Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #38
General Comments
Hey folks, I’ll be brief with my introductory comments. Just wanted to let anyone know who might be interested in attending, that I will be speaking at the “Defending the Faith” conference at Franciscan University of Steubenville on July 28th. I’ll be giving one of the Saturday afternoon workshops. For more information, check out: www.franciscanconferences.com. Just click on the “Defending the Faith” link.
Introduction
Okay, this could be the last newsletter with Matt Johnson. I know many of you are saying, “Thank you!” to that. Although, as you will see in this newsletter, I gave him one last chance to answer my questions, and, if he does, I will include them in the next newsletter. I am a man of my word.
Below is his response to what I wrote in the last newsletter. And, below that is my response. I didn’t intermingle it with his, so that it will hopefully be easier to read and follow. Although, because I didn’t intermingle it with his, my response is longer because I have to quote him at length so that you know exactly what I am responding to.
I will not have any Strategies or Comments in this one, because it is long enough and because I think they are pretty much self-evident.
Challenge/Response/Strategy
From Matt
Bravo. I am so glad you published the bulk of our exchange so far. Actually, I’m impressed. Good for you. So far I have been wrong about what you would publish.
Please give me advanced warning if you are going to stop reading, responding to, or publishing my responses. I will react accordingly. That would be a disappointment to me. But you are the man with the microphone, so you call the shots. I also recognize that you are the one who has been gracious enough to make our exchange available to a greater audience than my own humble congregation. Thank you.
Oh, and for the record, I don’t feel like you have been mean to me. I’m a big boy. Neither one of us has worn kid gloves in this exchange. Perhaps some people can’t handle this communication style and find it offensive. You responded well to them in your last newsletter.
I hope you don’t mind if I focus on the Bible and limit this email to our ongoing discussion about John chapter six and other relevant Scriptures. I liked the questions you sent, and hopefully I can spend some time on them in the future (especially the ones where you “almost guarantee” your readers that I will not respond). Honestly, I suspect you will end our exchange before I do. Perhaps I should almost guarantee your readers that. For now, let’s chase one rabbit. You know what happens when you chase two.
On the Christian Bible Society website, one of your readers asks, “Why do Protestants not believe John 6 when it says that Jesus’ flesh is real food and that His blood is real drink?” You respond, “I don’t know!” And then you go on with some of the teachings that you have shared with me.
Well today is the day you get to find out why some people don’t agree with you. The short answer is that your interpretation is not biblical, literal, or logical. There is a reason you believe this, but we will get to it in a moment. We will start with my favorite point.
Let us begin with biblical interpretation. Fortunately for us, God has seen fit for the Scriptures to be preserved to this day so the immutable voice of God can bring light to these questions.
1 Corinthians 11:17: In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not! 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.
33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions.”
You brought up 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 in our last exchange, so I’m dealing with it first. Actually I’m astonished that you would bring it up as you did. I thought that your interpretation of this passage went out of style with the fundamentalist preachers of the mid twentieth-century.
Pastors used to keep their congregations in check with the threat that anyone who participated at the Lord’s Table in an “unworthy manner” was in great, perhaps even mortal danger. The nice thing for them was they could open up their Bibles and read from 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, “prove” this claim and guilt their flock into conformity.
The problem is, as with most false doctrines, there’s some truth to it. Yes, we are to examine ourselves before we eat the bread and drink of the cup. We do not want to partake in an unworthy manner. Indeed we are in danger if we profane the body of Christ. But that begs a question – what does “unworthy manner” mean?
Some people will say an “unworthy manner” means that we are in a state of unconfessed sin. Some people say that it means we must take this act seriously, not as a recent comedian did when he called it “snack time.” You seem to say that we must recognize the doctrine of transubstantion or else we partake in an unworthy manner.
What does the Bible tell us? Do we get any clues? Well basic hermeneutics (there’s that word again) teaches us to pay attention to context. In what context does the apostle Paul use the phrase “unworthy manner”? Verses 17-22 give us the context. There were divisions even within a congregation. Some people were using the assembly, or mass if you prefer, for selfish purposes. “One remains hungry, another gets drunk,” the apostle wrote.
In this context we get the most direct explanation of the Lord’s Supper found in sacred Scripture. Interestingly the following verses (23-26) give us the reason for this meal. Two words come directly from God – “remembrance” and “proclaim”. Yes, this is the focus of the meal at our assembly. We are to focus on Christ, not on self.
So what do we learn from this? What exactly is the “unworthy manner” that we read of in verse 27? It is obvious. Paul corrected the wrong behavior and wrong beliefs of the Corinthian church. They treated the Lord’s Table like selfish people at a buffet. This is unworthy behavior for the Lord’s Table.
You, on the other hand interpreted the passage much differently. You impose your teaching of transubstantiation into the passage and state that if we do not believe your teaching then we eat and drink in an unworthy manner.
Many Christians have been guilty of interpreting and teaching as you have through the years. They pick a despised sin or pet doctrine and they interpret 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 in light of their dogmatic position. But the passage is specific. “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other.”
So you see, the Bible teaches respect for the assembly and other Christians. It teaches the purpose of the Lord’s Supper – remembrance and proclamation. Your teaching is not to be found in this passage. Isn’t that simple when we just read the Bible?
While we are in Paul’s first letter to the church in Corinth, let’s look at 1 Corinthians 10:16-17.
“Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.”
You insisted on Biblical evidence (interesting since you have offered no biblical proof of your interpretation), so here is some more. This passage is one of the few in the New Testament that deal with the Lord’s Table. Again I look in the Bible and see no “clear teaching” as you have called it about this transubstantiation you speak of. I see the words and concepts of participation, fellowship, and unity. But I see no evidence for the claims you make. It seems reasonable that we should take the Bible at its word and not impose any additional concepts to the Scriptures.
You wrote: “ . . . 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.”
Perhaps you are absolutely right. No one just teaches the Bible. Everyone gives you their own fallible, non-authoritative interpretation. But if you are right then you must also admit that you have condemned yourself and the Roman Catholic church with the same statement.
Allow me to introduce you to a couple of hermeneutical words. One is exegesis [ex-uh-jee-sus]. It is Greek for “to draw the meaning out of.” When we read the Bible we must be careful to draw meaning out of the text – to find out what God is saying. If we don’t, we are in danger of eisegesis [ice-uh-jee-sus]. This is Greek for “to lead in.” This is what we do when we impose meaning into the Scriptures and introduce our own ideas. Eisegesis occurs when, instead of allowing God to speak to us through the Scriptures, we tell him what he means according to our preferences.
Scholars (Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Mainline, Fundamentalist, and Liberal) all disagree on what constitutes exegesis and eisegesis. But everyone agrees that of utmost importance is the AIM of the Scriptures. That is the Authors Intended Meaning. When we search for the Author’s Intended Meaning and look at the remaining passages in the New Testament concerning the Lord’s Supper, what do we find?
Acts 2:42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
Acts 2:46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,
Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.
Acts 20:11 Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate. After talking until daylight, he left.
How does the Bible speak of this holy meal? In what way is it described by Luke? What doctrine should we develop around this gift from our Savior? I am humbled by the commonness of it all. It is a meal – an everyday meal with extraordinary spiritual overtones. It is shared in homes. It is shared among friends. It is shared weekly. It is shared daily.
I call it the “Lords’ Supper”. You call it the “Eucharist”. Yet Luke simply called it “breaking of bread”. What shall we make of this?
One thing we shouldn’t do. We shouldn’t be guilty of an anachronism. An anachronism has occurred when something is taken out of temporal context. For instance, Genesis 3:8 speaks of God walking in the garden in the “cool” of the day. The word “cool” has developed a new meaning in recent generations. If I interpret Genesis 3:8 to mean that a particular part of the day was hip, trendy, or fashionable (perhaps Ryan Seacrest was on television at that time of the day), then I would be guilty of an anachronism. Similarly, if you interpret “breaking bread” with a 21st century understanding of the doctrine of transubstantiation then you are guilty of an anachronism.
We must take the Bible at its word. These passages do not mention a special class of priests saying “hoc est corpus” while a bell rings. There is no mention of a tabernacle or a little candle to indicate the presence of the body of Christ. No one is standing in line with their mouth open waiting to have a sliver of bread. All of those things are innovations of more modern congregations. We cannot read these things into the Bible. The biblical evidence looks a lot more like what I believe than what you believe John.
Now, with some chagrin, I will deal with the Old Testament passages you mentioned.
Psalm 27:2 When evil men advance against me to devour my flesh, when my enemies and my foes attack me, they will stumble and fall.
Micah 3:2 you who hate good and love evil; who tear the skin from my people and the flesh from their bones; 3 who eat my people’s flesh, strip off their skin and break their bones in pieces; who chop them up like meat for the pan, like flesh for the pot?" 4 Then they will cry out to the LORD, but he will not answer them. At that time he will hide his face from them because of the evil they have done.
Isaiah 9:20 On the right they will devour, but still be hungry; on the left they will eat, but not be satisfied. Each will feed on the flesh of his own offspring:
You wrote: “Fact is, I can tell you how the Jews used the term “to eat one’s flesh” metaphorically. You probably aren’t aware of this, but the phrase “eat the flesh” is indeed used as a metaphor in Scripture…a metaphor that conveys something wicked and evil: “
Perhaps you have been taught along your party lines that eating flesh is only referred to in the metaphoric sense in the Old Testament. You probably aren’t aware of this then, but eating flesh is spoken of in a literal sense in these passages:
Deuteronomy 28:53 Because of the suffering that your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the LORD your God has given you. 54 Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, 55 and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating. It will be all he has left because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities. 56 The most gentle and sensitive woman among you— so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot— will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter 57 the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears. For she intends to eat them secretly during the siege and in the distress that your enemy will inflict on you in your cities.
2 Kings 6:26 As the king of Israel was passing by on the wall, a woman cried to him, “Help me, my lord the king!” 27 The king replied, “If the LORD does not help you, where can I get help for you? From the threshing floor? From the winepress?” 28 Then he asked her, “What’s the matter?” She answered, “This woman said to me, ‘Give up your son so we may eat him today, and tomorrow we’ll eat my son.’ 29 So we cooked my son and ate him. The next day I said to her, ‘Give up your son so we may eat him,’ but she had hidden him.”
Leviticus 26:29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.
Jeremiah 19:9 I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.’
Ezekiel 5:10 Therefore in your midst fathers will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers. I will inflict punishment on you and will scatter all your survivors to the winds.
And perhaps the most disturbing statement in the whole of the Old Testament:
Lamentations 4:10 With their own hands compassionate women have cooked their own children, who became their food when my people were destroyed.”
Kind of gives you pause to think why people would be horrified at Jesus’ teaching about eating his flesh, doesn’t it? So you see, you can’t say that eating flesh was used strictly metaphorically by the Jews. They knew of the horrid and evil reality of literally eating flesh.
But what if you do make this metaphorical connection between the Old Testament and the New Testament? By the method of interpretation you have employed above, if something had a bad connotation in the Old Testament, it must have a bad connotation in the New Testament as well. If it was used one way in the Old Testament it must be used the same way in the New Testament as well.
With your kind of thinking I wonder what you would say about calling someone the Queen of Heaven – Jeremiah 7:18. Actually, I know what you would say; I have read it on your website. You don’t have a problem with it. This reveals an inconsistent hermeneutic (method of interpretation) on your part.
Perhaps you know full well that your argument isn’t worth the ones and zeros it takes your computer to send. Do I need to waste more bandwidth or will you just admit it?
I am beginning to suspect that you do not mind making or implying arguments that even you do not believe in order to advance your side of the debate. If that is correct, what does it say about the way you handle truth? This is why I believe you are going to stop publishing our exchanges – not because they are not going anywhere, but because they are not going your way. You have indicated that your readers are interested in this dialogue, yet you do not seem committed to seeing this through.
You may have noticed that I have not mentioned John 6 yet. I will deal with it now in my second point. My point is this – even though you claim that you interpret John 6 literally, you do not.
John 6:48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
I find it interesting that you employ this argument. Aren’t you the one who teaches that we should interpret the Bible literally, not literalistically? According to your teaching, and correct me if I am wrong about what you teach here, a literal interpretation of scripture takes into account the meaning that the author intended to convey. Literalist interpretation takes the exact meaning of the words without consideration of popular cultural meaning or the meaning that the author intended to convey.
An example you have used is, “it’s raining cats and dogs.” A literal interpretation, according to your teaching, is that it’s raining a whole lot. A literalistic interpretation, according to your teaching, is that you better run for cover because cats and dogs are falling from the sky. You copyrighted this teaching in 2000, so I’m assuming you still agree with your own teaching.
Now, let’s look at John 6 in light of your teaching. Jesus said, “This bread is my flesh.” What, according to your teaching, is the literal interpretation and what is the literalistic interpretation? The literal interpretation, according to you, takes into account the meaning that the author intended to convey. A literalistic interpretation, according to your teaching, takes the exact meaning of the words without consideration of popular cultural meaning or the meaning that the author intended to convey.
The literal interpretation of, “This bread is my flesh,” according to your teaching, must involve some sort of literally device like a metaphor. A literalistic interpretation of, “This bread is my flesh,” according to your teaching, must be taken in a non-figurative sense. So by your own teachings your interpretation is literalistic, not literal. Check mate on this point John.
I could close the book right there. But I will not. Your teaching on literal and literalistic interpreting may be valuable to some extent, but is incomplete and inaccurate. To quote you (after you quoted “The Princes Bride”), “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.” The word I am talking about is “literal”. “Literal”, by everyone’s definition but yours, includes denotations and excludes connotations. It excludes figurative language. Your definition of “literal” includes figurative language. This is a big problem with your literal/literalistic distinction. It is simply bad teaching.
Besides, no one interprets the Bible completely literally (by the true definition of “literal”). No one does. You don’t. You have admitted that Jesus used metaphors. These are figurative, not literal. Jesus also used parables. He literally told the stories. But the stories are not actually historic events. You recognize that these are allegorical, not literal.
A more complete way to think about interpreting the Bible is to say that we accept the historical accuracy of the Scriptures literally. If Isaiah wrote down a Revelation from God that is found in the Bible then we believe that Isaiah actually, literally received that revelation. Yet we understand that even though we hope in the LORD and he renews our strength, we will not literally sprout wings and fly (Isaiah 40:31). This is a figurative, not a literal, interpretation that I assume we both agree on.
I say this to expose the fact that even though you claim to interpret the Bible literally you do not (nor would you want to in many cases). Your distinction between literal and literalistic interpretations is not correct. As a matter of fact, you seem to use the word “literalistic” when you should use the word “literal”.
To use your example above, a literal interpretation of, “It’s raining cats and dogs,” (by the true definition of “literal”) would not take into account figurative language. You seem to say that it does. A literal interpretation of that statement would have us running for cover because canines and felines are falling from the sky.
But you make a substitute in your teaching. You say that the literalistic interpretation is the one that has us running for cover. (By the way, where did you get that word? I can’t find it anywhere.) By changing the meaning of “literal” to include figurative language and by imposing the true meaning of “literal” onto “literalistic” you have not only created confusion, but also manipulated truth.
Let’s, for your sake, take a look at the problems you run into when you really interpret John 6 literally.
First of all you have a grammatical problem. Read verse 55 very closely. Jesus’ flesh is real food. He literally said it (you are fond of pointing that out). But did he literally say to do it literally? Did he literally say to do it figuratively? Your problem is that Jesus used the present tense of esti, meaning “to be” when he said, “My flesh is real food . . .” With your strict method of interpreting this particular chapter Jesus’ flesh would have to be real food at the actual time he spoke this. But this was not the case.
Another problem you have with that same statement is that you claim you are taking Jesus literally when he says “my flesh is real food.” But that is impossible. (You have already wasted your smoke screen concerning what is possible and what is impossible for God.) You know that God is a God is reason. Reason teaches us that “A” cannot be “A” and not “A” at the same time and in the same way. For instance a light bulb cannot be on and off at the same time and in the same way. But a light bulb can be on electrically and off stylistically (if it does not match the décor of the room). This is pure reason and even God works within this reality without limiting his power or sovereignty in the least.
So using reason, the bread cannot be both real food and the body of Christ at the same time and in the same way. It is unreasonable. It is illogical. It is not literally possible.
While I am already here, let me dispel another of your rhetorical tricks. You have often asked, Did Jesus literally say…did He actually say…that we must “eat [His] flesh” and “drink [His] blood” in order to have eternal life?” You see what you did? I do. You use the word “literal” and try to say that if Jesus literally said it and you are literally interpreting the Bible, then you must be right. An unobservant reader may be confused into thinking that Jesus’ teaching and your teaching are one and the same. But they are not. First, you do not really interpret the passage literally. Second, Jesus never tells us to interpret what he says literally, even though you imply strongly that he does.
You have tried to use the response of the people in John 6 to strengthen your argument. You wrote, And, I take it from your previous response, that you know full well that His listeners on that day 2000 years ago did indeed take Him literally.
And yes, they appeared to be confused. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” they asked. Please note that their interpretation was literal (not transubstantianal). They had a problem with eating the literal flesh of Jesus. There is a word for that – cannibalism. Yet you link your interpretation of this passage to their response. This is curious. Your interpretation is not literal and their interpretation was. Still you claim to believe the same way that they did. Really, it just doesn’t make sense.
Third, your interpretation of John 6 is not logical. I have accused you of manufacturing an unnecessary correlation. Yet you do not seem to understand that accusation, so I will explain. You have implied that if the sacrifice of Christ was real and not symbolic then the communion bread must be real flesh and not symbolic. I’m not sure why you think you get to make up that rule. Can you tell me where that rule came from?
Any third grader can read that Jesus connects the bread to his flesh. But if you try to take that too far (as you have), you will end up with a belief where either one (the body of Christ or the bread) could have been nailed to the cross – since they were one and the same by your interpretation. This is not logical.
I noticed you avoided Nicodemus in your last response. Nicodemus, bless his heart, just could not figure out what Jesus was talking about when, three chapters earlier, Jesus told him that he needed to be born again. Nicodemus did take him literally:
John 3:4 “How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”
How ridiculous it would be to agree with the reaction of Nicodemus here. I bet your mother would not be happy at all if you did. Yet you look to glean from the collective ignorance of Jesus’ initial audience in order to support your interpretation.
A more logical interpretation is metaphorical and spiritual. What is baptism but an event where the physical signifies a spiritual reality? Does the water save us? No. Neither of us believes in salvation by works. (Note that you and I probably agree with each other on the subject of salvation more than either of us does with our Evangelical brothers.) It is logical to interpret Jesus’ teaching on being born again and Jesus’ teaching on the bread of life with consistent hermeneutical principles.
It should not bother us that Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus, just like it should not bother us that the crowd in John 6 did not understand. Note that Jesus did not clarify this teaching on baptism even though Nicodemus was confused and asked Jesus specifically what he was talking about. There were many teachings that even the apostles did not understand until Christ had more fully revealed himself (e.g., his death Matthew 16:23).
I have pointed out in the past that Jesus did not say “this is my literal body,” or “this is my transubstantianal body.” And you were quick to respond: “At the Last Supper He didn’t say, “This is metaphorically My body,” or “This is symbolically My body,” or any such thing, He said, “This IS My body.”
Could you please give me one, just one example in the Bible where anyone used a metaphor and, in the metaphor, spoke the word “metaphor”? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Who says, “It’s metaphorically raining cats and dogs.”? I don’t ask this to insult you John, but do you understand how a metaphor works? In case you don’t, let me explain that a metaphor is a comparison that does not use the words “like” or “as” or even the word “metaphor”. Can you find me even one example in all the literature of the world where anyone uses a metaphor and includes the word “metaphor”? You won’t find it John.
The only logical interpretation of this passage, the only interpretation that works without adding words, the only interpretation that is consistent with the way Jesus often spoke is to take comparative language and figurative imagery into account.
(On the lighter side, I note with some amusement the last thing Jesus says about the flesh in John 6. He says, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.” Excuse the pun, but this is food for thought.)
So your interpretation is not supported by Scripture, it is not literal as you claim, and it is not logical. What is left? Why would you believe as you do? Francis Bacon put it this way, “People prefer to believe what they prefer to be true.” Since biblical, literal, and logical interpretations are out for you, there seems to be only one explanation left – ecclesiastical.
Your teaching comes from a doctrine that your church professes as truth. This is why you believe it. I scratched the surface of this reality and you responded: To call it an “invention” or an “addition” to Scripture is an argument that I thought was beneath you.
Well John, the truth is never beneath me. Is it beneath you? Are you above the truth? The fact is that if I am right, then your teaching is an innovation and an addition to Scripture. There is no other option. There is no shame if I agree with the Fundamentalists on a point, just like there is no shame if I agree with a Roman Catholic on a point (providing that the points are true).
You admit that the word “transubstantion” is an innovation of the Roman Catholic church. And you flaunt it as if it were something to not be ashamed of. Even worse is the purpose of this doctrine. It was developed at a time when the Roman Catholic church was trying to define itself and assert its own authority (after the East/West division of 1054 A.D.) It serves the purposes of creating something exclusive for the Roman Catholic Church. It was manufactured in order to claim something unique for the western church.
Let’s see now. If I were associated with a division of Christianity and wanted to claim some sort of uniqueness and authority for my church, what would I do? I would claim that the church I was associated with had something unique that you could not get anywhere else. I would claim that salvation rests on receiving this unique thing. This would keep my church members from questioning my authority and it would keep them from leaving my denomination for another. Yes, that is what I would do, and that is what your denomination has done.
You must admit that the timing is suspicious. You say the doctrine was developed several hundred years after Christ. Try one-thousand years – a millennium. That’s a long time to wait to clarify an important doctrine. But the Roman Catholic church, as an institution, had much to lose if they did not assert their uniqueness and authority.
You can dismiss all of this biblical evidence and logical evidence and go back to that talking point of your about who is and who isn’t an “authentic interpreter of Scripture”. But then you will have proved my point that you, as a Roman Catholic, do not need the Bible and you do not need logic. All you need is your ecclesiastical theology. You will have proved that someone else has already done your thinking for you.
You ended your last message with this: Oh, one more thing, if you have any questions that you have asked me in previous emails, that you feel I haven’t answered, please do list them like I did the ones at the beginning of this response. I would be happy to answer any and all of them.
My response is “all of them.” I would like you to answer all of the questions that I asked you – probably much the way you would like me to answer all of the questions you asked me. Yet we must pick our present battles. And let me say for the record that if you do not quit on me I will attempt to answer every question you have for me.
I would like you to answer every question I have asked, but there is one in particular I would like you to make a priority (at the risk of chasing a second rabbit). Could you be wrong about the infallibility of Roman Catholic church doctrine? I hope you remember the question from my previous response. Since I assume you would say that you are fallible, and you are the free-thinking person who has decided for yourself the doctrine of Roman Catholic infallibility is true, perhaps you have made a mistake.
Would you admit that? There are follow-up questions after this first one is answered. If it is possible that you are wrong about this doctrine, is it provable? How could it be proved? What would that do to your faith in Jesus Christ? What would that do to your relationship with the Roman Catholic church and your relationship with other Christians outside the Roman Catholic church? What would that do to your relationship with the Word of God? What would you believe if you were wrong about Roman Catholic infallibility? I’m glad you wrote that you will be happy to answer any and all of these questions.
In Grace,
Matt
-————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
From John
Well, I’m very happy that you’re happy that I’ve published the “bulk of our exchange” so far. Judging by the emails I’ve received from my readers, the majority of them were not so happy about that and are calling for me to end this particular exchange and move on. Let’s just say that your arguments have impressed them less than you probably would have hoped. And, I’m afraid after I publish your last reply, those sentiments will be magnified. However, I am willing to swim against the tide and give you one more chance.
By the way, before I get into it, I have a question: Have you been sharing these exchanges with members of your congregation? Have you told them to go online to my website and read the newsletters or to order the materials if they want to know more about what Catholics believe and why? Have you told your in-laws about these exchanges so that they could read them? I kind of doubt that you have.
Anyway, back to the matter at hand. I have to tell you that I get quite a kick out of your method of argumentation. To quote you, “I hope you don’t mind if I focus on the Bible and limit this email to our ongoing discussion about John chapter six…For now, let’s chase one rabbit.” So, your tactic is to avoid answering all of my questions about infallibility and about the Bible and about your hangup with being “excluded” by the Catholic Church by saying that you will get to those things at another time. Nice.
Just one problem, even though you say you aren’t going to discuss those things, which is your excuse for not answering my questions on those topics, you then go ahead and discuss them anyway…although, without answering my questions. Very nice. Now, I know I’m from Alabama, so that means I’m a bit slower than you, and I know that I’m Catholic, which means I’m a bit slower than most of the other folks in Alabama, but did you really think I wouldn’t notice you doing that? We have a saying down here for what you’re trying to pull off: That dog don’t hunt!
So, this is the deal I am going to offer to you: Throughout this email, I am going to be repeating the yes-no questions, and the questions that simply require a Bible verse for an answer, that I asked you in my last email…every single one of them (and maybe add one or two new ones). If you answer each yes-no question with a yes or no answer, and if you answer each Bible verse question with a Bible verse, then we will continue this conversation. If you do not, then I will take it as a sign that you are not actually interested in dialogue, and in learning what I believe in and why, but simply want a Catholic audience to hear and consider your point of view, even though you are unwilling to hear and consider the Catholic point of view.
I have, as you yourself stated, been “gracious” enough to give you a forum where you could state your case, such as it is, to over 4000 Catholics. Of all the people I have featured in my newsletters, you have received more “air time” than anyone. So, you cannot accuse me of being unfair with you or of trying to keep your opinions from the eyes of Catholics. I can say with a great deal of confidence that I will never be accorded similar treatment by anyone on your side of the fence. And, regarding my ending our exchange because things are “not going [my] way,” please, save your psychology for your kids.
Now, after you have answered all of the yes-no questions, with a yes or no answer; and after you have answered all of the Bible verse questions with a Bible verse answer, you may then expound on your answers if you wish to do so. And, you may also provide a list of all the questions you have asked me that you feel I have not answered, and I will be happy to answer them in my very next communication; although, you have this tendency to refuse to accept my answers when given and then claim I haven’t answered your question, as I will point out below.
Now on to your email:
Quote from you:
Fortunately for us, God has seen fit for the Scriptures to be preserved to this day…”
Who do you think God used to preserve the Scriptures? Was it not the Catholic Church? Martin Luther admitted to as much…will you? Do not the history books tell us of the monks in the monasteries copying bible after bible after bible by hand? Were these Christian Church/Churches of Christ monks, or Catholic monks? Were they Christian Church/Churches of Christ monasteries, or Catholic monasteries? Is not the word “scripture” itself from the Latin word scriptura (which means “written things”)? Which Church was it again that used Latin? Now, along these lines, the following questions need to be answered please:
1) Where in the Bible does it say that we should go by the Bible alone when it comes to all matters pertaining to faith and morals? Scripture verse?
2) Where in the Bible does it list the books which should be part of the Bible? Scripture verse?
3) Where in the Bible does it say that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle? Scripture verse?
4) Do you believe the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?
5) If yes, where in the Bible does it say that the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Scripture verse?
6) Do you believe the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit?
7) If yes, where in the Bible does it tell us that the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Scripture verse?
8) Where in the Bible does it tell us who the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was? Scripture verse?
Quote from you:
“You brought up 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 in our last exchange, so I’m dealing with it first. Actually I’m astonished that you would bring it up as you did. I thought that your interpretation of this passage went out of style with the fundamentalist preachers of the mid twentieth-century. Pastors used to keep their congregations in check with the threat that anyone who participated at the Lord’s Table in an “unworthy manner” was in great, perhaps even mortal danger… Yes, we are to examine ourselves before we eat the bread and drink of the cup. We do not want to partake in an unworthy manner. Indeed we are in danger if we profane the body of Christ. But that begs a question – what does “unworthy manner” mean? Some people will say an “unworthy manner” means that we are in a state of unconfessed sin. Some people say that it means we must take this act seriously, not as a recent comedian did when he called it “snack time.” You seem to say that we must recognize the doctrine of transubstantion [sic] or else we partake in an unworthy manner.”
Excuse me, but here is another instance of you completely ignoring what I said, and then putting your words into my mouth…as you do also with Scripture. If you would bother to read what I write, and give serious consideration to the questions I ask, it might help you to better understand what I’m saying, and I wouldn’t have to waste time repeating myself. You take my words and you twist them just as you do the words of the Bible so that you can fit them into your cliched thinking about Catholics and the Catholic Church. (By the way, isn’t this thing about receiving “unworthily” one of those rabbits you weren’t going to chase?) So, since you completely missed the point of what I said, I will say it again.
This was from the second point I made in my previous email, which was all about why you seem to have such an inferiority complex when it comes to Catholics “excluding” you from participation in the Eucharist, even though you don’t believe in the Eucharist as we believe in it. I was asking you to help me understand why someone is bothered by not being allowed to participate in something that they don’t even believe in! And not only don’t you believe in it, but you consider the Catholic view of the Eucharist to be “illogical” and “unbiblical.” Yet you feel “excluded” because you cannot participate in that in which you do not believe. That makes no sense to me, whatsoever. I wouldn’t be offended if the KKK excluded my from a cross burning…because I don’t believe in what they’re doing. I wouldn’t be offended if you excluded me from partaking in the Lord’s Supper…because I don’t believe in what you’re doing. Why do you take such offense at being excluded from this Catholic practice that you consider unbiblical? If you want illogical…
I also asked, that given the fact that our beliefs are what they are – and whether you agree with them or not is not the point here, please try to understand that – the point is, would you consider it an act of charity to keep someone from profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord (however we define it) or would you consider it an act of “exclusion”? The question was not one of what we consider to be “an unworthy manner,” the question is simply this:
9) Is keeping someone from profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord an act of charity? Yes or no?
10) By using musical instruments in your worship services, even though you know folks in the Churches of Christ believe that musical instruments should not be used in worship services, are you being “exclusive” in your worship service? Yes or no?
By the way, since you disagree with the Catholic practice of excluding those from the Eucharist who do not believe as we believe, and who do not live in accord with the teachings of Christ, you might be interested to know that this has been the practice in our Church from the beginning:
“And this food is called among us Eucharistia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true , and who has been washed with the washing [Baptism] that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.” St. Justin Martyr, 1st Apology (#66), 150 A.D.
In 150 A.D., history tells us that the practice of the Church was the same as we practice it now in the Catholic Church. Tell me again how old your church is? Have you ever read the Early Church Fathers?
Now, regarding 1 Cor 11:17-34.
Quote from you:
“What does the Bible tell us? Do we get any clues?“
Whoa, wait a minute! Clues? The Bible is giving us clues? You mean there are some things in the Bible that aren’t so straightforward, eh? You don’t just take what it says, you have to pick up on the clues? Hmmm. And let me ask, are these clues subject to interpretation?
Quote from you:
“Well basic hermeneutics (there’s that word again) teaches us to pay attention to context.”
Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but do you know what the word “hermeneutics” means? It means, “to interpret.” So, the very fact that you use “basic hermeneutics,” is an inherent admission that you interpret the Bible, is it not? In other words, you don’t just give someone the Bible and tell them that it is what you believe, you also give them your interpretation of the Bible, as you are doing now with me, so that they can get the correct interpretation, isn’t that right?
11) Do you interpret the Bible? Yes or no?
12) If the answer to #11 is yes, is your interpretation infallible? Yes or no?
13) If the answer to #12 is no, then will you admit that your interpretations of the Bible could be wrong in one or more places? Yes or no?
14) If the answer to #11 is yes, then does anyone have the authority to tell you, Matt Johnson, that your interpretations of the Bible are wrong? Yes or no?
15) If the answer to #14 is yes, then who? Just one name please.
Quote from you:
“Pastors used to keep their congregations in check with the threat that anyone who participated at the Lord’s Table in an “unworthy manner” was in great, perhaps even mortal danger…”
Gee, I wonder why they did that? Could it be because the Bible states that those who were eating and drinking unworthily were becoming sick and dying?! And, even worse, that they would be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord and eating and drinking judgment upon themselves?!
16) Do you believe that participating at the Lord’s Table in an “unworthy manner” and “profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord” would cause grave peril to someone…either physically or spiritually? Yes or no?
17) If the answer to #16 is yes, then shouldn’t pastors continually warn their congregations about participating unworthily at the Lord’s Table? Yes or no?
18) Do you believe that profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord is a serious sin? Yes or no?
Quote from you:
“In what context does the apostle Paul use the phrase “unworthy manner”? Verses 17-22 give us the context. There were divisions even within a congregation.”
Wait a minute, there were “divisions” even within a congregation? I suppose, based on your earlier emails, that Paul thought it was okay to have these divisions, right? Just as you think it’s okay to disagree on doctrine and all still be receiving the Lord’s Supper in the same church, right? So, I’ll bet Paul didn’t do anything to discredit anyone’s faith, did he? Oops, wait a minute…what’s that he’s saying in verse 19? “…for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.” Do you think those who were not “genuine,” or as you’re translation reads, those who did not have “God’s approval,” were saved?
19) Can those who do not have God’s approval be saved? Yes or no?
20) Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people? Yes or no?
21) Did the Apostles and other leaders of the early Church believe it was okay to have false doctrines within the Church? Yes or no?
22) Did the Apostles break fellowship with those who were teaching different doctrines than they were teaching? Yes or no?
23) Did Jesus and the Apostles demand conformity to the doctrines they taught? Yes or no?
24) Were the Apostles infallible in their teaching on faith and morals? Yes or no?
25) Can you be “one” with someone who believes in false doctrines? Yes or no?
26) In your church, can two walk together if they are not in agreement? Yes or no?
Quote from you:
“Interestingly the following verses (23-26) give us the reason for this meal. Two words come directly from God – “remembrance” and “proclaim”. Yes, this is the focus of the meal at our assembly. We are to focus on Christ, not on self.”
Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the totality of our lives as Christians suppose to be focusing on Christ, not on self? The reason I ask is because this Lord’s Supper thing seems, at least from the Scriptures, to be something very special, something extraordinary. But, you’re basically saying that this meal…this very special meal in which we are to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man so that we will have eternal life…this very special meal is nothing more than a common meal in which we do what we are called to do everyday as Christians…at every meal we eat as Christians…focus on Christ, not on self. In other words, it seems that there is nothing special, nothing extraordinary, about this meal, at least, not as you interpret it. Please tell me, what makes the Lord’s Supper meal different from any other meal where Christians are gathered?
Can I get together with some friends, make a few peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and get some grape juice, and then, before I take a bite of the sandwich, I can hold it up and say, in regards to the bread, “Jesus said this is His body, do this in remembrance of Him.” Then, I can hold up the grape juice and say, “Jesus said this is His blood, do this in remembrance of Him.” And, I will have eternal life because of that?!
Quote from you:
“So what do we learn from this? What exactly is the “unworthy manner” that we read of in verse 27? It is obvious. Paul corrected the wrong behavior and wrong beliefs of the Corinthian church. They treated the Lord’s Table like selfish people at a buffet. This is unworthy behavior for the Lord’s Table…But the passage is specific. “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other.”
I understand now: if you eat the Lord’s Supper while an unrepentant sinner…that’s not receiving unworthily. If you eat the Lord’s Supper as an unrepentant murderer or rapist or adulterer…that’s not receiving unworthily. If you eat the Lord’s Supper as a blasphemer and a heretic…that’s not receiving unworthily. But, if you don’t wait for everyone to get there before you start eating…that’s receiving unworthily. I’m so glad you cleared that up for me and for all those fundamentalist pastors who held “their congregations in check” by preaching about receiving unworthily in the context of sin and such…shame on them!
So, given your hermeneutic on this passage, what exactly does profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord mean? Not waiting for others before you start eating? And, given your hermeneutic on this passage, what does not discerning the Body and Blood of the Lord mean? Not waiting on others before you begin eating? And, by the way, given your hermeneutic on this passage, then what Jesus was saying in John 6:54-55, was that all we have to do is wait on other folks before we start eating the common meal and we will have eternal life?
How about an alternative explanation that is based on these verses as well as a little bit of history? It seems these early Christians did indeed combine the celebration of the Eucharist with a common meal…often called an agape meal. The meal was intended to be a sign of sharing and unity, and an opportunity to provide for those with little or nothing. But, serious abuses popped up. Folks started breaking into groups, or factions, and each group would simply eat and drink whatever they had brought…not sharing equally with others. Which means the rich folks ate and drank – sometimes way too much – while the poor folks had little or nothing to eat. This lack of charity during the common meal was in stark contrast to what the celebration of the Eucharist was all about..unity and charity among Christians…and caused much division within the congregations. Which is why these agape meals, these common meals, were separated from the celebration of the Eucharist very early on in the Church.
Quote from you:
“You insisted on Biblical evidence (interesting since you have offered no biblical proof of your interpretation)…”
This is exactly what I was talking about above. I give you an answer…I give you evidence…but, because you disagree with my evidence, you then proclaim I gave you no evidence. When, actually, the Bible states, clearly and unequivocally, the very thing that Catholics believe…”This IS My body;” “This IS My blood;” “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you;” “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life;”And the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh;” “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?” “The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” Those words are exactly what I believe. I believe the very clear and unambiguous words of Scripture. You do not. In order for you to twist these passages into what you believe, you have to give them a metaphorical meaning which didn’t even exist at the time Jesus said these words. A metaphorical meaning which is contrary to the way the Jews used the metaphor of “eating one’s flesh.”
Here is more of the quote from St. Justin Martyr: “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
Did you read that? Not as “common” bread and “common” drink do we receive these [the consecrated bread and wine]. Yet, you teach the Lord’s Supper is a “common meal.” Hmm. Should I believe a famous Christian apologist of the 2nd century, or you? By the way, did you catch that word – ”transmutation?” Hmm. I wonder what that’s all about? And, here we see that the Christians of the 2nd century believed that the bread and wine, after being blessed, were indeed the flesh and blood of “that Jesus who was made flesh.” I really think you need to read the Early Church Fathers.
27) Did Jesus give his real flesh or his symbolic flesh for the life of the world? Real or symbolic?
28) Did Jesus say that the bread he would give us to eat, which, if we ate we would live for ever, was the flesh that He would give for the life of the world? Yes or no?
29) Did Jesus say that we had to eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life? Yes or no?
30) Did Jesus say that His flesh was food indeed and that His blood was drink indeed? Yes or no?
You mentioned 1 Cor 10:16-17. But, you didn’t go on to 1 Cor 10:18 where we get a “clue” as to the sacrificial nature of Lord’s Supper. Paul draws an analogy between us being one by eating the Lord’s body and drinking His blood in the context of “the practice of Israel,” wherein “those who eat the sacrifices” are all one with the altar. Those who eat the body and blood of the Lord are “partakers” (as the KJV states it) in the one bread; those who eat the sacrifices of the altar, are “partakers” in the altar (KJV). In other words, the body and blood of the Lord that we eat is analogous to the Jews eating the sacrifices of the altar. Hmmm. What sacrifice are we eating when we eat the Body and Blood of the Lord? For a Catholic, the answer to that is easy. At the common meal you were referring to, what constitutes the sacrifice? Was the bread you eat sacrificed? Was the grape juice you drink sacrificed?
Quote from you:
“It seems reasonable that we should take the Bible at its word and not impose any additional concepts to the Scriptures.”
I think that is indeed reasonable. So, let’s look at your hermeneutic in regards to John 6.
Verse 51, as you interpret it, has Jesus saying the following: “If anyone eats of the common meal and waits for one another, he will live for ever; and the common meal which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us a common meal to eat?’ [Oh, wait, they misunderstood, so we’ll leave their words the same.] ‘How can this man give us His flesh to eat?’ So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the common meal and wait for one another, you have no life in you; he who eats the common meal and waits for one another has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. For the common meal is food indeed and the common meal is drink indeed. He who eats the common meal and waits on one another abides in me and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats the common meal and waits on one another will live because of me. This is the common meal which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this common meal will live for ever.’” Skip to verse 62: “Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending where He was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the common meal is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.’
Now, what was that about not imposing any additional concepts on Scripture? How ridiculous your “hermeneutic” becomes when plugged back into Scripture. I’ll continue with more on John 6 below. By the way, did you notice that with your hermeneutic, verse 62 actually contradicts everything Jesus said in verses 51-58? I mean, Jesus says that whoever eats His flesh will have eternal life in those verses, but in verse 62, according to your interpretation, Jesus then says that His flesh is of no avail. Could you explain why your interpretation results in Jesus contradicting Himself like that?
Quote from you:
“Perhaps you are absolutely right. No one just teaches the Bible. Everyone gives you their own fallible, non-authoritative interpretation. But if you are right then you must also admit that you have condemned yourself and the Roman Catholic church with the same statement.”
“Could you be wrong about the infallibility of Roman Catholic church doctrine? I hope you remember the question from my previous response. Since I assume you would say that you are fallible, and you are the free-thinking person who has decided for yourself the doctrine of Roman Catholic infallibility is true, perhaps you have made a mistake. Would you admit that? There are follow-up questions after this first one is answered. If it is possible that you are wrong about this doctrine, is it provable? How could it be proved? What would that do to your faith in Jesus Christ? What would that do to your relationship with the Roman Catholic church and your relationship with other Christians outside the Roman Catholic church? What would that do to your relationship with the Word of God? What would you believe if you were wrong about Roman Catholic infallibility? I’m glad you wrote that you will be happy to answer any and all of these questions.”
First, is this an admission that your interpretation, which you are trying to get me to believe, is indeed fallible and non-authoritative? Second, I have neither condemned myself nor the Roman Catholic Church. I believe your point is, and correct me if I’m wrong, that since I am not infallible, I could be wrong about the teachings of the Catholic Church. Well, yes, if you adopt the philosophical perspective that we cannot be certain of anything…that I cannot trust the things that my eyes see and that my ears hear. I may not actually be typing these words…I may just be a figment of someone’s imagination…there may not be such a thing as planet Earth…there may be no solar system or no universe. So, yes, if you adopt that philosophical perspective, then, I could indeed be wrong about the teachings of the Catholic Church, or that the Catholic Church even exists! I could be wrong about anything and everything…although, it is possible that I’m not wrong about anything, because I may not even exist. And, if I don’t exist, I can’t be wrong.
However, if we both agree that there are some things we can be sure of, then let’s start from there and move forward. I believe, and I think you will agree, that there is a God, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God made man – truly man and truly God, and that He died for our sins on the cross. I also believe, and I think you will agree, that the Bible is the inerrant inspired Word of God. Do you believe all of these things? (By the way, if you said, “Yes, I believe all of these things,” then you now have a creed! Is that a sin in your church?)
I believe all of these things because of the evidence…historical and philosophical…put before me. Now, believing that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, I see that it teaches that Jesus Christ founded a church…one church. I also see that the gates of Hell will not prevail against this church. This church, as the Bible tells us, is the Body of Christ. Christ is intimately linked and identified with the church. In Acts, we see that Paul was persecuting the church, then later on we see that Jesus asked Paul, “Why are you persecuting Me?” Jesus identifies Himself with this church. It also tells us that this church is the bride of Christ and that the two have become one. It also tells us that, within the church, there are those who have been given the power of binding and loosing on earth, that which will be bound and loosed in Heaven. It also tells us that within the church there are those of whom Jesus says, “He who hears you, hears Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me.” This church is also described as the pillar and bulwark of the truth. This church is shown to be the final arbiter in disputes between Christians. This church also has leaders who can say, “We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” Also, we see that this church called a council to settle a doctrinal dispute and that the leaders of this council spoke on behalf of the Holy Spirit. This church has the Holy Spirit guiding it unto all truth. This church has Jesus with it unto the end of the age. Do you doubt any of this? It is all in Scripture!
So, if the leaders of this church can bind and loose on earth, that which will be bound and loosed in heaven, and since God cannot bind and loose error, then these leaders must not be able to commit an error in this binding and loosing process. If the gates of Hell will not prevail against this church, as Jesus promised, then this church must not be able to teach error…because Satan is the father of all lies, so if this church teaches error, then the gates of Hell have indeed prevailed against it. If this church has leaders who can say that we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error by seeing who does and does not listen to them, then they must not be able to teach error. And, if this church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, then it must not be able to teach error. How could an error-filled church be described as the pillar and bulwark of the truth? And, if it is the final arbiter among Christians, then it must not be able to teach error. And, if this church has leaders who, when we hear them we are hearing Jesus, it must not be able to teach error, because Jesus cannot teach error.
So, the Bible shows us, over and over again, that there is a church out there, that was founded by Jesus Christ Himself, that cannot teach error. Unless, of course, you believe the Body of Christ, with Jesus as its Head, can teach error?
31) Do you believe the Body of Christ, the church, with Jesus as its head, can teach error in the areas of faith and morals? Yes or no?
Now, which church. The Anglican Church…no, not around 2000 years ago. The Presbyterian Church? No…not around 2000 years ago. The Lutheran Church? No, not around 2000 years ago. Your church? Well, you claim that it’s been around for 2000 years. But, you also claim that your church fell into error and needed to be reformed beginning 200 years ago. You also believe your church can teach error. I say this because you have clearly stated that the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian denomination…it is part of the Christian Church…yet, you believe the Roman Catholic Church teaches error. You also, I assume, believe the Baptist Church teaches error. And the Presbyterian Church, and the Anglican Church, and the Lutheran Church, and so on. So, in your church, in your supposed Body of Christ, error is taught. In other words, he who hears the leaders of your church, doesn’t necessarily hear Jesus Christ (because Jesus Christ cannot teach error). And, you’re apparently okay with that.
When there are doctrinal disputes, does your church call a council? Apparently not, since you seem to be okay with doctrinal differences in your church. So, your church can’t be the pillar and bulwark of the truth founded by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago, can it? By the way, my bishop can trace back, all the way to the beginning of the Church, his line of ordination…the bishop who ordained him, the bishop that ordained that bishop, the bishop that ordained that bishop, etc., back for 2000 years. Can you trace the line or your ordination back more than one or two generations? I don’t think so. Who ordained Alexander Campbell? So, how do you know your ordination is a valid one? How do you know that at some point in your line of ordination, someone didn’t just proclaim themselves to be ordained? In which case, what kind of authority would be passed on when he “ordained” someone else? None!
Now, having said all of that, I see only two possibilities, based on historical facts, for which church it is that the Bible speaks of…either the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church. Now, I won’t get into all of the reasons for believing the Catholic Church is THE church as opposed to the Orthodox Church, because that doesn’t matter for this particular argument, but suffice it to say that I have my reasons, again, based on historical facts and philosophical argument, for believing the Catholic Church is the inerrant church founded by Jesus Christ. So, again, I don’t believe the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ simply because she says so, I believe it because the historical facts and the biblical facts support it. So, to conclude, yes, I could be wrong about the infallibility of the Catholic Church, but only if I cannot trust my senses to know anything, or if I am wrong about the Bible being the inerrant Word of God, or if I am wrong about Jesus Christ founding an infallible church, or if I am wrong about Jesus being God, or if I am wrong about the existence of God.
Quote from you:
“Allow me to introduce you to a couple of hermeneutical words…One is exegesis…[the other is] eisegesis….Scholars (Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Mainline, Fundamentalist, and Liberal) all disagree on what constitutes exegesis and eisegesis. But everyone agrees that of utmost importance is the AIM of the Scriptures. That is the Authors Intended Meaning. ”
Well, I appreciate the introduction. That’s mighty nice of ya. However, I think you may be spelling them wrong. Shouldn’t it be: Ex-a-Jesus (for a heretic) and I-see-Jesus (for a believer)?
So, scholars disagree as to what exegesis and eisegesis are, eh? Obviously they have never talked to you, because you could give them the definitive answers, right?
32) If all scholars disagree as to what constitutes exegesis and eisegesis, then do you know with 100% certainty what constitutes exegesis and eisegesis? Yes or no?
Regarding the Authors Intended Meaning, I suggest you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That thar is covered right nicely in Paragraphs 115-119.
Quote from you:
”Perhaps you have been taught along your party lines that eating flesh is only referred to in the metaphoric sense in the Old Testament. You probably aren’t aware of this then, but eating flesh is spoken of in a literal sense in these passages…”
Your point is actually in favor of my argument. Using Scripture to interpret Scripture, as you say you do, then the two possible meanings of Jesus’ words for the Jews of His time would be that Jesus is saying to metaphorically eat his flesh, which has a very negative connotation, or He is saying to literally eat His flesh, which has an even greater negative connotation. Which is exactly why the Jews reacted as they did and which is why His disciples reacted as they did…because they knew He wasn’t speaking metaphorically.
Quote from you:
”But what if you do make this metaphorical connection between the Old Testament and the New Testament? By the method of interpretation you have employed above, if something had a bad connotation in the Old Testament, it must have a bad connotation in the New Testament as well. If it was used one way in the Old Testament it must be used the same way in the New Testament as well. With your kind of thinking I wonder what you would say about calling someone the Queen of Heaven – Jeremiah 7:18. Actually, I know what you would say; I have read it on your website. You don’t have a problem with it. This reveals an inconsistent hermeneutic (method of interpretation) on your part.”
I’m sorry, but once again, you exhibit little understanding of common logic and little understanding of what I have actually said. There is no inconsistency here. The Queen of Heaven in the Old Testament is a false goddess being worshiped by the Hebrews. If they are worshiping a false goddess called the Queen of Heaven in the New Testament, then that, too, would be a bad thing. I agree. No one I know of, however, currently worships a false goddess known as the Queen of Heaven. Now, in regards to Mary, you fail to take into account all that I say on my website about calling her the “Queen of Heaven.” First of all, we don’t worship her. Secondly, just as the idea of a false god implies that there is a true God, so the idea that there is a false Queen of Heaven, implies that there is a true Queen of Heaven. Please re-read the material on my website. By the way, there is a woman in Heaven, according to Revelation, who has a crown on her head. A woman, in Heaven, with a crown on her head…hmmm…could that be a queen? In Heaven?
Quote from you:
”I find it interesting that you employ this argument [about Jesus’ words in John 6]. Aren’t you the one who teaches that we should interpret the Bible literally, not literalistically? According to your teaching, and correct me if I am wrong about what you teach here, a literal interpretation of scripture takes into account the meaning that the author intended to convey. Literalist interpretation takes the exact meaning of the words without consideration of popular cultural meaning or the meaning that the author intended to convey…Now, let’s look at John 6 in light of your teaching. Jesus said, “This bread is my flesh.” What, according to your teaching, is the literal interpretation and what is the literalistic interpretation? The literal interpretation, according to you, takes into account the meaning that the author intended to convey. A literalistic interpretation, according to your teaching, takes the exact meaning of the words without consideration of popular cultural meaning or the meaning that the author intended to convey. The literal interpretation of, “This bread is my flesh,” according to your teaching, must involve some sort of literally device like a metaphor. A literalistic interpretation of, “This bread is my flesh,” according to your teaching, must be taken in a non-figurative sense.”
Once again, you prove yourself either unable or unwilling to comprehend what I have said. Where, oh where, do I ever say that the literal and literalist meanings have to be exact opposites? Where, oh where, do I ever say that the literal interpretation has to involve “some sort of literally [sic] device like a metaphor”? You take what I say and twist it because you simply cannot accept that what I’m saying might actually make sense. A Catholic making sense simply does not fit into your worldview, therefore you have to twist what I say to fit your worldview. You take what is plain for 99.9% of the folks who read it, and you twist into something that it is not, so that you can feel better about your position.
I’ll challenge you right now, Matt…give me something that I have written, from anywhere, that states that a literal interpretation “must involve some sort of literal device like a metaphor.” If you can do that, I will never type out or speak another word of apologetics for the Catholic Faith. You can’t find anywhere where I said that. So, please apologize for your false claim. You can’t even find anywhere where I imply it. I gave an example, Matt, an example. Again, as I have asked you in a previous email, do you know what an example is?
Quite often, the literalist approach will produce the exact same result as the literal approach. I never said it doesn’t. As it does here in John 6. John gives us exactly what Jesus said, and Jesus said exactly what He meant. In fact, in most of the Scriptures, the literalist and literal interpretations will produce similar results. Example: “He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.” Literalist interpretation? He bowed His head and gave up His spirit. Literal interpretation (the meaning the author intended to convey)? He bowed His head and gave up His spirit. There are places, however, throughout the Bible where that will not be the case. The first couple of chapters in Genesis and many of the chapters in Revelation come to mind.
Quote from you:
”So by your own teachings your interpretation is literalistic, not literal. Check mate on this point John. I could close the book right there. But I will not. Your teaching on literal and literalistic interpreting may be valuable to some extent, but is incomplete and inaccurate…The word I am talking about is “literal”. “Literal”, by everyone’s definition but yours, includes denotations and excludes connotations. It excludes figurative language. Your definition of “literal” includes figurative language. This is a big problem with your literal/literalistic distinction. It is simply bad teaching. Besides, no one interprets the Bible completely literally (by the true definition of “literal”). No one does…Your distinction between literal and literalistic interpretations is not correct…By changing the meaning of “literal” to include figurative language and by imposing the true meaning of “literal” onto “literalistic” you have not only created confusion, but also manipulated truth.”
Manipulated truth? Oh, please. Somebody help!!! Good thing I don’t have any hair, or I’d be tearing it out. I defined my terms and used them in the exact manner I defined them and you say I’m manipulating truth. Is that what you say when you can’t understand something? The other guy must be manipulating the truth? This is another example of you either not being able to understand, or refusing to understand, what I say. See if you can understand this, Matt: The word “literal” in Catholic theological circles is clearly defined as, “That meaning which the author intended to convey.” It is known as the “literal” sense of Scripture. Whether the language is figurative or not, isn’t the point. The point is, what was the meaning of the language the author used? It is all about the author’s intentions regardless of what kind of language he uses. Again, check out paragraphs 115-119 in the Catechism. The word literalist, is used in Catholic theology as meaning an interpretative method (a hermeneutic) by which one reads the words on the page and goes no further…they are not necessarily interested in the meaning the author intended to convey. They don’t care about idioms of speech and historical background and so on.
So, my distinction between literal and literalist interpretations is correct, because that’s how I define those words and that’s how I use them. If you don’t like it, well, such is life. As long as I define my terms, and use them in the manner I define them, I am allowed to do so in any normal discussion. The same word quite often means different things to different people and when used in different disciplines. However, you, for some reason, cannot seem to understand that. So, Catholics do indeed interpret the entire Bible literally, in other words, we read every passage with the intent of determining the meaning the author intended to convey. Sometimes the author conveys his meaning with a metaphor, sometimes he doesn’t. Sometimes he intends to convey historic facts through narrative, sometimes he doesn’t. Capiche?
By the way, do you notice how you contradict yourself? You state that my teaching on this “may be valuable to some extent,” and then you say that it creates confusion and manipulates the truth. I’m confused…
Quote from you:
“First of all you have a grammatical problem. Read verse 55 very closely. Jesus’ flesh is real food…Your problem is that Jesus used the present tense of esti, meaning “to be” when he said, “My flesh is real food . . .” With your strict method of interpreting this particular chapter Jesus’ flesh would have to be real food at the actual time he spoke this. But this was not the case.”
First, I notice you mention that Jesus used the present tense in verse 55, but you didn’t mention that He is talking about a future event in verse 27 when He says, “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give you.” Implying a future event. Also, in verse 51 he talks about the bread which He shall give for the life of the world. Again, a future event. When was the Eucharist instituted? The Last Supper. So, your hermeneutic again causes a contradiction. Is Jesus saying that He will give us this bread now, or later? Your hermeneutic says both…in other words, you have Jesus contradicting Himself.
Second, who says that Jesus’ flesh wasn’t real food at the time He spoke this? You do. Your use of the Principle of Contradiction (something either is, or it isn’t) is rather flawed here. Jesus’ flesh and blood was and is real food and real drink and it is real flesh and real blood, all at the same time. Are you saying it can’t be both flesh and real food at the same time because He didn’t turn into a giant loaf of bread and a giant cup of wine? And, if He had turned into a giant loaf of bread and a giant cup of wine, then it wouldn’t have been His flesh? Again, you simply cannot or will not understand Catholic teaching.
Let me ask you this: When someone is born again, they become a new creation, don’t they? The Bible tells us so. Yet, how can that be since they are the same person? Do they have a new body? No! Do they have a new soul? No! So, how is it they are a new creation? Are they a new creation metaphorically, or actually? Something happens to this person at a metaphysical level that we cannot really explain. They are indeed a new creation, yet, we still see something that looks exactly like the old creation. So, how can it be the new creation and yet still be the old creation at the same time? Under your logic, it can’t happen. However, your logic is limited by your theological tunnel vision. They can look and sound and feel like the old creation, even though they have changed…even though they are actually a new creation.
Now, this is not a perfect analogy, for what I’m about to say, but I hope it gives you some idea that things can change at a level which we cannot see and cannot understand. And, something can still look the same, yet, be different. Transubstantiation. It means that the substance of the bread and wine changes, not the accidents. The “accidents” are how it appears to the senses…the look, the smell, the taste, etc. So, the accidents do not change, but the substance does. No longer is it the substance of bread and wine, but it is now the substance of Jesus Christ. So, the bread and wine change, at some metaphysical level, but they still look the same.
33) Can God appear to you under any form He chooses? Yes or no?
You are a collection of chemicals…oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, iron, etc. What makes this collection of chemicals a human being? It is because God gives you the substance of a human being. Substance is defined as the essential part of a thing. Forgive me for not being able to give a very good explanation of substance, but I am not a philosopher. It is simply the essential part of what we are. We have human substance. Bread has bread substance. Transubstantiation is the process through which the substance of bread and wine are removed, and replaced with the substance of Jesus Christ. It still looks like bread and wine, but it’s substance is the substance of Christ. Can we understand this fully? Not with finite minds. But, just because we can’t understand it, does that mean it cannot be? If so, then the Trinity cannot be…we can’t fully understand that. No. Again, I ask you, can God not appear to you in any form that He chooses? Can He appear to you as simple bread and wine if He chooses to do so? I believe he can.
Finally, I argue that I can say to you, right now, that my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Why can’t Jesus’ flesh be considered real food and His blood real drink at the moment that He spoke those words? Is a cow, standing out in the pasture, not real food? Well, with your logic, it can’t be. It either has to be a cow, or it has to be food. Well, it is both. It’s flesh is real food, it simply hasn’t yet undergone the process by which we eat it. Same with Christ when He said those words. You are not using reason here, you are using flawed logic which results from your limited understanding of these concepts and your limited understanding of what God can and cannot do.
Quote from you:
“Second, Jesus never tells us to interpret what he says literally, even though you imply strongly [imply] that he does.”
So, unless Jesus says, “I’m speaking literally here,” then we must assume He is speaking figuratively? I’m assuming He is speaking literally, because there is nothing in the context of these passages which suggests otherwise. You yourself admit this by having to go to 1 Corinthians 11 to get a “clue” about what Jesus was saying. The folks who heard Him on that day did not take Him figuratively. His own disciples did not take Him figuratively…they walked away from Him. Did they misinterpret Him? Where else in Scripture do you see His disciples walking away because of a misinterpretation?
Quote from you:
“They had a problem with eating the literal flesh of Jesus. There is a word for that – cannibalism.”
Absolutely they had a problem with that…they couldn’t understand how it could be. So, what did Jesus do. Did He make it easier for them? Did he explain it to His disciples, as He did so many other times when they misunderstood? No. In fact, the language He then used was even stronger. In verse 51 and 53, the word translated as “eat” is the Greek word phago…which means “to eat.” In verse 54, however, the word translated as “eat” is the Greek word trogo…which means to gnaw, crunch, chew. In other words, Jesus re-emphasized His point about eating His flesh and drinking His blood with even stronger language! By the way, are you not aware that many of the early Christians were condemned to death on the charge of cannibalism? Hmmm. Why do you think that was? Essentially, are you not asking the same question as the Jews in verse 52, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” Oh, ye of little faith.
Quote from you:
“Third, your interpretation of John 6 is not logical. I have accused you of manufacturing an unnecessary correlation. Yet you do not seem to understand that accusation, so I will explain. You have implied that if the sacrifice of Christ was real and not symbolic then the communion bread must be real flesh and not symbolic. I’m not sure why you think you get to make up that rule. Can you tell me where that rule came from?”
I didn’t make up any rule. I said nothing about the Eucharist. I simply asked you a question that came straight out of Scripture.
34) Is the correlation I am drawing between the flesh that Jesus shall give for the life of the world and the bread that Jesus shall give us to eat, found in John 6:51? Yes or no?
Quote from you:
“Any third grader can read that Jesus connects the bread to his flesh. But if you try to take that too far (as you have), you will end up with a belief where either one (the body of Christ or the bread) could have been nailed to the cross – since they were one and the same by your interpretation. This is not logical.”
Well, I’m glad to hear that you passed the third grade. The only way in which I’m taking this “too far” is that I’m taking it beyond your level of understanding. So, since you can’t understand it, it has to be illogical, right? The “bread” could not have been nailed to the cross, because the bread does not bleed, it does not have bones, it doesn’t wear clothes, it can’t be flogged. All of those things had to be in order for the prophecies to be fulfilled. The Eucharistic bread still has all the accidents of ordinary bread. This is what you cannot get past.
And, I’m sorry that I cannot explain it better, but, again, this is something that cannot be fully explained or fully understood by a finite mind. It is indeed a “hard teaching.” Only by God’s grace can one have the faith to believe. Let me ask you this: Jesus apparently walked through walls after His Resurrection. When He did that, was it still the same flesh that was nailed to the cross? How is that so? Flesh can’t pass through solid walls, so it must have been His ghost, right? Flesh cannot get through walls and a locked door, can it? It is illogical to say that could happen, isn’t it? Well, many people argue that very thing. You have advanced past that point of unbelief, but you still put other human limitations on God. And, when other people ignore the human limitations you have put on God, you claim they are illogical.
Quote from you:
“I noticed you avoided Nicodemus in your last response. Nicodemus, bless his heart, just could not figure out what Jesus was talking about when, three chapters earlier, Jesus told him that he needed to be born again. Nicodemus did take him literally…A more logical interpretation is metaphorical and spiritual. What is baptism but an event where the physical signifies a spiritual reality?
Your analogy here actually supports my argument. In John 3, was Jesus speaking figuratively or metaphorically? No. You said it yourself that it is a spiritual “reality”…nothing symbolic or metaphoric or figurative here, is there? He was speaking about actually being born again, and He tells Nicodemus exactly how this is to be…by water and the Spirit…Baptism. Nicodemus does not understand how what Jesus is saying could be possible. Just so the crowds in John 6. Jesus is speaking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and the crowds, including His own disciples, simply do not understand how this could be. Was He speaking metaphorically in John 3? No. Was He speaking metaphorically in John 6? No.
Quote from you:
”Does the water save us? No.”
Actually, according to the Bible, the water, along with the actions of the Holy Spirit, does indeed save us. 1 Ptr 3:21, “Baptism [water and the Spirit], which corresponds to this, now saves you.”
Quote from you:
”Could you please give me one, just one example in the Bible where anyone used a metaphor and, in the metaphor, spoke the word ‘metaphor’?”
Well, can you give me just one example from Scripture where someone was speaking non-metaphorically and in the middle of their statement said, “This isn’t a metaphor?” Now, I cannot give you something where they spoke the word “metaphor” within the metaphor itself, but I can give you verses where Jesus does tell us He is speaking metaphorically. In John 10:6, it tells us that Jesus used a figure of speech. And, in John 16:25, after part of His long discourse at the Last Supper, where Jesus tells them that He is the vine and they are the branches, He tells them that He was speaking in “figures” to them up until that point. So, we do have instances in Scripture where Scripture tells us that figures of speech were being used. But not so in John 6. Hmmm.
Quote from you:
”The only logical interpretation of this passage, the only interpretation that works without adding words…”
But, you’re the one adding words, not me. Jesus says we must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life. I take Him at His word. You, however, say, “Well, what that means is…” In other words, you add words to what Jesus says. Now, if you claim I am adding the word “transubstantiation,” I am not. Transubstantiation is merely a word used to describe what happens when Jesus says, “This IS My body,” and “This IS My blood.” Just so the phrase “hypostatic union.” Do you believe in the hypostatic union? You do if you believe that Jesus Christ is a divine person with two natures…human and divine. The term “hypostatic union” is merely a way of describing how it is that Jesus is the perfect union of two natures…how it is that Jesus is 100% man and 100% God. Are we, therefore, adding to Scripture by describing this union of human and divine with this term? No. Are we adding to Scripture by saying that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons, yet only one God, with each person being consubstantially God? No. You yourself said that Scripture “supports the concept” of the Trinity, therefore, I assume, you do not believe it is “adding to Scripture” to use terms that are not found in Scripture to better describe what exactly the Trinity is (to the best of our limited abilities to do so). Yet, you claim that, when I use a word – transubstantiation – to simply describe something that is in Scripture, I am “adding words” to Scripture. Here again is a classic example of your hypocrisy. It’s okay when you do it in regards to something you believe, like the Trinity and the Incarnation, but it’s not okay when Catholics do it in regards to something we believe.
Quote from you:
“(On the lighter side, I note with some amusement the last thing Jesus says about the flesh in John 6. He says, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.” Excuse the pun, but this is food for thought.)”
This is where you have hung yourself and your entire “hermeneutic” regarding John 6 and 1 Corinthians. What you are implying in this statement, and what your interpretation of John 6 results in, as I showed above, is that Jesus, in verses 51-58, has made this big deal about how necessary it is to eat His flesh and drink His blood (however you interpret that), but then in verse 62, He says that His flesh counts for nothing. You have painted yourself into a corner.
35) Do we need to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ in order to have eternal life? Yes or no?
36) If the answer to #35 is yes, then can we say that His flesh does indeed profit us? Yes or no?
37) If the answer to #36 is yes, then does verse 62 of John 6 mean that it counts as nothing to eat Jesus’ flesh and to drink His blood? Yes or no?
38) Does Jesus’ flesh “count for nothing?” Yes or no?
This is where the lack of depth in your system of theology really shows itself. The “flesh” being referred to here is the flesh of Adam that we have inherited from him. We are all born of the flesh, because we are all “in” Adam. We need to be born again of water and the Spirit (Baptism) in order to be “in” Christ, the second Adam. Because, in Adam, all die. In Christ, all are made alive (see Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15:21-22). So, when we are born of the flesh, it is of no avail. It is only when we are born again of the Spirit that it is of avail. The Spirit gives life, the flesh profits nothing. Not Jesus’ flesh, but our flesh.
Quote from you:
”So your interpretation is not supported by Scripture, it is not literal as you claim, and it is not logical. What is left? Why would you believe as you do? Francis Bacon put it this way, “People prefer to believe what they prefer to be true.” Since biblical, literal, and logical interpretations are out for you, there seems to be only one explanation left – ecclesiastical. Your teaching comes from a doctrine that your church professes as truth.”
Actually, I believe I have shown, for anyone with an open mind, that my arguments are indeed logical and that they are indeed supported directly, without having to look for “clues,” from the very plain words of Scripture and that my interpretation is indeed a literal one – it is what the author intended to convey. I will not say that I “proved” my arguments, because as someone once said, “For those with faith, no proof is necessary; for those without faith, no proof is sufficient.” If you had been listening to Jesus on that fateful day, you would have declared, as you have here declared, “This is a hard teaching, who can accept it.” And, you would have walked away from Christ, as you have walked away from Him in your current position.
Now then, regarding the reason for my belief being ecclesiastical, I think you have again stepped into a pile of poo. I was out of the Church for 13 years. When I came back into the Church, there were a number of Church doctrines that I did not accept…a number of Church doctrines that I didn’t even know…I was what we call a “Cafeteria Catholic” – picking and choosing what I wanted to believe and what I didn’t want to believe. However, it was through the reading of the Bible, and an investigation into history, that my beliefs changed…that caused me to come to accept Church teaching as the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself. So, that kind of messes up your theory, doesn’t it? You believe I accept Church teaching on everything simply because the Church tells me to do so. But, actually, it was my reading of the Bible that caused me to accept Church teaching. It was the Bible that caused me to stop resisting Church teaching. It was the Bible that caused me to be 100% Catholic. And, it is the Bible that leads so many non-Catholic Christians into the Catholic Church. Oh my, that just doesn’t fit your view of the world, does it? Sorry.
One more thing, all through these emails, you have basically stated that it is a bad thing to believe in what the church teaches. Why is it a bad thing to believe in what the church teaches? Now, you might object, “No, it is a bad thing to believe in what the Roman Catholic Church teaches!” But, according to you, the Roman Catholic Church is a denomination of the Christian Church. So, do you admit then, that the Christian Church, at least part of it, teaches error?
Quote from you:
”If I were associated with a division of Christianity and wanted to claim some sort of uniqueness and authority for my church, what would I do? I would claim that the church I was associated with had something unique that you could not get anywhere else.”
Is that not exactly what you indeed do? Do you not claim that your church is THE church founded by Jesus Christ? Is there more than one church founded by Jesus Christ? Nope…just one. So then, you claim something unique for your church that someone cannot get anywhere else, don’t you? It’s okay for you, but not for us, eh? Again, your hypocrisy is showing.
Quote from you:
“You say the doctrine [transubstantiation] was developed several hundred years after Christ. Try one-thousand years – a millennium. That’s a long time to wait to clarify an important doctrine.”
Actually, I did not say the doctrine of transubstantiation was developed after several hundred years. You said that. I said the “term” transubstantiation was first used to describe what happens when bread and wine become Jesus’ body and blood, several hundred years after Christ. I really wish you would stop inserting your beliefs into my mouth. Do you also remember me saying that the terms Trinity and Incarnation (and, as I mentioned above, hypostatic union) were also coined hundreds of years after Christ? Does that mean the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation were first developed when these terms were first coined? By your logic, the answer is yes. But, you don’t believe that do you?
The belief in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as all three being God, was a universal early Christian belief. However, in the 4th century, a priest named Arius began teaching that Jesus was not, in fact, divine. So, the early Church called councils, first at Nicaea in 325 A.D., and then at Constantinople in 387 A.D. (or right around there), to hammer out the theology on the Trinity. Those councils are where we get the teaching that God is one God, but three Persons, each consubstantially God. Does that mean that the belief in the Trinity wasn’t important for the first 300 years of Christianity? By your logic it does. But you don’t believe that, do you? So your logic is in error. Just so, the belief in the bread and wine becoming the actual Body and Blood of the Lord was a universal belief in early Christianity. It wasn’t until several hundred years after the beginning of the Church that this belief received any serious challenge. That’s when the Church had to hammer out the theology regarding the Eucharist, just as it had done with the Trinity. If you cannot understand that, well, I think it’s more a case that you don’t want to understand that.
Quote from you:
“You can dismiss all of this biblical evidence and logical evidence and go back to that talking point of your about who is and who isn’t an ‘authentic interpreter of Scripture.’”
As I guaranteed my readers, you did not and will not answer that question, will you?
39) Are you an authentic interpreter of Scripture? Yes or no?
40) If #39 is yes, is your interpretation of Scripture infallible? Yes or no?
41) Am I an authentic interpreter of Scripture? Yes or no?
42) If you are not an authentic interpreter of Scripture, then who is?
One last thing, if the Catholic Church was proven to be wrong, on any of its doctrinal teachings, not just on infallibility, then I would either become a Jew or an atheist. There are no other alternatives. If the Church is not an institution we can turn to for infallible guidance in the areas of faith and morals, then we have no way of solving disputes as to what is and is not the truth in those areas. You might think, “Well, yes we do, we can simply open the Bible and read for ourselves.” Well, that was tried beginning around 1520. And, now, thousands of denominations later (each denomination going solely by the Bible), we have nothing but chaos in Protestant Christianity.
Again, let me emphasize what I said in the beginning. I will continue with this conversation, only if you answer all 42 of the questions that I have numbered. The yes or no questions with a yes or no answer; the Scripture verse questions with a specific verse of Scripture, and the other questions with a simple one or two word answer. Even though there are 42 of them, it should take you only a couple of minutes to answer them all. If, after answering all of them, you then wish to add explanation, fine. But, first, you must answer the questions as posed. If you do not, then I will assume that you are not really interested in dialogue, but you just wish to have a forum to foist your own personal, man-made, non-authoritative, fallible interpretation of God’s Word onto others, and I will take that as a sign that you do not wish this conversation to continue. Furthermore, I will have to continue to say that I have yet to find someone willing to answer my questions.
In Conclusion
Well, I guess that about covers it. That will probably be the longest newsletter for quite some time. I hope it is useful to you by way of instruction. And, as always, please let folks know about this newsletter and all the free materials at our website: www.biblechristiansociety.com.
God bless!
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.
$RemovalHTML$