Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #65

After last week’s newsletter, I received an email from someone who took issue with how I had responded (or failed to respond in his opinion) to Russell. So, I thought I would respond to that email in this week’s newsletter. Below is his entire email to me, and then below that is his email with my responses intermingled.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

John,

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

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

Regardless, I will give you the respect and address your response regarding infallibility. While I agree that some non-Catholic Chrisitians and professing Christians (I hesitate to lump all such folks into the category of “Protestants” since so few base their faith and practice on the Reformers’ positions in American Christianity) do read and interpret in a way that would seem to indicate personal revelation that differs from person to person, there are careful, thoughtful Christians who seek to follow the Apostles’ doctrine as recorded in the New Testament. These same Christians rely on those who have gone before them, from the church fathers to the apologists up through the Reformers, and continuing on through the ministry of those who came after them. These Christians also recognize that the Holy Spirit reveals all truth and is able to aid men in understanding the Biblical writers’ intended meaning to the original hearers of each and every inspired text.

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

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

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

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

In Christ alone,

Cary L.

-————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Cary

John,

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

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

John

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

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

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

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

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

Cary

Regardless, I will give you the respect and address your response regarding infallibility. While I agree that some non-Catholic Chrisitians and professing Christians (I hesitate to lump all such folks into the category of “Protestants” since so few base their faith and practice on the Reformers’ positions in American Christianity) do read and interpret in a way that would seem to indicate personal revelation that differs from person to person, there are careful, thoughtful Christians who seek to follow the Apostles’ doctrine as recorded in the New Testament. These same Christians rely on those who have gone before them, from the church fathers to the apologists up through the Reformers, and continuing on through the ministry of those who came after them. These Christians also recognize that the Holy Spirit reveals all truth and is able to aid men in understanding the Biblical writers’ intended meaning to the original hearers of each and every inspired text.

John

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

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

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

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

There is one thing in this paragraph of yours that really got my attention: that we need to understand “the Biblical writers’ intended meaning to the original hearers of each and every inspired text.” Would you please answer this question: What was Paul’s intended meaning to Timothy in 2 Tim 3:15-17? Particularly, what “scripture” is Paul referencing here?

Cary

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

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

John

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

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

Cary

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

John

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

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

I do not rely upon my fallible interpretations of Scripture for what I believe and what I teach. I rely on what the Church…the Church founded by Jesus Christ and which can be historically traced back to Jesus Christ and His Apostles…I rely on what that Church teaches for the basis of my theological system. And, everything I read in the Bible confirms what that Church teaches me. Starting with the assumption that we all agree upon – that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God – when I go to the Bible, I see the church mentioned but I do not see Russell mentioned, or you, or Dr. Dobson, or Billy Graham. I see the church. Could the church mentioned in Scripture be a church founded by some man or group of men in the 1500’s or thereafter? Absolutely not. So, that lets me eliminate a lot of the possibilities as to which church was actually founded by Jesus Christ and which church is being guided by the Holy Spirit. Plus, the Scriptures tell me that Jesus gave such authority to the disciples He commissioned that He could say of them, “He who hears you, hears Me.” Since we agree that Jesus was infallible in what He taught, this is a very clear indication that these disciples were infallible in what they taught. Who says infallibility is not in the Bible?

Cary

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

John

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

Cary

In Christ alone,

Cary L.

John

In the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit alone,

John Martignoni

In Conclusion

I hope all of you have a great weekend! I’ll be traveling to Huntsville tomorrow with my wife and kids to visit my mom and family…looking forward to a couple of days away.

How to be added to, or removed from, the list

If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to www.biblechristiansociety.com and click on the “Newsletter” page to sign up. It will take you about 10 seconds.

$RemovalHTML$

Share this newsletter on: