A Conversation With A Baptist Minister (Part 5) - Apologetics for the Masses #546

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

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

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

Topic

A conversation with a Baptist Minister (Part 5).

General Comments

Well, I recorded my first "podcast". Posted it on my Facebook page. It was more of a "demo" than anything else. I need one more piece of equipment that will help me improve the product. Hopefully I'll be getting that this week. And, when I do, I'll be re-recording the first video - it's on Sola Scriptura - and posting it on not just Facebook, but also on Instagram, YouTube, X, and TikTok. And then, more to come...

Introduction

This week I continue my conversation with the Baptist Pastor I featured in the last four newsletters. This will be the last of these newsletters with this particular pastor. After my latest email to him, which is below, he responded by reverting back to the nastiness of his original email to me - calling me "disingenuous" and "arrogant". So, that will probably be the last I hear from him. Although, I did send him one last email where I threw down the gauntlet to him...or, maybe it would be more accurate to say, I slapped him in the face with the gauntlet. You decide.

As I stated last time, his replies kind of got a bit convoluted and out of order, so I took his last reply to me and broke up my response into 4 parts. For Part 1, see Issue #544: Apologetics for the Masses #544. For Parts 2 and 3, see Issue #545: Apologetics for the Masses - #545

In this issue, I'll be featuring Part 4 of my last response to him. It's all about the Eucharist with a heavy focus on John 6. Also, I'll include another email - a "summary" email - I sent to him that had 13 questions in it. These questions are, essentially, a summary of all that I have asked him in my four part response. As I mentioned to him, the discussion had gotten a little unwieldy, so I wanted to tighten it up a bit by asking these 13 questions. He responded in classic Roberto Duran fashion: "No mas! No mas!" That email is also below and then my final reply to him with the gauntlet.

As I said, this Part 4 of my response is all about the Eucharist. This may be the most detailed response I've ever given to anyone on the Eucharist and, in particular, on John 6:51-58. So, if you need some "ammunition" for a discussion with a Protestant on the Eucharist, you might want to read what's below. Hope you enjoy...

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Part IV of John's Response to Baptist Pastor
Pastor, this email will address Point #7 of your last response.

You stated: "What Scriptures do you use as the foundation to believing that communion is salvific? Is it solely John 6? As you know Protestants would say that communion is symbolically or spiritually the blood and body of Christ."

First of all, I need to point out that Catholics do not approach Scripture in the same way that Protestants do. Protestant denominations claim to take their beliefs from the Bible. The Catholic Church makes no such claim, and I’ll tell you why.

The folks in any given Protestant faith tradition theoretically approach Scripture with a blank slate of doctrinal belief, then they read the Bible (which they had no part in putting together) to decide what it is they do or do not believe, and then proclaim, “We get our beliefs straight from the Bible!” Sola Scriptura is their foundational principle.

The Catholic Church does not do that because when the Catholic Church was founded, there was no Bible - at least, no New Testament - from which to take one’s doctrine. So we do not get our doctrine from the Bible, because our doctrine existed before the Bible; rather, we put our doctrine into the Bible. The Church founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, wrote Scripture to reflect and to spread what it already believed. These beliefs had come from Jesus Christ and were passed on to all of the Church by the Apostles and their successors - "the Apostles' teaching" of Acts 2:42. Beliefs that existed before a single word of the New Testament was written.

Think about it, does the Bible anywhere say, "And the early church devoted itself to reading Scripture and everyone deciding for themselves on matters of doctrine based on their own personal interpretations?" So, the Church, having put her beliefs into the Bible - the Holy Spirit inspired, inerrant, Word of God - I can say that there is nothing in the Bible contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, and nothing in the teachings of the Catholic Church contrary to anything in the Bible.

So, again, the church founded by Jesus Christ - under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - put its beliefs into Scripture. Protestant denominations take their beliefs from Scripture - big difference. Or, rather, Protestant denominations take their beliefs from one or more human beings’ fallible interpretations of Scripture. Correct me if I’m wrong on that. The Church founded by Jesus Christ existed before the New Testament did. No Protestant denomination can make that claim.

Comments/Strategy
So many Protestants just do not "get it" when it comes to Catholics and the Bible. They try to create a Christian belief system from their fallible interpretations of the New Testament, after the fact, without ever thinking about the fact that the Christian belief system existed before a single word of the New Testament was written. And that the Bible contains and reflects the beliefs and practices of that pre-existing system. The early Christian Church (a.k.a., the Catholic Church) did not get their beliefs and practices "from" the Bible. They put their beliefs and practices "into" the Bible. Which means, any "church" that takes its beliefs "from" the Bible, is, ipso facto, not the church of the Bible.

My Response (cont'd)
Now, Pastor, having said that as background, here is a direct answer to your question: Scriptures that corroborate Catholic teaching that Communion and eternal life are connected one to the other:

John 6:27, “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you.” Food that endures to eternal life? Would having food that endures to eternal life be considered a “salvific” issue?

By the way, what food is Jesus talking about?

John 6:32-33, “...My Father gives you the true bread from Heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from Heaven and gives life to the world.” Gives life to the world? Is He talking physical life or eternal life? Eternal. Is that a “salvific” issue?

So what is this bread that comes down from Heaven and gives life to the world?

John 6:47-50, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from Heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.” Jesus says that He is the bread that comes down from Heaven and gives life - eternal life - to those who eat of it. Eating bread {Communion/Eucharist} and eternal life. Connection between the two made directly by Jesus Christ - would that be considered “salvific”?

But, according to Protestant theology, He must be talking about us symbolically eating Him, right? Well, let’s think about that. There are two ways we could “symbolically” eat Jesus. One way would be if the “eating” part of it was symbolic. The other way would be if what we were eating - the bread from Heaven (a.k.a. Jesus) - was symbolic. Let’s look at the latter possibility first. Is Jesus talking about us eating “symbolic” bread from Heaven...”symbolically” eating Him?

John 6:51, “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.” Jesus says that the bread that came down from Heaven which He is talking about giving us to eat, is His flesh that He will give for the life of the world. You have already agreed, Pastor, that He was talking here about His real flesh that was nailed to the Cross. So, John 6:51, is directly stating that, “...if anyone eats of this bread [the real flesh of Jesus Christ that was nailed to the Cross], he will live forever.” Eating Jesus’ real flesh {Communion/Eucharist} and living forever because of it. Salvific?

Okay, we’ve ruled out the latter of our two “symbolic” explanations - Jesus is not talking about eating “symbolic” bread from Heaven. He is talking about us eating His real flesh...His real flesh that was nailed to the Cross. So, then, the “eating” part must be symbolic, right? He must be talking about us somehow “symbolically” eating His real flesh that was nailed to the Cross. Do the following verses in John 6 support that interpretation?

John 6:52, “The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” So the Jews asked how could Jesus give them His flesh to eat. What flesh were they referring to? Well, again, they’re referring to the flesh that Jesus spoke of in verse 51, the flesh that Jesus would give for the life of the world. The flesh that you have confirmed is His real flesh that was nailed on the Cross.

In essence, they were asking the same question we’re asking here: How can Jesus give us His real flesh to eat? And the only answer we’re left with, according to the dictates of Protestant theology, has to be that we “symbolically” eat His “real” flesh. Two questions immediately come to mind, though: 1) How do you “symbolically” eat someone’s real - not symbolic - flesh, especially after they are dead, resurrected, and ascended into Heaven? And, 2) Does the rest of this passage support a “symbolic” eating of Jesus’ real flesh interpretation?

Again, let’s consider the latter question first. Does something in verses 53 and following indicate that Jesus was talking about “symbolically” eating His real flesh?

John 6:53, “So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” Eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood {Communion/Eucharist} or you have no life in you. Again, connection between eating His body, and drinking His blood, and having eternal life, made directly by Jesus. Is that salvific?

John 6:54-57, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him...so he who eats Me will live because of Me.” Nope. Nothing in verses 53-57 that gives even the slightest indication that Jesus is speaking about symbolically eating His real flesh. Just more of Jesus connecting eating His real flesh and drinking His blood {Communion/Eucharist} to eternal life. I hate to be redundant, but is that not “salvific”?

Okay, so He’s saying over and over and over again - repeating Himself like He does nowhere else in Scripture - that we must eat His actual flesh that hung on the Cross and drink His actual blood that was shed on the Cross. So, we’re not talking about eating His symbolic flesh, but, again, what if He is talking about symbolically “eating” His “real” flesh? What if “eating” His flesh and “drinking” His blood are merely metaphors for...believing? This is what many Protestants believe. Well, that would make perfect sense, wouldn’t it? I mean, you have to believe in order to have eternal life. Sola Fide - salvation by faith alone - right?

And, in verse 47, it talks about believing to have eternal life and back in verse 35 it talks about how, if you believe in Jesus, you will never hunger or thirst - eating and drinking. Yeah, that’s the ticket! So, in John 6:53-58, where Jesus says no less than 5 times to eat His flesh and drink His blood, what He was really telling all who heard Him that day was simply, “Believe in Me and you will have eternal life.” Right? Well, if that’s the case, though, there’s a problem.

John 6:60, “Many of His disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” Why...if Jesus was speaking about "symbolically” eating His flesh and “symbolically” drinking His blood...why did the disciples find it to be such a “hard” saying?

What is difficult about symbolically eating Jesus’ flesh and symbolically drinking His blood by believing in Him? Don’t all Protestant denominations who practice “communion” or the “Lord’s supper” do that? Do any of their congregants find it a “hard” teaching? “Well,” I’ve had folks tell me on any number of occasions, “His disciples simply misunderstood what Jesus was saying. They took Him to be speaking about literally eating His body and drinking His blood, when He actually meant it symbolically. After all, there are plenty of instances in the Gospels where His disciples have no clue what He’s talking about.” “However,” I’ve also been told many times, “Jesus clears it all up in verse 63.”

John 6:63, “ It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” “See,” folks tell me, “Jesus says that His words are ‘spirit’ and life. In other words, He’s explaining that He was talking about us spiritually, or symbolically, eating His flesh and drinking His blood. The ‘flesh’ is of no avail He says, it’s the spirit that matters.”

That’s all well and good for those looking for a way out of a theological corner they had been backed into by Jesus’ words, but this supposedly spiritual - or symbolic - explanation, raises some more questions. For instance, why didn’t Jesus just say, from the outset, “You must believe in Me to have eternal life?” Why all the talk about eating His real flesh and drinking His real blood? What the heck is that all about? Why sow the seeds of confusion amongst His listeners and even His own disciples? What kind of teacher does that? Also, should we believe that Jesus was saying that His flesh is “of no avail”? The flesh that hung on the Cross is “of no avail”? Really?! What Protestant will admit to that when they stop to think about it?

Furthermore, Pastor, we agreed that Jesus was talking about His real flesh in John 6:51. Which means the entire conversation John 6:51-57 is centered on His real flesh and His real blood. This is confirmed in verse 58 which echoes verse 51, “This is the bread which came down from Heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.” (Eating bread; living forever {Communion/Eucharist}...salvific?) Verses 51 and 58 serve to frame what Jesus is saying in verses 53-57. Verse 51 is referring to the “bread” that came down from Heaven, which, as you agreed, is the flesh of Christ that hung on the Cross. Verse 58 is referring to the exact same “bread” which came down from Heaven. Which means verses 52-57 are also referring to the exact same “bread” - the flesh that hung on the Cross. So, back to one of the two original questions: How does one symbolically, or spiritually, eat Jesus’ real flesh? Is it by eating some bread and drinking some wine, or grape juice? I’ll re-visit this in a minute.

Another problem, and a very sticky one at that, is that, if Jesus “explained” in John 6:63, that He was speaking spiritually, or symbolically, when He said we must eat His flesh and drink His blood in verses 53-57, then why did “many” of His disciples walk away from Him - in verse 66 - after they heard the supposedly “symbolic/spiritual” explanation? The explanation I have been told, is that it was because not only did they not understand what he originally said, but they also didn’t understand His explanation.

Which raises even more questions. Such as: If His disciples, who had been with Him day in and day out for months, and even years, did not interpret what He said in verse 63 as being a “spiritual/symbolic” explanation, then why does anyone, 2000 years later, interpret it that way? Why do you? I mean, if everyone who heard Him speak on that day - including His own disciples and apostles...people who knew Him better than anyone save His own mother - understood Him to be speaking literally, then why does anyone, 2000 years later, take Him to be speaking symbolically? Why? Unless maybe they are approaching Scripture with preconceived notions as to what it says?

By the way, is it a “salvific” issue if people walk away from Jesus because of it? John 6:66 - 666 - is a defining moment for Jesus’ ministry. He loses “many” of His disciples? Nowhere else does this happen. Why? Because He was a bad teacher, maybe? I mean, what kind of teacher lets people walk away from Him over a misunderstanding? And, what kind of teacher speaks in such confusing and offensive metaphors when all He had to say was, “Believe in Me and you will have eternal life?” And why let them walk away when every other time in the Gospels that the disciples misunderstood Him, He either went to them and explained Himself, or they came to Him and asked Him to explain. But not here! Why?! Because they didn’t misunderstand Him! Have not many people in our day and age walked away from Jesus over this very same issue? Because it is indeed a hard saying to hear that you must eat His actual flesh and drink His actual blood? And isn't it difficult to understand how that can possibly be so? And it requires a lot of faith - like Peter had - to say, “Lord, I don’t know how this can be so, but you said it, so I believe it.”

But, back to your question about “Is it solely John 6?” that we find Communion and salvation linked together? That’s an odd question to me, as if finding something in only one chapter of Scripture would somehow negate its impact...its truth...its importance?

1 Corinthians 10:16-18, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? {Communion/Eucharist} For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” (KJV).

So, Paul is telling us that in order to be “partakers of the altar,” we have to eat the sacrifice. What is the sacrifice? The Lamb of God - Jesus Christ. The bread which came down from Heaven - the flesh of Christ that hung on the Cross. Is Paul talking about actually eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ, or is he talking about “believing” in Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior as being the equivalent of eating and drinking the real body and blood of Christ? Did the Israelites actually eat the sacrifices of the altar, or did they symbolically eat the sacrifices by believing in God? And, if you are not a “partaker” of the altar...a partaker of the body of Christ...are you saved? Salvific?

1 Corinthians 11:27-29, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup {Communion/Eucharist} of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord...For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” How do you profane the body and blood of the Lord if it’s not the body and blood of the Lord? How do you profane the body and blood of the Lord if you’re only “symbolically” eating His body and drinking His blood? And, how do you “discern” the body of the Lord...if it’s not the body of the Lord? Also, if you don’t discern the body, thus bringing judgment upon yourself, is that not a salvation issue?

Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20. The Last Supper. All of these speak of eating Jesus’ body and drinking His blood {Communion/Eucharist}. The blood of the New Covenant...the blood that is poured out for the forgiveness of sins. Well, whether you believe He is speaking symbolically or literally, Jesus tells us that we must eat His body and drink His blood in order to have eternal life in John 6:53-57 (interpreting Scripture as a whole). These passages, too, then, link Communion/Eucharist to eternal life. Would that not be “salvific”?

One last question to re-visit before I finish up on this particular point. Asking, again: How is it that we can symbolically, or spiritually, eat the real flesh of Jesus Christ 2000 years after He died, was resurrected, and ascended into Heaven? Many on the Protestant side have said we do so through the practice of communion, or the Lord’s Supper. You have stated this very thing above. The problem with that, though, is that by receiving the Lord’s supper, you are not “symbolically” eating His real flesh. Instead, you are actually eating His symbolic flesh. You are eating a piece of bread and drinking some wine, or grape juice, that “symbolically” represents Jesus’ real flesh and real blood. Yet, you have admitted that in John 6:51, the bread Jesus is talking about us eating is His real flesh that hung on the Cross, not His symbolic flesh. So there’s a disconnect between Scripture and the Protestant practice of the Lord’s supper. The former says we must eat His real flesh that hung on the Cross in order to have eternal life, the latter says we must eat His symbolic flesh to, in some way, remember what He did for us, but it has no connection whatsoever to eternal life. Which should I believe...the Word of God, or Protestant theology?

Sorry to have gone on so long with that, but the question of the reality of the Eucharist is the question that Jesus used to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. In John 6 Jesus repeats Himself like He does nowhere else in Scripture and he loses “many” of His disciples over this one issue, which happens nowhere else in Scripture. Those two facts alone should cause Protestants to pay a whole lot more attention to John 6.

Comments/Strategy
Taking him step-by-step through John 6, with an emphasis on verses 51-58, but starting back with verse 27 (and then throwing in a few other "Eucharistic" verses). This is an example of why starting off any discussion of the Eucharist with those 2 questions about John 6:51 is so important! Once a person agrees that Jesus gave His flesh for the "life of the world" (verse 51) on the Cross, and they then also agree that Jesus' flesh on the Cross was real, they have, essentially, precluded themselves from claiming any kind of "symbolic" or "metaphorical" interpretation of John 6:51-58 (at least, if they want to claim consistency and rationality in their arguments). Nope, that possibility is tossed out the window, by their own words.

My Response (cont'd)
Now, Pastor, I’ll finish up forthwith. You stated: “But for the sake of your argument let's say that protestants are wrong about what actually happens when they take communion. They really are eating Jesus body and drinking Jesus' blood. Does our intellectual misunderstanding change the efficacy of the communion? If I am faithfully partaking of communion as I gather with other Christians which is commanded by Christ why is it not ok to say "Communion is a divine mystery and I am not sure how it all works out. I take of it as a proclamation that I am saved by the broken body of Christ and the blood that He spilled on the cross. I take of this communion in remembrance of His salvific work until He returns.”

Communion is indeed a divine mystery...you got that right. You got pretty much everything else in that paragraph wrong. First of all, you do indeed have an intellectual misunderstanding in regard to Communion, but that doesn’t change the fact that Protestant “communion” is nothing more than eating some bread and drinking some wine/grape juice. Your minister - no Protestant minister in any denomination - has the authority to act on behalf of Jesus Christ in such a way as to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. So, whether you understand it or not, whether you believe it or not - it doesn’t matter. Your communion always has been, and always will be, nothing more than eating some bread and drinking some wine/grape juice. It is not the actual body and blood of Christ, literally or spiritually. Just bread and wine/grape juice. So, there is nothing at all efficacious about it.

You say that you, “take it [communion] as a proclamation that I am saved by the broken body of Christ and the blood that He spilled on the cross.” Where does the Bible say that that’s how you are to take it? And, are you not admitting that you are not eating the real flesh of Jesus Christ even after admitting that the bread He gives us to eat is His real flesh that hung on the Cross? Rather, you are eating His symbolic flesh, right?

Final point. You asked: “...where would you point to in church history where the church agreed on theology everywhere it existed?” I find this to be an absolutely fascinating question. I do so because, underlying your question, is the assumption that the Apostles taught different doctrines and dogmas to the different peoples they evangelized. In John 16:13, Jesus tells the Apostles that the Holy Spirit will guide them into “all truth,” not different truths for different peoples. The last thing Jesus tells the Apostles - Matthew 28:19-20 - is to teach “all nations” to observe “all” that I have commanded you. Yet, again, your question has an underlying assumption that they did not do so. That errors crept in to the deposit of the faith from, apparently, the very beginning of the Church.

So, I ask: Do you believe the Church that was founded by Jesus Christ teaches error...any error? If so, how do we have assurance of anything we believe as Christians? Also, is the Church founded by Jesus Christ guided by the Holy Spirit? If, yes, then do you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church into error? Any error? Protestants speak of, as you have, “essential” vs. “non-essential” doctrine - or "salvific" vs. "non-salvific" - yet, I see no such demarcation in Scripture. Where is the table in Scripture that identifies essential vs. non-essential doctrines? Or, is that simply a construct of the Word of Man that is found nowhere in the Word of God? In fact, does Paul not tell Timothy to “charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine?” ANY DIFFERENT DOCTRINE! He didn’t say, “charge certain persons not to teach any different salvific doctrine,” or “any different essential doctrine,” he said any different doctrine...period! No qualifiers.

John 17:20-23: Jesus prays to the Father that those who believe in Him through the words of the Apostles (i.e., Christians) will be one as He and the Father are one. Does Jesus believe any different doctrine than the Father, whether it be what you consider “salvific” or not? No! Jesus and the Father (as well as the Holy Spirit) agree on every single iota of doctrine and moral teaching - every single one! So, where is the excuse, from Scripture, for Christians believing in different doctrines? I don’t find one.

I’m going to be brutally honest here, Pastor, and tell you that the reason you accept error in Jesus’ church...the reason you accept that it’s okay for different persons to teach different doctrines (in spite of what Jesus and Paul said)...the reason you don’t think it’s any big deal if Christians are one as Jesus prayed for us to be...is because that’s the only way you can justify all the division within Protestantism. Paul warned against different factions; yet, Protestantism’s entire identity is built upon the acceptance of different factions.

I mean, you talk about “communion” not being considered “salvific”. According to what authority? What if you’re wrong? What if it is a salvation issue? After all, you were wrong - very wrong - with that 1st interpretation of John 15:1-6 that you offered me. And, when I pointed out that you were clearly wrong, what did you do? Did you consider at all that the interpretation I offered - which is what an unbiased reading of the text will give you - could be correct? No, you didn’t. Instead, you simply did a 180 degree reversal on your interpretation of that passage and came up with another interpretation in order to try and salvage a meaning that didn’t blow a huge hole in OSAS. Have to be honest and tell you that I was flabbergasted by how easily, and how casually, you simply reversed your interpretation. Do you not consider that if you could be that wrong on your interpretation of one part of Scripture, that you could just as easily be wrong on your interpretation of other parts of Scripture?

Anyway, I’ll end here with one last thought. Under Protestant theology, the best any two people can do to decide a disagreement over the interpretation of Scripture, when trying to determine what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice, is one person’s personal, fallible, non-authoritative interpretation of Scripture vs. the other person’s personal, fallible, non-authoritative interpretation of Scripture. Am I wrong? If I am please explain. If I’m not, then I ask: Do you really believe Jesus would leave His Church with no authority that could definitively decide what is, and is not, authentic Christian teaching and practice? That He would, in essence, simply leave it up to each individual’s best guess?

Comments/Strategy
I guarantee you that these last few paragraphs are what set him off. This line of argumentation really gets under Protestant skin. These are common sense questions to ask, and arguments to make, of anyone who believes in Sola Scriptura and who simply accepts that it's okay if Christians don't all believe the same things in regard to doctrine and morals. Common sense will be the eventual downfall of Protestantism.

Summary Email
{Three weeks had gone by from when I sent him Part I of my response, so I thought that he was probably either pretty overwhelmed with trying to figure out how to answer all of what I was sending him, or he was getting ready to bolt from the conversation. So I sent him this.}

John's Email
Okay, Clayton, the conversation got a bit unwieldy, so I’m going to dial it back a bit by asking you 13 questions (one each for Jesus and the 12 Apostles) to sum up the conversation so far. Most of the questions, not all, require only very short answers. So, it shouldn't take very long to answer them. Hopefully you’ll take a shot at them. Also, I would say that if you have any similarly related questions to ask of me from all of this, please feel free to do so.

The first 5 questions are the exact same summary questions I sent you in Part I of my response.

Summary Questions
1) Who, if anyone, has the authority to authentically interpret Scripture: a) Each fallible individual who can read; b) The Church founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit; or, c) No such authority exists within Christianity?

2) What does it say about the viability of Sola Scriptura, and individual fallible interpretations of Scripture, if it is apparently okay to interpret a passage of Scripture one way, and then two weeks later interpret it in exactly the opposite way?

3) How can a branch ever be a part of the vine that is Jesus Christ, if that branch is an unbeliever? Don’t you have to believe in order to become a branch of the vine in the first place, before you could ever be cut off from the vine? I mean, you can’t be cut off from something unless you are first a part of it, can you?

4) Do you interpret not bearing fruit to be the same thing as not believing? If so, why?

5) Will you admit that my understanding of John 15:1-6 is at least, possibly, what that passage is actually saying? And that it is also at least as authoritative an interpretation as yours?

6) Regarding Once Saved Always Saved. Can you give me your understanding of the following verses that is congruent with a belief in OSAS?

a) Hebrews 10:26-29, “For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire...A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?” Someone who has been sanctified by the blood of the covenant can then profane that blood and be liable to the judgment of fire? OSAS?

b) Romans 11:21-22, “For if God did not spare the natural branches [the Jews] neither will He spare you [Gentiles]. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you, too, will be cut off.” How can they be “cut off” if OSAS is true? Reminds me of the branches of the vine in John 15:1-6 also being cut off.

c) 1 Tim 4:1, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons...” To “depart” from the faith you have to first “have” the faith. And, if you have the faith, then, according to OSAS, you can’t depart from the faith. So, please explain to me how people can depart from the faith if OSAS is true?

d) In Matt 5:28-30, is Jesus not telling those who have the opportunity to gain Heaven - i.e., believers - that the consequence of their sins could be ending up in Hell? Yes or no?

7) Does the Bible tell us we have to be holy in order to “see the Lord”? Yes or no?

8) Where does the Bible say: “We will be judged for our works when we get to heaven.”

9) How can the Parable of the Prodigal Son be about humans losing their inheritance - salvation - due to their sin, and also be about the Prodigal not losing his inheritance due to sin (i.e., Once Saved Always Saved)? How can it be both at the same time?

10) Does the Bible anywhere say, "And the church devoted itself to reading Scripture and everyone decided for themselves on matters of doctrine based on their own personal interpretations?"

11) If John 6:51 is speaking about the real flesh of Christ that was nailed to the Cross, then is not John 6:52-58 also talking about that same real flesh of Christ that was nailed to the Cross? Yes or no?

12) You said that you, “Take it [communion] as a proclamation that I am saved by the broken body of Christ and the blood that He spilled on the cross.” Where does the Bible say that’s how you are to take it?

13) Will you agree that under Protestant theology, the best any two people can do to decide a disagreement over the interpretation of Scripture, when trying to determine what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice, is one person’s personal, fallible, non-authoritative interpretation of Scripture vs. the other person’s personal, fallible, non-authoritative interpretation of Scripture? Yes or no? If no, what part of that statement is wrong?

Comments/Strategy
Trying to re-focus the conversation. Bring it back to something more manageable. You can do the same in your conversations that start getting out of hand and wandering all over the place. Just ask a few questions to do a bit of a re-boot on the conversation.

Baptist Pastor's Reply
I do not wish to continue the dialogue. I appreciate your time in thoughtful responses but have also found them laced with disingenuous and arrogant comments. I do not believe that further correspondence would be fruit bearing.

My Response
In other words, you are unable to answer my questions/arguments in a way that doesn't cause your theology to contradict with Scripture, right? So, instead of having to critically examine what you believe and why you believe in the light of what Scripture actually says, and the questions I have posed to you, you instead, "Pastor," decide to launch an ad hominem attack on me as justification for extricating yourself from a difficult situation. A situation where you find yourself backed into a theological corner. Yet, I'm the arrogant one. Very Christian of you...

I'm not the one who is arrogant here, Clayton...you are. Thinking that you have the authority to decide for yourself what Scripture means and that your personal, fallible, interpretations somehow have precedence over, and are superior to, my beliefs and my interpretations of Scripture. How arrogant is that?!

I hope you will allow the Holy Spirit to release the blinders from your eyes, Clayton. Just keep reading John 15:1-6 and keep remembering that you had to radically alter your 1st interpretation of that passage when I made it very plain to you that your initial interpretation was not only contrary to common sense, but contrary to Scripture. How "disingenuous" is that, to give one interpretation and then just wave your hand and come up with another interpretation a week later because the 1st one didn't work out too well for you?! If my 1st interpretation doesn't work, I'll just make up another one. And then your altered interpretation was also contrary to Scripture.

Again, I ask, Pastor: How can one be a branch of the vine - which is Christ - if one is not a member of the Body of Christ? And, if the branch is a member of the Body of Christ, how can that branch then be cut off - for not producing fruit - and wither and be thrown into the fire to be burned, if Once Saved Always Saved is true?

Finally, how is it you're not afraid to teach your flock when you have admitted - as well as demonstrated - that your interpretations of Scripture are fallible? Which means, they could be wrong. You do know what Jesus says about those who teach error to His followers, don't you?

Comments/Strategy
He takes a shot and then runs for the hills and thinks that's it? Typical of the Protestant folks that I deal with, but, naw, you don't get to get away that easily. If I did not respond, then he might have very quickly put this conversation behind him and he would have justified doing so - in his mind - by being content with the fact that I was being arrogant and disingenuous, as he sees it. Well, I didn't want him to be able to forget this conversation all that easily. I wanted him to have to think about this for a while, so I tried to see if I could really get under his skin. I was intentionally trying to get him a bit riled up. If he does, then he might continue to engage...which will allow me the opportunity to maybe plant a seed or two. But, even if he doesn't re-engage, he will think about this a lot longer than if I had said nothing to challenge him.

Closing Comments

Next week, another Baptist minister. This one I have dealt with in this newsletter in the relatively recent past. He wrote to me thinking he could get me to agree with him on Once Saved Always Saved. Uhm...I don't think so. This one is a regular contributor to The Christian Post, an online magazine with a fairly hefty circulation. Should be fun. Have a great week!

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at:

https://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

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

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