Apologetics for the Masses #421: Refuting GotQuestions.org (Part 2)
Unsubscribe/Subscribe
http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter
http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter
Topic
The Protestant website - GotQuestions.org - and John 6:51 (Part 7)
General Comments
Nothing much to say here, except to ask that you please pray that the floor in my den finally gets replaced this week. Thanks!
Introduction
Last week I began analyzing the response from Sally at GotQuestions.org, to my repeated question about John 6:51. I first explained to her how she had indeed misrepresented Catholic teaching in her response, and then I started in on her "Seven Convincing Reasons" for why John 6:51 "must be taken figuratively". I looked at the first of her seven reasons last week (Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #420) and will tackle the next three reasons in this issue. As I did last week, I will break her response into several pieces and then give my reply to each section.
This one is a little bit longer, but I hope you will persevere to the end and that you will find it worthwhile of your time. If you wish to see Sally's full response all in one place, you can do so here: Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #419.
Challenge/Response/Strategy
Sally - GotQuestions.Org
"Seven Convincing Reasons" why John 6:51-59 passage must be taken figuratively (cont'd)
2) Drinking Blood Forbidden
The Law of Moses strictly forbade Jews from drinking blood (Leviticus 17:10-14) A literal interpretation would have Jesus teaching the Jews to disobey the Mosaic Law. This would have been enough cause to persecute Jesus. (See John 5:16)
John's Response
This "Convincing Reason" for why John 6:51-58 "must be taken figuratively," is actually not so "convincing" for several reasons:
1) Jesus did a number of things that fulfilled/superceded the Old Covenant law. For example, Jesus taught the Jews that there is, essentially, no such thing as an "unclean" food. We see this in Mark 7:18-19, "Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him...Thus He declared all foods clean." Paul reiterates this teaching in Rom 14:14 and we see Jesus saying this to Peter through a dream in Acts 10:10-16. Yet, Leviticus, the same book of the Bible you cite in your "Convincing Reason" #2, is very clear that there are indeed unclean foods (Leviticus 11, particularly verses 46-47). So, by your reasoning, that means Jesus was teaching the Jews to disobey the Mosaic Law which, again, definitively taught that certain foods are unclean. Which leads me to ask: Do you believe Jesus' teaching that all foods are clean is only a symbolic teaching?
And that's just one example of change from the Old Law to the New Law. The Council of Jerusalem said that circumcision is no longer necessary. Yet, in Genesis 17:10-14, God says that any male that is not circumcised has broken His covenant. Was the Council of Jerusalem's teaching on circumcision only a symbolic teaching, or were they "teaching the Jews [and the Gentiles] to disobey the Mosaic Law?" Christians worship on Sunday, but the Old Law said Saturday is the Sabbath. Should we all become 7th Day Adventists? Hebrews 7:12 tells us that when there is a change in the priesthood, there is "necessarily a change in the law as well". And we had had just such a change - from the Levitical priesthood, the Order of Aaron, to the priesthood of Jesus, the Order of Melchizedek (Heb 7:11). In Matthew 5, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says several times, "You have heard," and then He changes what they have heard - "But I say to you..." He changes the law on divorce (vv. 31-32), on swearing oaths (vv. 33-37), on an eye for an eye (vv. 38-42), and on loving your neighbor but hating your enemy (vv. 43-48). Was He only speaking symbolically on all those topics, or was He "teaching the Jews to disobey the Mosaic Law"? According to your reasoning, it has to be one or the other.
Jesus...aka God...has the power and the authority to fulfill/supercede the Old Law with New Law. And, if he can, and did, make all of the above referenced changes to the Old Law, and more, then why could he not make the same kind of change in regard to drinking blood? Do you deny that He has the power and the authority to lawfully command us to eat His body and drink His blood?
2) Notice that the prohibition on drinking blood has to do with the fact that the blood is "the life of every creature" (Lev 17:14). So, by eating/drinking the blood of a creature, they were, according to the law, essentially taking the life of that creature within them. In other words, as human beings, they were, under the Law, in a sense lowering themselves to the state of an animal by taking the animal's life within them. Yet, God made man to have a life above the life of the animals.
But, by drinking the blood of Jesus, you are thus taking His life within you. That is not lowering your state as a human being, it is elevating it! And Jesus tells us exactly that: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no LIFE within you," (John 6:53). "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life," (v. 54). "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in me and I in him," (v. 56). So, how, Sally, can you say that taking the life of Jesus within you could ever be a bad thing? Why would elevating one's human nature by taking the very life of Christ - His blood - into your body, ever be prohibited by God? And doesn't this fit in perfectly with 2 Peter 1:4 which says we have become "partakers of the divine nature"? How does one become a partaker of the divine nature if not by taking the very life of Christ - His blood (along with His body, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist) - into your body?!
3) The prohibition against drinking blood that was laid down in Leviticus 17, was a temporary prohibition under the Mosaic Law, as opposed to being something that is intrinsically evil. We know this because Jesus would not tell us to do something that was intrinsically evil - even in a symbolic sense. I mean, think about it. Would Jesus ever tell someone to symbolically commit murder? Or to symbolically steal? Or symbolically commit adultery? Or symbolically worship a false god? No! Never! Therefore, when He tells us to drink His blood - even if you interpret that in a symbolic manner - we thereby know that drinking His blood in a literal manner cannot be evil. It can't be wrong. Because if drinking His blood in a literal sense is wrong, or evil, then He would never have told us to do so - even in a symbolical sense!
If Jesus telling the Jews something contrary to Mosaic Law is to automatically be interpreted as a "symbolic" teaching, then why are you not interpreting all of those other things that He told the Jews - that were contrary to the Mosaic Law - as symbolic teachings? Your lack of consistency on this causes your argument to fail. Which means your "Convincing Reason" #2, is not all that convincing when looked at through the lens of Scripture, logic, and common sense.
Sally - GotQuestions.Org
3) Biblical Disharmony
When John 6:53 is interpreted literally it is in disharmony with the rest of the Bible. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you," gives no hope of eternal life to any Christian who has not consumed the literal body and blood of Christ. It opposes hundreds of Scriptures that declare justification and salvation are by faith alone in Christ.
John's Response
First of all, there are not "hundreds of Scriptures that declare justification and salvation are by faith alone in Christ." In fact, there is not one single verse in Scripture that declares such a thing. I'll make you a little challenge here: Should you produce one authentic verse of Scripture...just one...that states we are saved, or justified, by "faith alone" - I will donate $100,000 to GotQuestions.org. $100,000! Can you give me such a verse? You claim there are hundreds that say such a thing, so it shouldn't be too difficult to find just one. But, I don't think you can.
However, there is a 2nd part of the challenge. If I can produce even one authentic verse of Scripture that says it is "not by faith alone" that we are saved, or justified - will you donate a measly $1000 to my non-profit, the Bible Christian Society?
I can guarantee that you won't take me up on that challenge, will you? Because, Sally, you may or may not realize it, but in all of Scripture there is only one verse, just one, that uses the actual phrase, "faith alone". And that verse is James 2:24, which says: "You see that a man is justified by works, and NOT BY FAITH ALONE." So, no, when John 6:53, or John 6:51 or 6:52 or 6:54 or 6:55 or 6:56 or 6:57 or 6:58, or the passages from the Last Supper where Jesus says this "IS" My flesh, this "IS" My blood - when these passages are interpreted literally it does not cause "biblical disharmony," quite the opposite.
Again, John 6:51 says that the bread Jesus wants us to eat is His flesh that He will give for the life of the world. The flesh that He gave for the life of the world was His real flesh that hung on the Cross. You agreed to that. So, if it was His real flesh that He gave on the Cross for the life of the world, not His symbolic flesh, then that means when He says that the bread He wants to give us to eat is the flesh which He will give for the life of the world, then He is saying - according to all the rules of grammar and logic and common sense...and Scripture...that the bread He wants to give us to eat is His real flesh that was nailed to the Cross for the life of the world. That is what was given for the life of the world - His real flesh, not His symbolic flesh.
You, however, want to have it both ways. You want to say, on the one hand, that in John 6:51, the flesh Jesus gave for the life of the world was indeed His real flesh that hung on the Cross. But! You also want to say that the bread spoken of in John 6:51 is Jesus' symbolic flesh that He wants us to eat. So, the bread spoken of in John 6:51 is Jesus' symbolic flesh, but the flesh given for the life of the world is Jesus' actual flesh. But, therein lies your difficulty. The very same bread that Jesus says we need to eat and that you say is Jesus' symbolic flesh, is defined, by the Word of God, in that very same verse, as the flesh that Jesus will give for the life of the world - which you admit was His real flesh! According to you, then, this bread is His symbolic flesh, but that very same bread is also His real flesh. Sorry, Sally, but you cannot have it both ways. You are violating a fundamental principle of logic - the Principle of Non-Contradiction. Something either is, or it isn't. The bread in John 6:51 is either Jesus' symbolic flesh or it is His real flesh, it can't be both. If it's His symbolic flesh, then the flesh that He gave for the life of the world is only His symbolic flesh. That's what I would call "biblical disharmony".
Especially when viewed in light of the rest of Scripture. For example, 1 Cor 11:27-29, where Paul says, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord." If it is only symbolic...if it is only a piece of bread...if it is only a cup of grape juice...if it is only a metaphor...then how can you be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord?! How can you profane that which is not there?! Paul also says that, "Anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." How can you discern the body if the body is not there?! And, according to your methodology of interpretation, this is an absolute. Any Christian who does not discern the body and blood of Jesus in the piece of bread and the cup of grape juice, has "no hope of eternal life"!!! Are you really condemned to hell for unworthily taking a piece of bread and some grape juice?
Then, what about 1 Corinthians 10:16-21? Paul talks about partaking in the bread as being a participation in the body of Christ and partaking in the cup of blessing being a participation in the blood of Christ. Nothing symbolic here. And Paul says something very interesting in verses 17-18: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners {KJV: partakers} in the altar?" (2 Peter 1:4, "partakers of the divine nature".) Does Paul mean that the Israelites only symbolically ate the sacrifices they offered to God in the Old Testament? Not a chance. At least, not according to the Bible. Well, what is the New Testament sacrifice? The body and blood of Christ. We must "eat" the sacrifice in order to be a partner, or partaker, in the altar. "Eating the sacrifice" is not a metaphor for "believing." It is a real action the Christians of the Bible participated in.
One last point I will bring up here, is that everyone who heard Jesus speaking that day, even His own disciples, took Him to be speaking literally, not figuratively or metaphorically. If everyone who heard Him on that day took Him to be speaking literally, even those who had been with Him throughout His entire ministry, then how can anyone today, 2000 years after the fact, come along and say, "No, everyone who was there that day got it wrong?" I could say a lot more on this here, but I'll discuss this point further when responding to #7 of your "Convincing Reasons". Suffice it to say, that "biblical disharmony" is caused by a "symbolic rendering" of John 6:51-58, not by a literal rendering of that passage.
"Convincing Reason" #3 dies on the altar of sacrifice. We must, as did the ancient Israelites, eat - truly eat - the sacrifice of the altar. The living bread which came down from Heaven cannot be both the real flesh of Jesus Christ and the symbolic flesh of Jesus Christ at the same time.
Sally - GotQuestions.Org
4) Produces Dilemma
It appears that the "eating and drinking" in verse 6:54 and the "believing" in verse 6:40 produce the same result - eternal life. If both are literal, we have a dilemma. What if a person "believes" but does not "eat or drink"? Or what if a person "eats and drinks" but does not "believe?" This could happen any time a non-believer walked into a Catholic Church and received the Eucharist. Does this person have eternal life because he met one of the requirements but not the other? The only possible way to harmonize these two verses is to accept one verse as figurative and one as literal.
John's Response
No, the "only possible way to harmonize these two verses" is not to accept one as literal and one as figurative. If that is true, then you have some "dilemmas" when it comes to other passages of Scripture. You see, you are using a particular methodology for reconciling (you think) these two passages; yet, when it comes to passages that present a similar problem for Protestant theology along the lines of John 6:51-58, you interpret those other passages using an entirely different methodology. I'll demonstrate.
Yes, eating the body and drinking the blood of Jesus Christ do indeed lead to eternal life, as John 6:54 states. And, in John 6:40, believing does indeed lead to eternal life. Your problem is, you make this an either-or issue. For the Catholic, it is both-and. For you, your pre-set beliefs cause you to come to the either-or conclusion that it is either believing or doing (eating and drinking in this instance) that will get you saved. For the Catholic, going by the words of Scripture, and looking at the full context of the Gospels, we come to the conclusion that it is both believing and doing that will get you saved...all by the grace of God, not of ourselves, lest any man should boast. We reason that if you believe in Jesus, then you will do what He says you need to do. You see, in neither of those verses - John 6:54 or John 6:40 - do we Catholics see the word "alone," as in "believing alone" or "eating the flesh and drinking the blood alone". You, however, insert a word - "alone" - into the Scriptures that is not there.
Thus you have to twist the Scriptures in order to try and reconcile John 6:54 with John 6:40. What I find interesting, though, is that you don't use that same methodology with other passages. Your methodology is this: 2 different verses speak to how a person attains eternal life. But, how a person is saved is, at least on the surface, different in each verse. In this example, one verse says "believing" leads to eternal life and the other says "eating and drinking" lead to eternal life. In the "logic" of your theological system, it has to be one or the other, it can't be both. That means, according to you, that the only way to reconcile the two verses is that "eating and drinking the body and blood of Jesus" has to simply be a metaphor for "believing". That is how you make it work for your set of beliefs.
But, let's look at another verse that speaks of eternal life. For example, in Matthew 19:17, Jesus says, "If you would enter life, keep the commandments." In other words, "keep the commandments" in Matt 19:17 and "believing" in John 6:40 "produce the same result - eternal life". So, let's apply your logic here to see if we can reconcile Matt 19:17 with John 6:40 in the same way you reconciled John 6:40 and John 6:54. If both are literal, then we have a dilemma. What if a person "believes," but does not "keep the commandments"? Or what if a person "keeps the commandments," but does not "believe?" This could happen any time a Jew keeps the commandments (they are believers in God but unbelievers in Jesus as God and Savior). Does a Jew have eternal life because he met one of the requirements but not the other? "The only possible way to harmonize these two verses is to accept one verse as figurative and one as literal," again, according to your logic. So, when Jesus said in order to have eternal life you must "keep the commandments," then, for you to be consistent in how you interpret Scripture, it must mean that He was talking about symbolically keeping the commandments, right? "Keep the commandments" actually means, "accept me into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior," right? Do you believe Jesus was speaking figuratively when He said "If you would enter life, keep the commandments?" Yes or no? Do you believe that "keep the commandments" is simply a metaphor for, "believing in Jesus"? Yes or no? Do you see the problem you have?
And, let's look at other verses that speak of salvation and eternal life. In Matthew 25:31-46 it talks of those who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the sick and the imprisoned. It says, in verse 46, that those who do these things will go into "eternal life". So, in both passages the result is the same - eternal life. One is by "believing" and one is by "feeding, clothing, and visiting". If both are literal, then we have a dilemma. So, let's apply your logic here to see if we can reconcile Matt 25:46 with John 6:40 in the same way you reconciled John 6:40 and John 6:54. How, then, do we reconcile Matthew 25:46 with John 6:40? Using your methodology it becomes an easy thing to do - we know that the "only way to reconcile" the two passages is that one has to be literal and the other figurative, right? I mean, what if someone "believes" but doesn't "feed, clothe, and visit"? Or, what if, say an atheist, "feeds, clothes, and visits," but doesn't believe? Is he saved? Again, just using your logic here. So, when Jesus says that those who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the sick and imprisoned will have eternal life, that must mean...it has to mean...that He is talking figuratively. "Feeding, clothing, and visiting" are all metaphors for believing, right? That's the only way to reconcile the 2 passages, isn't it? So, I will ask directly: Do you believe Jesus was speaking figuratively when He said to feed the hungry, clother the naked, and so on? Yes or no? Do you believe "feeding, clothing, and visiting" are simply metaphors for "believing in Jesus"? Yes or no?
Romans 2:6-7 says God will give eternal life to those that seek for glory and honor and immortality through patience in well-doing (good works). So, again, using your methodology, that means patience in well-doing is a metaphor for "believing," correct? That's the "only way" to reconcile Rom 2:6-7 with John 6:40. Oh, and Matt 7:21 which says that those who "do the will of My Father" will enter Heaven - in order to reconcile that with John 6:40, that means that Jesus was only speaking figuratively here. "Do the will of My Father" is simply a metaphor for believing in Jesus. We don't really need to do the will of the Father to enter Heaven, do we? 1 Tim 2:15 says "woman will be saved through bearing children". In order to reconcile that with John 6:40, that means "bearing children" is simply a metaphor for "believing" in Jesus, right? Yes or no?
I could go on with many more verses like this. Do you not see how you change the way you interpret this passage vs. that passage in order to fit your pre-set theological system. You are not fitting your beliefs to the Bible, rather, you are trying to fit the Bible to your beliefs. As Catholics, we believe all of what Jesus tells us is necessary for salvation. We have to believe (John 6:40). We have to eat His body and drink His blood (John 6:51-58). We have to strive for holiness (Heb 12:14). We have to do the Father's will (Matt 7:21). We have to be baptized (John 3:3-5; 1 Peter 3:21). We have to forgive others in order to be forgiven (Matt 6:14-15). We have to keep the Commandments (Matt 19:16-17). We have to do the works that God has prepared for us beforehand that we should walk in them (Eph 2:10). We have to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and the imprisoned (Matt 25:31-46). We have to do something with what our Lord has freely given us (Matt 25:14-30). We have to seek for glory and honor and immortality through patience in well-doing (Rom 2:6-7). We have to take up our cross daily and follow Him (Luke 9:23). We have to bear fruit or we will be cut off from Christ and tossed into the fire (John 15:1-6). We have to continue in God's kindness (Rom 11:17-22). We have to do all of these things and more! Doesn't seem possible, does it? Yet, all things are possible with God. And the only way we can have any hope of ever "following Him" (Luke 9:23)...is by the grace of God.
So, your 4th "Convincing Reason" is based on a flawed interpretation of Scripture and on flawed logic. A literal interpretation of John 6:51-58 does not produce a dilemma. Rather, a figurative interpretation of John 6:51-58, produces a dilemma - actually, it produces numerous dilemmas with a whole lot of other Scripture passages, as I have shown above. Because if you are consistent in your methodology of interpretation, then you wind up with a whole bunch of pretty ridiculous metaphors for "believing," and with Jesus' words about keeping the commandments and doing the Father's will and forgiving others and doing good works - as being nothing more than figurative. 4th Convincing Reason goes down in a metaphorical mess.
Closing Comments
Final 3 "Convincing Reasons" in the next issue. Hope all of you have a great week. Oh, please, all of you, pray for all of the recent college and high school grads. Moving on to a new phase in their lives - scary and exciting. A good time to turn to Christ! Our Lady of Fatima...pray for us!
Donations
The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at:
http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations
or send a check to:
Bible Christian Society
PO Box 424
Pleasant Grove, AL 35127.
Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!
Unsubscribe/Subscribe
http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter
http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter