|
John,
If I may repeat my narration of our exchange so far, it is thus:
You asked me where we should start.
I responded by asking you what you considered to be essential Christian teaching.
You responded with the so-called Apostles' Creed. I recently responded that it is interesting that you chose to give me a non-inspired, man-made creed. I wrote that if you asked me the same question I would just give you a Bible.
You responded that the so-called Apostles' Creed contains teachings that are essential to the Christian faith. Then you asked me what parts of the creed that I disagree with. Now we are getting somewhere. You wrote, "If you ask me what I believe, I will give you the Bible, as well." But the fact is, you didn’t. No you gave me something else. You gave me something LESS than the Bible. This is but one illustration of how far your faith has traveled from the authority of the divine book towards the manufactured authority of the institution called the Roman Catholic church.
My specific point here does not even involve the veracity of this creed (though that subject would make for an interesting exchange). My point is that you have gone outside the scriptures for something you call essential. I find that very telling.
So let me ask you, what makes this creed so essential? Why did you mention that creed? Why didn’t you give the Bible as your response instead of that creed?
Obviously there is much more I could write, but I’d like to stay on point here.
In Grace,
Matt Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt,
Your words are in italics, and my comments are below them in bold.
John
Matt: If I may repeat my narration of our exchange so far, it is thus:
You asked me where we should start.
I responded by asking you what you considered to be essential Christian teaching.
John: Well, let’s be precise here, you asked me what I consider to be the “essentials of faith.” I responded by giving you what I consider to be the “core beliefs” of “the” faith, meaning Christianity. I specifically stated that I do not believe in essential vs. non-essential doctrines. I wish to be precise for you have taken me to task for answering incorrectly (as you see it) a question which you actually never asked me, as I will show below.
Matt: You responded with the so-called Apostles' Creed. I recently responded that it is interesting that you chose to give me a non-inspired, man-made creed. I wrote that if you asked me the same question I would just give you a Bible.
John: Actually, you wouldn’t “just” give me a Bible. You would give me the Bible and your own fallible, non-authoritative, man-made interpretation of the Bible. And, if I didn’t accept your fallible, non-authoritative, man-made interpretation of the Bible, you would accuse me of all sorts of things, as you have done. And I will prove that to you right here and now.
Okay, let’s say that I have asked you what you believe to be “essential Christian teaching,” and you have responded by giving me a Bible and said, “This is essential Christian teaching.” So, I turn to Ephesians 2:3, and it says “so we were, by nature, children of wrath.” And I conclude that you believe we are all born into condemnation, as children of wrath, because of the sin of Adam. As the Bible further tells us in Romans 5:18, “Then as one man’s [Adam’s] trespass led to condemnation for all men...” So, do you believe in the fact that Adam’s sin led to the condemnation of all men and that, because of his sin, we are all born into the flesh as “children of wrath?” Are we in agreement on that very clear biblical teaching, brother?!
Let’s try it again. You’ve handed me a Bible and said, “This is essential Christian teaching,” and I open it up to John 6:51 and following. And I read that we must eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood in order to have eternal life. And I conclude that you believe we must literally eat the actual flesh and drink the actual blood of Jesus Christ in order to have eternal life. I conclude that because that’s what the Bible says. So, do you believe in the fact that we must literally eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ in order to have eternal life? Are we in agreement on that very clear biblical teaching, brother?!
Let’s try another one. You’ve handed me a Bible and said, “This is essential Christian teaching,” and I open it up to 2 Thes 2:15 which says, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” And I conclude that you believe we must follow what Paul the Apostle taught, whether he wrote it down or not. In other words, we must follow both the written traditions of the Apostles, and the oral traditions of the Apostles. Are we in agreement on that very clear biblical teaching, brother?!
One more. You’ve handed me a Bible and said, “This is essential Christian teaching,” and I open it up to John 20:21-23 where it says, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” And I conclude that you believe that Jesus gave some of His disciples the authority to forgive or retain sins. Or, as it says in Matthew 9:6-8, I conclude that you believe God has given men the authority on earth to forgive sins. So, there are men who can forgive sins or retain sins. Are we in agreement on that very clear biblical teaching, brother?!
Strategies/Comments: The point of all of this, if you haven't already figured it out, is that no one just gives you a Bible and says, "Here are the essentials of the Faith." They hand you the Bible along with their own fallible, non-authoritative interpretation of the Bible. Because, if you take the Bible from their hand and see in the Bible how all the passages support Catholic teaching, and cite passages such as the ones above to show how the Bible directly states Catholic teaching, then all of a sudden the Bible, as a Catholic reads it, doesn't hold the essentials of the Faith. You see, you need their interpretation to properly understand the Word of God, you can't go by your interpretation. So, again, the point is to show that we (as Catholics) need someone to interpret the Bible for us, so that we can throw off the shackles of Rome and be de-programmed and de-Poped and de-Sacramented and de-Traditioned and de-Sainted and de-Maryed - we are not allowed to just read the Bible on our own to come to our own conclusions.
Would you agree with me on all of those very clear biblical teachings? I think not. In other words, you don’t just hand me a Bible, you hand me your corrupted, non-authoritative, man-made, fallible interpretation of the Bible as well. Don’t you? And, if I don’t accept your corrupted, non-authoritative, man-made, fallible interpretation of the Bible, then I’m wrong, aren’t I? Gee, that sounds fair to me.
Well, how come I’m the one who is wrong and not you? By what authority do you claim to have a more authentic interpretation of the scriptures than the one I have?
Strategies/Comments: Back to the "But That's My Interpretation" Strategy.
Plus, let’s say that you hand me the Bible and tell me that it is the “essentials of faith.” Fine. My question to you is: How do you know? How do you know the Bible contains the “essentials of faith?” WHO TOLD YOU THAT? Who? How do you know that the Bible is the Word of God? How do you know which books are supposed to be in the Bible? How do you even know who wrote the Bible? For example, can you tell me how you know Mark wrote Mark? And, which Mark wrote Mark? Do you know? How do you know? How do you know that what Mark wrote is the inspired Word of God? Very important questions. Please give me chapter and verse that tells us who wrote the Gospel of Mark and that it is indeed the inspired Word of God? Which chapter? Which verse? Where, in the Bible, is the list of books that are supposed to be in the Bible? If we go by the Bible alone, then the Bible must tell us somewhere which books are supposed to be in the Bible, right? How else would the early Christians know which books to include in Scripture?
Strategies/Comments: These are questions that you can ask any Protestant...anyone who claims to go by the Bible alone. You will not get back answers to these questions that contain a chapter and a verse. If you get an answer at all to these questions, it will be something along the lines of, "Well, we have the witness of the early Christians to tell us these things." Can anyone say "Tradition?!" In other words, their claim of going by Scripture alone just went out the window. And, their argument for saying Catholics add to Scripture with our "traditions," also just went out the window. That is, of course, if you get any answer at all.
Matt: You responded that the so-called Apostles' Creed contains teachings that are essential to the Christian faith. Then you asked me what parts of the creed that I disagree with. Now we are getting somewhere. You wrote, "If you ask me what I believe, I will give you the Bible, as well." But the fact is, you didn’t. No you gave me something else. You gave me something LESS than the Bible. This is but one illustration of how far your faith has traveled from the authority of the divine book towards the manufactured authority of the institution called the Roman Catholic church.
John: Here is where you chastise me for answering your question incorrectly (again, as you see it), but you are actually taking me to task for not giving the answer you want to a question you didn’t ask. There are two questions here: The first question pertains to the “essentials of faith.” Again, I said I don’t believe in essential vs. non-essential doctrines, so I answered with what I said are the “core beliefs” of Christianity...the beliefs around which all other Christian beliefs revolve. The second question, which you never asked, is: What do I believe? Or, more precisely, where do my beliefs come from? As I said above, if you asked me what I believe, which you did not, I, too, can hand you a Bible, and I can do even more. I can point you to the Church established by Jesus Christ Himself which can guide you in an authentic interpretation of that Bible. Can you do that? Who would you point me to as an authentic interpreter of scripture? Am I an authentic interpreter of scripture? Are you?
Strategies/Comments: This question of who is or is not an "authentic interpreter" of Scripture is also a very good one to ask anyone who believes in Sola Scriptura - going by the Bible alone. You won't get an answer. I can almost guarantee that Matt won't answer this...and he's even reading what I'm writing here. Sola Scriptura folks believe each individual has the right, the duty, to pick up Scripture, and, thinking for themselves without answering to any outside authority - because there is no authority outside of the individual reading Scripture - come to an understanding of what is and is not authentic Christian doctrine. So, if that's the case, then every individual reading the Bible should be considered an "authentic interpreter" of Scripture, right?!
But, he can't admit to being an authentic interpreter of Scripture, can he? That would be an act of rank conceit, not to mention the infallibility thing that he doesn't believe in. However, he can't admit to not being an authentic interpreter of Scripture, can he? Because that would mean that anything he believes about what the Bible says, could be wrong. And, he can't say that I am not an authentic interpreter, because then he's admitting that I shouldn't be picking up the Bible and reading it to come to my own conclusions without any outside authority - yet he believes I should be doing just that. But, he can't say that I am an authentic interpreter because then he would have to agree with my interpretations of Scripture that he currently disagrees with. What is a sola scriptura person to do?!
Matt: My specific point here does not even involve the veracity of this creed (though that subject would make for an interesting exchange). My point is that you have gone outside the scriptures for something you call essential. I find that very telling.
John: Actually, I haven’t gone “outside the scriptures” for anything. Everything in the Apostles’ Creed is scriptural. That’s why I asked you those questions - which are quite relevant to this discussion - about which part, or parts, of the Apostles’ Creed do you not believe in. It’s all from the Word of God. Do you really think that my believing in God the Father as Creator of heaven and earth as a core belief of Christianity, is going outside the scriptures? And do you further think that my believing in Jesus Christ being incarnated and born of a virgin as a core belief of Christianity, is going outside the scriptures? Again, please let me know which parts of the Apostles’ Creed you don’t believe in.
But, let me go one step further here...where does it say, in the scriptures, or anywhere else for that matter, that going outside of the scriptures is a problem? Don’t the scriptures themselves say that there are many things that Jesus did that are not recorded in the scriptures? And, don’t the scriptures further say that man shall not live by bread alone, but by “every” word that comes forth from the mouth of God? So, if we’re to live by “every” word that comes forth from the mouth of God, but not every word that came forth from the mouth of God is recorded in scripture, as scripture itself says, then what does someone who goes by the scripture alone do in order to live by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God?
Matt: I make no secret that my goal here is to show that the legitimate faith that you have in Jesus as the Christ has been tainted by false teachings. You have opened our exchange from your end with the authority of man-made creeds instead of the authority of the scriptures. This was one-hundred percent your decision. You did this in response to an open ended question.
John: I have opened our exchange with the core beliefs of Christianity...which was what you asked me for...as found in the Word of God and as set forth in the Apostles’ Creed. You have opened our exchange with? Nothing! Well, actually, you have opened our exchange with some man-made test, of your own devising, which you claim I have answered incorrectly. Please do give me the scripture and the verse that says, “In order to test whether or not someone has an authentic Christian Faith, ask them to give you the ‘essentials of faith.’ If they respond with any answer other than ‘the Bible,’ then you know that their religion has become corrupted.” Where is that in the Bible? And please tell me how would a Christian who was alive in, say 50 A.D., have responded to your question? Would they have said, “The Bible?”
Matt: So let me ask you, what makes this creed so essential? Why did you mention that creed? Why didn’t you give the Bible as your response instead of that creed?
John: I believe I have answered this above. But, to summarize, in response to your initial question, I gave you the “core beliefs” of Christianity as laid out in the Apostles’ Creed. You did not ask me for the sum of my beliefs nor for the source of my beliefs. In answer to that question, again, I say, the sum and the source of my beliefs are the Word of God. And, again, I ask, what’s wrong with the Apostles’ Creed? By what authority do you claim the Apostles’ Creed to be an insufficient answer to a question about the core beliefs of Christianity?
Matt: Obviously there is much more I could write, but I’d like to stay on point here.
In Grace,
Matt Johnson
|
