A Conversation With A Baptist Minister (Part 2) - Apologetics for the Masses #543

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

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

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

Topic

A conversation with a Baptist Minister (Part 2)

General Comments

Well, today (May 1st) is St. Joseph the Worker Day! This feast day was established in 1955 by Pope Pius XII to honor the dignity of labor and to highlight the importance of work in Christian life, as exemplified by Saint Joseph - a carpenter - and to counter the communist "May Day" celebrations.

Apparently, the communist May Day celebrations have gotten some renewed energy as of late here in the States, as there are communist/socialist rallies going on all over the country today - here in Birmingham, too. So, I was thinking maybe next May 1st, we could get good Catholic folks to join the "May Day" rallies of the communists and hold up signs that say: "Happy St. Joseph the Worker Day! Convert!" or something along those lines. Just a thought.

Introduction

This week I continue my conversation with the Baptist Pastor I featured in the last newsletter. As I stated last week, he contacted me out of the blue through Facebook. And, again, I'm not going to mention his name because, unlike the guys featured in the newsletters previous to this conversation, who were totally off the rails, this guy appears to honestly be searching for truth...at least, sort of. And, he has handled the conversation like an adult. So, I'll just identify him as "Baptist Pastor".

Anyway, the conversation with him is ongoing and I have found it to be rather interesting and refreshing. Interesting in how he responds to my questions, and refreshing in that he actually offers, for the most part, direct answers to direct questions. A rarity amongst the thousands of Protestants I've dealt with in the last 28 years. And, I think this conversation will be useful in showing how, even those of the Protestant persuasion who are thoughtful, decent, and open to hearing - and responding to - your arguments and questions (as opposed to the crazed anti-Catholics), still serve as examples of how Protestantism is, at its core, fundamentally in opposition to Jesus' prayer for unity amongst His followers that we find in John 17:20-23. And this conversation will also show, as I have said for many years, how easy it is, with just one or two questions, to throw a monkey wrench into the machinery of Protestant theology.

I'll start with the two follow up questions I asked him from John 15:1-6 and John 6:51, then give his response to those questions, and go from there, with my "Comments/Strategy" interspersed between my responses to him.

Anyway, I hope you find this as interesting as I did. And, just so you know up front, this one is a little long, and that's because I've kinda let the conversation get away from me a bit. That's probably because he does seem to be sincerely interested, so I'm being a bit more expansive than I usually am. Plus I'm not forcing the conversation back to the questions I've been asking like I usually do. I will, however, at some point, have to bring everything back to just a few of the most pertinent questions and insist that he focuses on those - assuming he stays with me.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

John Martignoni
Regarding my two questions, Pastor...first, thank you for your answers. They were direct and to the point. Much appreciated. Second, I have two more questions for you:

1) Given that you agree that the branches of the vine are believers, how is it they are cut off from the vine (Christ) and thrown into the fire (Hell) for not producing fruit (good works) if Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) is true (John 15:1-6)?

2) If the bread that Jesus is going to give us to eat - which will enable us to live forever (John 6:51) - is the flesh that He will give for the life of the world, and you agree that He gave His flesh for the life of the world on the Cross, then my next question is: Was His flesh that hung on the Cross real...or symbolic?

Baptist Pastor
1) Response to question on John 15:1-6:
I don't believe that John is stating that Christians are eternally cut off from the vine. Nor does Catholic Bible scholar Francis J. Maloney, S.D.B.. in Maloney's commentary on John he states that "thrown into the fire and burned" is best explained by making the link with everyday practice. Instead he states that it refers to the practice of dry wood being cut off from the vine. I believe it refers to the fact that all Christ followers have dry seasons in their lives where they are not bearing fruit in their lives due to allowing sin to overcome them temporarily. This removal of dead wood and pruning is to regain the potential for fruit bearing again. The New Testament is full of references that we are to die to ourselves and pick up our cross daily. Throughout our lives we will need to be pruned over and over again until Christ returns and makes us perfect in Him.

Good hermeneutics requires us to look at all of Scripture to ensure that we are interpreting it correctly. There are a handful of passages in Scripture that when looked at in isolation make it seem that losing your salvation is possible. However, from my studies I am led to see a message of Christ ensuring believers that He has sealed our salvation with the Holy Spirit and that there is nothing that can separate us from the love of God. It is through this lens that I look at John 1 which leads me to believe that it is a temporary pruning for the sake of restoring the ability to beat fruit.

2) Response to Question on John 6:51
One of my struggles with your book was I felt like your goal was unattainable. You aspired to prove all Protestants wrong. I believe you briefly touch on this point in the book but Protestants have varying views on topics such as communion. Because of this some of your arguments do not apply to specific people. So when you state "No protestant can answer this question it could be easily answered with "I don't believe in what you are accusing me of believing."

I believe that your stance is that Catholicism believes that the Pope alone has the authority to interpret Scripture. I have only just begun my pursuit of exploring church history through a catholic lens but from my very limited knowledge it seems that Catholic theology has evolved over the centuries. As I study more and come across more details I would love for this to be a topic of discussion. To be clear I am not making accusations. I am seeking clarity and deeper understanding.

But to return to the question at hand: Communion is a mystery to me. I tend to favor a consubstantiation view of the Eucharist. The elements do not transform but remain in union with Christ's real presence. I can't explain it but the presence of Christ is real in some way. I am not opposed to a transubstantiation view but the farthest I have been able to come is that it is a mystery. So...Jesus' flesh is real on the cross and we partake of Christ in some mysterious way when we participate in communion.

My Response
(My response to #1 above)

Okay, a few points to consider here:

1) Very first thing, Pastor, that you said was: “I don’t believe that John is stating...” YOU “don’t believe”. You. In other words, everything you said after that is nothing more than your personal interpretation of Scripture, right? And, since I’m assuming you won’t claim your interpretations of Scripture are infallible, then everything you wrote is nothing more than your personal, fallible, interpretations of Scripture. Furthermore, and meaning no disrespect here, but your personal, fallible, interpretations of Scripture have no authority whatsoever. So, everything you wrote in this last response to me is nothing more than your personal, non-authoritative, fallible interpretations of Scripture. Will you agree with that description?

Comments/Strategy
#1 issue - always and everywhere - with Protestant theology: the question of authority. Who has the authority to definitively decide what is or is not authentic Christian teaching and practice? Who has the authority to decide what is or is not an authentic interpretation of Scripture? In Protestant theology, every Protestant has the authority to interpret Scripture as they see fit, which means, essentially, that in Protestant theology no Protestant has any authority to decide what is or is not authentic Christian teaching and practice. The best that any Protestant can give you - no matter how many degrees they may have and no matter how many years they claim they have studied Scripture - is their personal, fallible, non-authoritative interpretation of Scripture. "I don't believe...," he said. Well, what do I care what he believes or doesn't believe in regard to what the Bible says?

My Response (cont'd)
2) Regarding “Catholic Bible scholar Francis J. Moloney, S.D.B.’s commentary on St. John, without having the context, Pastor, I’m not sure exactly what he is saying. Regardless, it’s immaterial to the argument. His comments on John carry no more authority than do mine. Here’s a quote, however, from a much more authoritative source - St. Augustine’s commentary on John 15: “The wood of the vine, therefore, is in the same proportion the more contemptible if it abide not in the vine...as the Lord likewise says of them in the prophet Ezekiel (15:5), when cut off, they are of no use for any purpose of the husbandman [God]...the branch is suitable only for one of two things, either the vine or the fire: if it is not in the vine, its place will be in the fire.” St. Augustine agrees with me.

Comments/Strategy
It's a bit humorous that a Baptist Pastor is quoting a "Catholic" Bible scholar". I mean, he'll call the guy a "Bible scholar" as long as he thinks what he's saying agrees with his theology. On any number of other things the Catholic Bible scholar comments on, I guarantee you the Baptist Pastor will reject his comments. Essentially, the Catholic Bible scholar is right if he agrees with the Baptist Pastor, and he is wrong if he doesn't agree with the Baptist Pastor. So, he'll give him authority one minute, and take it away the next. Anyway, I probably shouldn't have given him the quote from St. Augustine, because that gives him an opportunity to go down a rabbit trail. I should have just said, "Sorry, but 'Catholic Bible scholar' Francis J. Moloney's comments have no weight of authority with me," and just moved on, thus shutting down that line of argumentation. Besides, one of my subscribers sent me a link to the article of Fr. Francis J. Moloney that the Pastor seems to be citing, and it doesn't say what the Pastor says it says. Huh...go figure.

My Response (cont'd)
3) Sorry, Pastor, but your personal interpretation of John 15:6, where the branch is thrown into the fire and burned, as being the equivalent of pruning, doesn’t meet the common sense test, and it is contradicted by Scripture. 1st of all, from a common sense perspective, no one throws branches into a fire to “prune” them. Branches get thrown into the fire because they are no longer useful and because they have withered (died), as it clearly says in verse 6, and in Augustine’s quote above. 2nd, aren’t we supposed to interpret Scripture with Scripture? The passage clearly states that it is the branches of the vine that actually produce fruit that are pruned, so that they will produce even more fruit (verse 2). These branches are not cut off and thrown into the fire. Do you agree with that? It is the branches that produce no fruit that are cut off from the vine and taken away to be burned, at least, according to the Bible. So, again, your personal interpretation is clearly at odds with the very plain words of Scripture. I’m curious: In Baptist theology, when a person sins, can it be said that they are cut off from the vine of Christ as you have stated here?

Comments/Strategy
This guy's interpretation of John 15:1-6 is off the wall. The lengths he has to go to in order to try and deny the very obvious meaning of this passage are beyond the pale. Being thrown into the fire is the equivalent of being "pruned"? Really? Not only does it defy common sense, but he's contradicting what the passage actually says about which branches get pruned. But, again, this just shows how easy it is to completely discombobulate Protestant theology with just 2 questions. So I just keep quoting what the Bible actually says.

My Response (cont'd)
4) You stated: “Good hermeneutics requires us to look at all of Scripture to ensure that we are interpreting it correctly.” Absolutely! See Point #3 above. So, where else in Scripture do you find a reference to being thrown into the fire and burned as being nothing more than getting pruned? Nowhere that I know of. There is a verse, however, that comes very close to this verse in John 15:6, and that’s Matt 3:10, “Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but you wouldn’t say those trees are merely being “pruned,” would you? And then there’s Matt 3:12; 7:19; 13:40,42,50; 18:8; 25:41; and I could go on and on through the rest of the New Testament.

Comments/Strategy
Don't ever let them trip you up with the line about looking at "all of Scripture" in order to properly interpret it. Yes, he's correct on that count. However, it's Catholics who look at all of Scripture in order to properly interpret it. Or, they might say, "Well, you need to interpret Scripture with Scripture." Whenever I hear that, first thing I ask is, "Where does the Bible say that? And where does the Bible give the rules for how to do that?" But, it's pretty obvious from all of the Scripture verses I shared with him, that he most definitely was not looking at "all of Scripture" to come up with his interpretation of John 15:1-6.

My Response (cont'd)
5) You agree that the branches of the vine are indeed Christians. Which means they have been saved. You also believe that they cannot lose their salvation. Yet, very clearly, the Scripture says if the branches of the vine do not produce fruit (good works), then they are cut off from the vine and thrown into the fire. It is only because you have a pre-set belief in eternal security that you have to twist that verse to mean something that it quite obviously does not mean.

Comments/Strategy
There is absolutely no way he can salvage his interpretation as he gave it. What he said was utter nonsense. And, by golly, I am going to make sure he realizes it.

My Response (cont'd)
6) a) You stated: “There are a handful of passages in Scripture that when looked at in isolation make it seem that losing your salvation is possible.” Actually, there are dozens and dozens of passages in Scripture that show, pretty clearly, that losing your salvation is indeed possible. Way more, in fact, than those few passages that “seem,” when improperly interpreted, to teach eternal security.

b) First of all, the dogma of Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) essentially removes the consequences of sin. Sin - adultery, fornication, sodomy, murder, lying, etc. doesn’t get you damned to Hell, as long as you just believe. Yet, all through the New Testament, we read about sin having really bad consequences - you can lose your salvation through sin. For example: Matt 13:40-42; Rom 11:17-22; Heb 6:4-6, 10:26-29; Eph 5:5; James 4:1-4; Col 3:25; 2 Peter 2:19-22; and I could go on.

c) Secondly, OSAS renders any number of Scripture passages as nonsense. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says it is better to cut off your hand or pluck out your eye if they cause you to sin because it is better to be in Heaven with one eye or one hand than to have your whole body in Hell. That makes no sense if OSAS is true. Jesus is talking about “believers” here, because unbelievers have no chance of getting to Heaven, right? And what does He say about believers? Better they maim themselves to avoid sin and get to Heaven, then go into Hell whole. Why would He say that if believers can’t lose their salvation? Makes absolutely no sense. If OSAS is true, then Jesus would have said, “Do what you have to in order to avoid sin, but know that, even if you sin, you are still going to Heaven.”

d) OSAS renders meaningless those passages about having to endure and persevere to the end - such as Matt 10:22, Heb 10:35-36, and Heb 12:1. Why do we have to persevere to the end if we’ve already been saved and can’t lose that salvation? OSAS renders meaningless the passages about Christians having to have hope, such as Rom 5:2, 8:24-25, 15:13. Why have “hope” if we already “know” that we are saved? Paul himself didn’t have absolute assurance of his salvation - Phil 3:10-13; 1 Cor 9:26-27.

e) And let me ask you this: Was the Prodigal Son “saved” when he was in his father’s house at the beginning of the parable? Of course he was. He was in his father’s house. And, when he was given his share of the inheritance, wasn’t he in a “saved” state? I mean, for the Christian, what is our inheritance? Is it not salvation? Yet, the Prodigal Son loses his inheritance. How? Through sin. Then, when he repents and turns back to his father, what does the Word of God say? The father sees his son and says, “...for this my son was dead, and is alive AGAIN.” The son is alive “again”. Which means, he was alive (saved), dead (unsaved), alive again (saved). No OSAS in this parable. If OSAS is true, then the father would have said, “...for this my son was alive, and is still alive.”

Comments/Strategy
No comment here other than to say that it boggles my mind how anyone can read the Bible, and read about all the consequences of sin, and believe in Once Saved Always Saved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

John Martignoni
My response to #2 above

Pastor, you stated: “One of my struggles with your book was I felt like your goal was unattainable. You aspired to prove all Protestants wrong.”  No, actually, I did not. I aspired to prove Protestant theology wrong.

You stated: “Protestants have varying views on topics...some of your arguments do not apply to specific people. So when you state 'No protestant can answer this question it could be easily answered with,' 'I don't believe in what you are accusing me of believing.'" Absolutely! Because on any given topic I examined in my book, with maybe the exception of Sola Scriptura, there are Protestants who believe exactly as Catholics believe. Again, though, my goal is not to prove all Protestants wrong, but to prove Protestant theology wrong. So my questions and arguments are valid, even if there are Protestants who can dismiss any given question or argument as not being applicable to them.

You stated: “I believe that your stance is that Catholicism believes that the Pope alone has the authority to interpret Scripture.” Actually, no, that is incorrect. All Catholics have the authority to interpret Scripture, as long as their interpretations do not go outside the boundary of orthodox teaching as laid down by the Church. The Church does, however, have the ultimate authority to determine whether any given interpretation of Scripture is authentically Christian or not (Matt 16:18-19, 18:17-18, 28:18-20; Acts 15:28). The ultimate question is: Who has the authority to determine what is, or is not, authentic Christian teaching and practice? Is it each individual reading the Bible on their own that determines authentic Christian teaching, or is it the Church founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit? How do you answer that?

Comments/Strategy
Authority...authority...authority. Always go to the question of authority.

My Response (Cont'd)
You stated: “...it seems that Catholic theology has evolved over the centuries.” Not exactly correct. The deposit of faith - what we are to believe as a matter of faith or morals - was closed as of the death of the last Apostle. Our understanding of that deposit of faith has deepened - for example, the teachings on the Trinity - over the centuries, but not evolved, if by “evolved” you mean “changed”.

Regarding my question about John 6:51. You agree that Jesus gave His flesh for the life of the world on the Cross and that His flesh and blood on the Cross were real. Okay, now, put that back into John 6:51. “I am the living bread which came down from Heaven; if any one eats of this bread [the real flesh that Jesus gave for the life of the world on the Cross], he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” And, if Jesus is talking about giving us His real flesh and His real blood to eat in John 6:51, then He is talking about that same real flesh and blood in John 6:53-58, as everyone who heard Him that day - the Jews, His disciples, and even the Apostles - believed He was.

So, my question for you is: If everyone who heard Jesus speak on that day took Him literally, and He Himself clearly said, in John 6:51, that the bread He is talking about giving everyone to eat is His real flesh that hung on the Cross, then why do you not believe it?

Comments/Strategy
If you can get someone to actually give you a straightforward answer to your 2nd question in regard to John 6:51, then you have them in a bit of a theological conundrum. "Yes, Jesus' flesh on the Cross was real, but John 6:51 and following aren't saying we need to eat His real flesh even though I just told you that John 6:51 is talking about His real flesh that was nailed to the Cross, but it's only saying we symbolically eat His flesh." If that last sentence made no sense to you, that's because Protestant theology about John 6:51-58 being "symbolic" language makes absolutely no sense. But, in order to expose the contradictions of their theology, you need to ask the right questions. And it only takes two of them, as I've shown in this conversation.

Baptist Pastor
Hey John,

I would like to answer your responses more thoroughly but a quick question: what makes Augustine more authoritative than another Catholic? If mine and yours interpretation of Scripture is fallible isn't his? And if the Catholic dogma is based on the tradition of the interpretation of early church fathers who have fallible interpretations isn't it hopeless for Protestant and Catholic alike? I agree with you at some level all Christians look to tradition. But for instance: I'm pretty sure Augustine believed in OSAS. Please correct me if I am wrong. I am currently processing through the fact that some of your questions "mean" more to you as a Catholic than it would a protestant. Views on communion are not questions of salvation for us so all my life I have I studied with a perspective that there is room to vary in perspective. Sorry if the train of thought was a little jumbled. I'm still with you and will try to respond point by point soon. I appreciate the dialogue.

P.S. This is hard for me because I feel like you are questioning my salvation when I'm not questioning yours.

My Response
Pastor, I have several points to make in response:

1) What makes Augustine more authoritative than another Catholic?
A. He was a bishop of the Catholic Church.
B. He is recognized as a saint by the Catholic Church which means the Church regards his teachings to be free of doctrinal error.

2) Aren't Augustine's interpretations of Scripture fallible? Yes, his interpretations of Scripture are indeed fallible; however, they have been recognized as falling within the boundaries of the teaching of the Church (see 1.B. above).

3) "And if the Catholic dogma is based on the tradition of the interpretation of early church fathers..." Correction: Catholic dogma is not based on the tradition of the scriptural interpretations of early church fathers. Catholic dogma is based upon the teaching that Jesus Christ gave to His Apostles, and which was passed down from the Apostles to the broader Church through the successors of the Apostles - the bishops (John 16:13, 17:17; Matt 28:19-20; 2 Tim 2:2). The Deposit of Faith was, essentially, closed before any of the Early Church Fathers were even born. The Early Church Fathers simply guarded and passed on what they had learned (1 Tim 1:3, 6:20; 2 Tim 1:14).

4) "...of early church fathers who have fallible interpretations isn't it hopeless for Protestant and Catholic alike?"  No, it is not hopeless for Catholic and Protestant alike. For Catholics, Christ has given us an infallible teaching guide - the Church which He founded and sent the Holy Spirit to guide - through which we may be absolutely sure we receive authentic Christian teaching. For Protestants, sorry to say, but...yes...it is hopeless since the foundational principle of Protestantism - Sola Scriptura - leaves the determination of what is or is not authentic Christian teaching up to the fallible interpretations of Scripture of each individual who can read the Bible. The 6th grader's interpretation of Scripture carries the exact same authority as the Doctor of Divinity's interpretations of Scripture. I'm sure you don't like me saying that, but convince me it is otherwise. What authority is there within Protestantism that can definitively - i.e., infallibly - decide doctrine and dogma for all Protestants everywhere? I know of none.

5) "I'm pretty sure Augustine believed in OSAS."  St. Augustine did not believe in OSAS. He was a faithful bishop of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church does not now, nor has it ever, believed and taught OSAS. Here is one quote from him that puts to rest any thought that he believed in OSAS:

"In that one [Adam], as the apostles says, all have sinned. Let, then, the damnable source be rebuked, that from the mortification of rebuke may spring the will of regeneration—if, indeed, he who is rebuked is a child of promise,—in order that, by the noise of the rebuke sounding and lashing from without. . . God may by his hidden inspiration work in him from within to will also. If, however, being already regenerate and justified, he relapses of his own will into an evil life, assuredly he cannot say, 'I have not received,' because of his own free choice to evil he has lost the grace of God that he had received," (On Rebuke and Grace, ch. 9).

6) "I am currently processing through the fact that some of your questions "mean" more to you as a Catholic than it would a protestant." I contend that my questions should mean as much to you as they do to me - on communion or any other matter - that is, if Truth is as important to you as it is to me (John 8:32; John 14:6; John 18:37).

7) "Views on communion are not questions of salvation for us." I have always found this dynamic within Protestant theology to be particularly fascinating - the determination of essential vs. non-essential (salvation vs. non-salvation) doctrines. First of all, who has the authority to determine such matters? Secondly, what if you're wrong and it is indeed a salvation issue? After all, if Catholics are right in that John 6:51-58 is referring to the actual Body and Blood of Christ - and you have already admitted that John 6:51 is referring to the actual flesh of Christ that was hung on the Cross - then does not Jesus say, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in you?" And, "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life?" John 6:53 and 54. Sounds like a salvation issue to me.

"This is hard for me because I feel like you are questioning my salvation when I'm not questioning yours."  Question your salvation? Nope. I do not pass any judgment whatsoever on who will or won't be saved. Not my place. Besides, how would I know? I am not He who searches the minds and hearts of men (Rev 2:23). I defer to Scripture on that matter. Paul says, "...I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord Who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes..." (1 Cor 4:3-5). This passage is one of the passages I point to as being contra OSAS. One would think that if anyone was "saved" it was Paul. Yet, Paul does not say that he has been acquitted. How come? And he says he does not judge even himself. Why not? And he commands us to leave judgment to Christ. OSAS? Paul didn't believe it. Yet, I assume you have judged yourself as being saved, since every OSAS believer I have ever met has judged themselves to be saved (and many have judged me to be unsaved), in direct contradiction of what the Word of God very clearly says here.

Besides, even if I were one to judge, and was indeed "questioning" your salvation, it is completely immaterial to the arguments at hand. Again, I couldn't tell you how many times I've been condemned to Hell by Protestants, including a decent number of Baptists, and it affects neither my arguments nor my willingness to seek truth, in the least. As Christians, we should care what God, not man, thinks of us...period.

Summary/Closing
Go back and read Point #4 above. Pay close attention to what he said about the situation being "hopeless" for Protestant and Catholic alike if all we have to rely upon are the fallible interpretations of men. What is the implicit admission he is making with that statement? I'll flesh that out with him at a later point in our conversation. And, wait until you see his next response...left me flabbergasted. I could not believe what he said. But, you'll have to wait until next week to see it...

Closing Comments

I hope all of you have a great week!

Donations

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

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations

or send a check to:

Bible Christian Society

PO Box 424

Pleasant Grove, AL 35127.

Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

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

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