interpretation is infallible. Says who? You are simply engaging in circular reasoning, all to protect a claim to infallibility for the RCC and the pope. Notice I don’t have such a claim to defend, yet I have a much more reliable witness (Scripture) to lead me into all truth.

John2

Actually, you were arguing that the best I can do is to have two fallible men arguing over Scripture. My point is, that is actually the best position you can hope for. I, however, have an infallible guide to turn to. Your argument “Rome says Rome is infallible therefore Rome is infallible,” is not my argument. You are putting those words in my mouth. I don’t believe it just because “Rome says so.” I have Scripture to back me up that Jesus gave His Church the gift of infallibility. I have the witness of history that the Pope is in a direct line of Bishops of Rome that started with Peter the Apostle. I have the witness of early Christians throughout Christendom looking to Rome for the answer to their questions and disputes and that Rome never taught any of the heresies that arose in the early Church.

But, what about you? The argument you make can actually be used against your position. Who told you the Bible is inerrant…the Bible? Who told you that the Bible is the Word of God…the Bible? Please tell me why you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God? Because the Bible tells you so? Let’s talk about self-defeating arguments, shall we?

John1

I do not rely upon my fallible interpretations of Scripture for what I believe and what I teach. I rely on what the Church…the Church founded by Jesus Christ and which can be historically traced back to Jesus Christ and His Apostles…I rely on what that Church teaches for the basis of my theological system. And, everything I read in the Bible confirms what that Church teaches me. Starting with the assumption that we all agree upon – that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God – when I go to the Bible, I see the church mentioned but I do not see Russell mentioned, or you, or Dr. Dobson, or Billy Graham. I see the church. Could the church mentioned in Scripture be a church founded by some man or group of men in the 1500’s or thereafter? Absolutely not. So, that lets me eliminate a lot of the possibilities as to which church was actually founded by Jesus Christ and which church is being guided by the Holy Spirit.

Cary2

The church was not founded, it was born. I too see church mentioned in Scripture, yet it is referring to local churches, such as the church at Rome, the church at Ephesus, the church at Thessalonica, the church at Corinth, the church at Jerusalem, the church at Phillipi, the church at Sardis, the church at Philadelphia, the church at Laoedicia…none of these which are designated in some form of heirarchical structure by Scripture. Christ comes and speaks to 7 churches in Revelation, yet he does not have a word for the star at Rome? Does this not cause you in the least to go hmmmm, wonder why that is?

John2

Yes, I remember now…Jesus said, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my local churches.” Wait, is that right? And, the fact that Christ does not speak to the Church in Rome in Revelation, does not bother me in the least. So what? Does the fact that the 7 churches He does speak to all happen to be in relatively close proximity to the island of Patmos (where John was exiled at the time) perhaps play a role in which church’s Jesus spoke to? Naw, that couldn’t be it, could it?

Cary1

So, I would love to see you politely try again to actually address Russell’s arguments rather than dismiss them offhand and proceed off onto your own rabbit trail. Thank you for making the teachings of Rome accessible.

John1

As mentioned above, this is not a rabbit trail and I did indeed address the very heart of Russell’s arguments. Now, I would politely ask you to actually address my questions to Russell. Even though you said you would address my questions, you didn’t. You talked all around them, but you didn’t answer them. You did say that “ALL” men are fallible, so I will take that question: “Are you infallible?” as being a “No.” But, you never even attempted to answer the question of why you believe your fallible interpretation of Scripture to be more valid than my fallible (as you consider it) interpretation? And, by what authority do you declare my interpretation of Scripture wrong and yours right? If you are fallible, could you be wrong in any one of your interpretations? Yes or no? And, finally, are you or are you not an authentic interpreter of Scripture? If so, by what authority do you claim to be such?

Cary2

With all due respect, I did address your question regarding infallibility. You simply didn’t like the answer I gave by pointing out your self-defeating argument.

John2

Sorry, but I’m from Alabama, so please bear with me. I don’t recall seeing anywhere that you answer the question regarding why you believe your interpretation of Scripture is better than my interpretation of Scripture. You do believe your interpretation of Scripture is better than mine, for example, in regards to John 6:51-59 (the Eucharist) and Matthew 16:16-18 (Peter as the 1st Pope), don’t you? And, I have not yet seen an answer to the question of by what authority you declare that your interpretation of Scripture is right and mine is wrong in regard to, for example, your claim that the Catholic doctrine of infallibility is not supported by the Scriptures? And, finally, I have not yet seen you definitively admit as to whether or not you are an authentic interpreter of Scripture? And, if so, by what authority do you make the claim?

Cary1

In Christ alone,

Cary Loughman

John1

In the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit alone,

John Martignoni

In Conclusion

I’ll be going out on a “date” with my wife tomorrow (Saturday). This will be the first one in about 3 years. We’re going to go see a matinee showing of the play, “The Phantom of the Opera,” and then out to dinner. Should be fun. I hope all of you have a great weekend!

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: