A Conversation With A Baptist Minister (Part 3) - Apologetics for the Masses #544

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 3)

General Comments

I've got my podcast "studio" set up and almost ready to start recording and posting. Just have a couple of technical "glitches" to work out. So, if you would, please say a prayer (or two) that I can get everything figured out and get this long-planned project up and running in the next week or two. Thanks!

Introduction

This week I continue my conversation with the Baptist Pastor I featured in the last couple of newsletters. The conversation is getting a bit deeper. I've asked him two of my 2-part "go to" question and answer sequences - one using John 15:1-6 (Once Saved Always Saved) and the other using John 6:51 (the Real Presence). He totally whiffed on the former and tries to repair the damage - in a way that, as the Brits say, gobsmacked me - as you'll see in his response below. On John 6...he's searching. So, we'll see how it goes.

One problem, though, is his answers are getting a bit convoluted...not in how he's answering, but in the order in which he answers. For example, in his response below, he kinda mashes his responses to my last two emails together. It was a little difficult for me to follow at first, so I've done some editing - not on his actual words, but in how he ordered his response. You should be able to follow along, but, if you need to, you can go back to last week's newsletter - https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/796-a-conversation-with-a-baptist-minister-part-2-apologetics-for-the-masses-543 - and read through the two "My Response" sections, to see the entirety of what I said to which he is responding.

So, because of his getting the conversation a little bit out of order, what I'm going to do here is exactly what I did with him - I'm going to break up my reply into 4 parts. First thing I'll do is print his response in its entirety. If you can't follow it with 100% clarity, don't worry. After I print the whole thing, I'll go back and give Part 1 of his response with my reply to it. The individual parts - because of how I arrange them - will make more sense than the whole. So, if you want, you can skip down to where I start with "Part 1" of my response and you won't really miss anything. Anyway, I'll do Part 1 in this newsletter and then the remaining parts in subsequent newsletters.

(The Pastor's responses are all in italics.)

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Baptist Pastor's Response - In It's Entirety
1) I do not claim to consider my interpretation of Scripture infallible, but I would consider my interpretation of Scripture to be in line with many Christian theologians that have gone before me. I believe that Scripture is the utmost authority, but that Scripture had to be translated and interpreted. And while the truth of Scripture does not change with time the way that some Scripture is applied to our lives must be contextualized.

2) Since your question about John 15 is in regards to OSAS and you are referencing Augustine as more authoritative (or maybe completely authoritative?): I am still under the impression that Augustine was a proponent of OSAS. [In this quote below] Isn't he arguing for Predestination and the Perseverance of the Saints in his Treatise on the Gift of Perseverance? [Here's the quote from Augustine]:

St. Augustine: This grace He placed "in Him in whom we have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things." And thus as He worketh that we come to Him, so He worketh that we do not depart. Wherefore it was said to Him by the mouth of the prophet, "Let Thy hand be upon the man of Thy right hand, and upon the Son of man whom Thou madest strong for Thyself, and we will not depart from Thee. This certainly is not the first Adam, in whom we departed from Him, but the second Adam, upon whom His hand is placed, so that we do not depart from Him. For Christ altogether with His members is—for the Church’s sake, which is His body—the fulness of Him. When, therefore, God’s hand is upon Him, that we depart not from God, assuredly God’s work reaches to us (for this is God’s hand); by which work of God we are caused to be abiding in Christ with God—not, as in Adam, departing from God. For 'in Christ we have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things.' This, therefore, is God’s hand, not ours, that we depart not from God. That, I say, is His hand who said, 'I will put my fear in their hearts, that they depart not from me.'”

3) I think I want to amend my answer to the question on John 15. John 15 is contrasting the fruitlessness of Israel and the fruitfulness of those in Christ. The Old Testament frequently uses the vineyard or vine as a symbol of Israel, God's covenant people. (Isaiah 5 and 27) However, Israel's failure to produce fruit resulted in divine judgment. By contrast, Jesus is the true vine and his followers abide in Him and produce fruit. I would say that those who do not bear fruit are those who are taken away (unbelievers) and the believers are pruned so that they produce better fruit. "In me" is a loose connection to make the metaphor of a vine work.

4) I understand Augustine to say that he believes that those who are truly saved, "those God predestined", will persevere until the end. If an individual does not persevere they were never a believer in the first place. Those that repent from their unfruitfulness and sin are those that are truly saved, those who remain unrepentant were never saved. This also harmonizes with those who are truly abiding in Christ are those who are pruned and not cut off. This aligns with Matt 3:10 where Jesus is rebuking the religious Jewish leaders that are not bearing fruit.

5) Answered above.

6) [Once Saved Always Saved]
A) John stated: "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."

I would say that there are more than a "few passages" that teach eternal security: John 6:37, 39; 10:27-29; Hebrews 10:10, 14; Romans 8:28-31, 38-39; 11:29, Jude 1:1, 24; 2 Cor. 1:22; Phillipians 1:6; Ephesians 1:1-23, 4:30; 1 John 2:19, 5:4; 1 Cor. 1:8-9; 1 Peter 1:4-5; 2 Cor. 5:5.

B) John stated: "First of all, the dogma of Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) essentially removes the consequences of sin."

Not at all!! Christ's death on the Cross saves us from the eternal consequences of sin when we confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe that Christ has risen from the dead. Secondly, we still deal with the natural consequences of our sins on earth, and will be judged for our works in heaven. Because of the cross the consequences for Christians is not damnation, but there is still judgment.

C) John stated: "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. 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."

All of these passages are speaking of unbelievers.

No serious Christian has ever interpreted the Sermon on the Mount to literally teach that we should gouge our eyes out and cut off our limbs. It is obviously figurative language that we should avoid sin at all costs.

D) John: " 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.”

Jesus would never say it like you said it, but the truth is there! Hebrews 10:12-14 after He offered ONE sacrifice for sins FOREVER (past, present, and future sins forgiven), he sat down at the right hand of God (the work was done) For by one offering He has PERFECTED FOREVER those who are being sanctified.

Should we sin so that grace may abound? By no means. But we will struggle with sin until Christ returns. We should pursue holiness but we will still fall short. So...yeah......even if you sin you are still going to Heaven if your faith is in Christ Jesus who offered the one sacrifice for sins forever for those being sanctified (true christians).

E) John stated: "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."

I read these passes in light of the several passages that I have listed above supporting OSAS. Jesus and all of the disciples promise Christians that following Christ is going to be extremely difficult and that we will face many troubles. They tell us to stay encouraged, keep fighting the good fight, finish the good race. Again, we will be judged for our works when we get to heaven. But in Christ there is no condemnation. Believers will not lose their salvation, but them persevering until the end is evidence that they truly were saved. OSAS doesn't mean that we dont work out our salvation with fear and trembling. When we are true followers of Christ we want to have good works in our lives until our last breath. But our hope is not in our good works, it is in Christ that completes us and the Holy Spirit that sustains and seals us.

Paul seems pretty sure of his citizenship in heaven in Philippians 3:20 and his glorious resurrection in 21.1 Cor. 9 is Paul merely stating that he will practice what he preaches.

F) John stated: "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.”

I believe that this is a better interpretation of the parable. Humans were created to live in perfect union with God. We were created as sons and daughters of God. Sin entered into the world and the sons and daughters of God were now dead in their sin. Humans lost their inheritance due to their sin. Christ lived a perfect life, died on the cross for our sins, and raised from the dead to defeat sin and death. This made the inheritance available again. The Prodigal son repented of his sin and returned to the father. His father chose to accept him back into the family where he was always meant to be. The prodigal did nothing to earn his way back into the family. His works were all bad, but he was sorry for them. But let us also not lose sight of the context. Jesus is responding to the pharisees who are judging Him for hanging out with sinners. The point of all of the parables is the rejoicing of the "lost" being found. Funny enough, I would actually argue that this is a great example of OSAS. The prodigal was always the father's son. Nothing he did could change that fact. The son disowning the father never took away his sonship. In the same way: For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

7) John stated: "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."

Again, Augustine seems to believe in OSAS which would mean that OSAS falls into the boundaries of the teaching of the church.

8) John stated: "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).

Where is this deposit of faith documented? I am not aware of anytime when the global church was unified about the complexities of Christian theology. Heck, the Jerusalem Council was necessary because the apostles were not fully aligned about circumcision. And the person that Catholics view as the first Pope had the wrong understanding. The only thing I am saying here is that Christian theology is hard to fully grasp and communicate. The church has been arguing for centuries about issues like the intricacies of the trinity, how free will and God's sovereignty coexist, the relationship between works and faith, what exactly happens during communion, when and how to baptize, just to name a few. Where does this leave me? With lots of humility. What are some good resources that explain how and why Catholicism is considered the first church? Especially since there are at least three streams of Apostolic sucession: Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. What makes Rome the supreme authority? Peter dying there seems like a weak argument to me. I am intrigued by there being multiple popes at multiple times in history, I am intrigued by violence being the means of stifling theological differences in the Catholic church, I am intrigued by the greed and power grabbing of the popes and Bishops, I am intrigued by indulgences. I am intrigued by the Second Vatican Council in which the Catholic church is seeking after ecumenicalism. I am intrigued by the existence of Black Catholicism when Catholics believe in one catholic church. None of these mean that Catholicism is wrong. They are all things that I wish to understand and work through. Protestantism has similar stains on its reputation. This again brings some humility to me. It leads me to question where the church has gotten it wrong and how to get back to "the right way".

9) John stated: "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.

What Scriptures do you use as the foundation to believing that communion is salvific? Is it solely John 6? As you know Protestants would say that communion is symbolically or spiritually the blood and body of Christ. But for the sake of your argument let's say that protestants are wrong about what actually happens when they take communion. They really are eating Jesus body and drinking Jesus' blood. Does our intellectual misunderstanding change the efficacy of the communion? If I am faithfully partaking of communion as I gather with other Christians which is commanded by Christ why is it not ok to say "Communion is a divine mystery and I am not sure how it all works out. I take of it as a proclamation that I am saved by the broken body of Christ and the blood that He spilled on the cross. I take of this communion in rememberance of His salvific work until He returns.

Wow, this was truly an intellectual exercise. I look forward to your response. Especially a good resource to look at on why you believe that Catholics are the one true church and where you would point to in church history where the church agreed on theology everywhere it existed. By the way, I do believe in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. I just believe that it is made up of more than the Roman Catholic church.

----------------------------------------------------------------

John's Response - Part 1
(This first part will be in response to Baptist Pastor's #1 and #3 above.)

Point #1 - My Original Comments
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?

Baptist Pastor's Response
I do not claim to consider my interpretation of Scripture infallible, but I would consider my interpretation of Scripture to be in line with many Christian theologians that have gone before me. I believe that Scripture is the utmost authority, but that Scripture had to be translated and interpreted. And while the truth of Scripture does not change with time the way that some Scripture is applied to our lives must be contextualized

John's Reply
Since your interpretations of Scripture are not, by your own admission, infallible, then will you concede that they could, just possibly, be wrong? And, not meaning to be flippant, but what do I care if "many Christian theologians" who have gone before you are in agreement with you? Do numbers have any bearing on truth? I assume you will agree (please correct me if I’m wrong), that the interpretation of any and all of the “Christian theologians” you refer to are also not infallible and; therefore, could also be wrong, correct? And what weight...what authority...does your interpretation, or the interpretations of all the Christian theologians who agree with your interpretation, carry? Will you agree that my interpretation of Scripture carries as much weight as yours or as any of those theologians?

Scripture, being the Word of God, is indeed the “utmost authority,” on that we agree. However, who is it that gets to authoritatively interpret Scripture? In Protestant theology, isn’t it the case that any individual who can read is encouraged to read the Bible and determine for themselves what is or is not authentic Christian teaching and practice? If so, where is that practice found in Scripture? Or is there an authority somewhere in Protestantism that can issue an authentic and authoritative interpretation of Scripture that is binding on all Protestants?

Essentially, I would like to know how any given Protestant - Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Church of Christ, Church of God, Church of God in Christ, Pentecostal, Evangelical, Non-Denominational, etc., etc., etc., knows with certainty what is or is not authentic Christian teaching and practice? I mean, if your theology depends on your, or someone else’s, fallible interpretation of the Bible, how do you have any certainty that what you believe is indeed the truth? Especially given the fact that there are so many doctrinal disagreements just among Protestants themselves?

In Acts 8:30, Philip asks the Ethiopian eunuch, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And what does the man say, “Absolutely, I have the Holy Spirit to guide me. I can read it for myself and decide what it means!” No! He says, “How can I unless someone guides me?” And then who did he get to guide him? Philip. Philip who was being guided by the Holy Spirit and who was, undoubtedly, infallible in his interpretation of the Scripture the man was reading. Is there an infallible teacher - an infallible guide - anywhere in all of Protestantism? If not, how can you have assurance of anything you believe? That seems awfully scary...and dangerous...to me.

Tell me if I’m wrong on this: In Protestant theology, the best that you can do when there is a disagreement on a matter of doctrine, is one person’s private, fallible, non-authoritative interpretation of Scripture vs. another person’s private, fallible, non-authoritative interpretation of Scripture. Is that correct?

Strategy/Comments
Authority! Authority! Authority! Take any one, or all, of those questions I just asked - especially that last one - and ask them of any and all Protestants you get into a conversation with - whether online or in person. They cannot give logically nor scripturally consistent answers to any of them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point #3 - My Original Comments
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?

Baptist Pastor's Response
I think I want to amend my answer to the question on John 15. John 15 is contrasting the fruitlessness of Israel and the fruitfulness of those in Christ. The Old Testament frequently uses the vineyard or vine as a symbol of Israel, God's covenant people. (Isaiah 5 and 27) However, Israel's failure to produce fruit resulted in divine judgment. By contrast, Jesus is the true vine and his followers abide in Him and produce fruit. I would say that those who do not bear fruit are those who are taken away (unbelievers) and the believers are pruned so that they produce better fruit. "In me" is a loose connection to make the metaphor of a vine work.

John's Reply
This I find absolutely fascinating! You are, without directly saying so, admitting that your first attempt at interpreting John 15:1-6 was wrong. And, sorry to have to say this, but not only was it wrong, it was badly wrong. It basically made no sense, scripturally or otherwise. So, when I pointed that out, what did you do? You simply changed your interpretation. And not just changed it, or amended it, but reversed it by 180 degrees! You came up with something that was the exact opposite of what you had previously said! Is that just standard operating procedure? Does that not give you pause in regard to your ability to accurately interpret the Bible?

Let’s recap: My original question to you was: “In John 15:1-6, Jesus says He is the true vine. Are the branches of the vine - the branches attached to the vine of Christ - believers...yes or no?”

You answered: “Yes, I do believe that the branches of the vine on John 15 are believers. Jesus commands believers to abide in Him. He is the source of life and God alone sustains us.”

However, after I asked how it is believers could be cut off from Christ, as some of the branches were, if OSAS is indeed true, you stated the following: “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.”

After being called out on that interpretation, you flip flopped. “I believe...,” you had said, but now you no longer believe what you said you believed just a few weeks ago! How does that work? You get a mulligan in golf, not when interpreting Scripture. Now you are saying that the branches that are being taken away from the vine are NOT believers, when before they were believers, and that the branches that are pruned are indeed the ones that were already producing fruit, not the ones that weren’t producing fruit. Again, I find that fascinating.

First of all, that shows, as you have admitted above, that your interpretations are indeed fallible; but, secondly, why would I, or anyone else for that matter, have any confidence, whatsoever, that your 2nd interpretation isn’t as wrong as your 1st interpretation? It seems to me that you’re just searching for something...anything...you can put out there to counter my argument that this passage is saying something that directly contradicts a belief in OSAS. If the 1st answer doesn't work, let's just try another one and see if that one works.

And let’s take a closer look at your 2nd interpretation to see if it makes any more sense than your 1st one did:

You said: “The Old Testament frequently uses the vineyard or vine as a symbol of Israel...”

My Response: So? This is the New Testament not the Old. Jesus is clearly identified as the vine being spoken of here, and there is no contrast anywhere in this passage between Jesus and Israel.

You said: “However, Israel's failure to produce fruit resulted in divine judgment. By contrast, Jesus is the true vine and his followers abide in Him and produce fruit.”

My Response: That is basically irrelevant here. There is no “contrast” in this passage between Jesus as the true vine and anything to do with Israel. Are you saying that the branches being cut off represent Israel’s “divine judgment”? Where does the Bible say that Israel is cut off because it doesn’t produce fruit?

You said: “I would say that those who do not bear fruit are those who are taken away (unbelievers) and the believers are pruned so that they produce better fruit.”

My Response: All good - that’s exactly what that passage says in verse 2. But here’s the problem for you: How exactly did unbelievers become a branch of the vine that is Jesus? Don’t you have to first believe in order to be “in” Christ...to be a branch of the vine to begin with? I mean, how can you be cut off from the vine, unless you are first part of the vine? And how can you be said to “not abide” in Jesus unless you were first part of the Body of Christ? If I don’t abide in my job, it means I first had my job and then I didn’t. It doesn’t mean that I never had my job. Besides, Jesus Himself says that, “Every branch OF MINE that bears no fruit, He takes away...” (verse 2). How can unbelievers be said to be branches “of Mine”? To be branches of Jesus? And how can branches “of Mine” be taken away from Him if OSAS is true? How?

Plus, the passage clearly states that the branches are taken away because they bore no fruit...not because of unbelief. Where does it say that the branches that are taken away are unbelievers? Nowhere is there the mention of believing vs. non-believing. That is something that you are forcing into the passage because you are imposing a Sola Fide template on this passage - making it say something that it doesn’t actually say because of your predisposed belief. Instead of believing what Scripture says, I’m sorry, but you seem to be trying to make Scripture say what you believe.

Finally, Jesus states very clearly who the branches of the vine are. He says, “You [the Apostles; i.e., His followers] are the branches,” (verse 5). The branches are followers of Christ as you originally said they were and which is the exceedingly obvious meaning of the passage.

Strategy/Comments
I was astounded, flabbergasted, gobsmacked, amazed, etc. at his complete reversal of his interpretation of John 15:1-6. "I think I want to amend my answer to the question on John 15." Really?! But, it wasn't so much that he did a 180 degree reversal that amazed me, it was how he so easily and casually, almost flippantly, made the reversal. As if it was just no big deal. No admission of error with his 1st interpretation or that, "Upon further study, I've realized...," or anything like that.

Here's what happened. He had never before been confronted with my question as to whether or not the branches of the vine were believers. Which means, he's never really thought about it. So, when I asked that first question, he naturally went and read the passage to get the context and then, after reading it, he gave me what is the obvious answer to that question - obvious, at least, to anyone who reads that passage without a particular pre-set doctrinal agenda. He said, "Yes, the branches are believers." Right answer! But, then, when I asked the follow up question - "If the branches are believers, how can they be cut off and thrown into the fire?" it forced him to come up with that crazy interpretation: "Oh, the branches being thrown into the fire are being pruned." When I then pointed out that his interpretation was in direct contradiction of Scripture, as well as common sense, well, what choice was he left with? He either had to come up with another OSAS interpretation, or he had to actually consider the fact that OSAS may not, in fact, be a scriptural belief. Giving absolutely no thought to that latter possibility, he simply changed his interpretation. The new interpretation wasn't as ridiculous as the first, but it still has major problems, as I pointed out to him.

If someone you come across believes in OSAS, ask them these questions, folks! One at a time. They cannot...cannot...give answers that are consistent with both Scripture and their theology. Their answers will contradict either one or the other.

Do you see how even the Protestants who are not crazed anti-Catholics still demonstrate that Protestantism, at its core, is exceedingly flawed, and how it is directly counter to Jesus' prayer for unity at the Last Supper? I mean, if your 1st interpretation of Scripture doesn't work to substantiate your predetermined beliefs, then just come up with another interpretation. Sooner or later you're bound to find one that works...right? Each individual interpreting the Bible on their own, and coming up with...chaos.

Continuing John's Response to the Baptist Minister

To Sum Up
Pastor, there are five basic questions out of all of that:

1) Who, if anyone, has the authority to authentically interpret Scripture: a) Each fallible individual who can read; b) The Church founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit; or, c) No such authority exists within Christianity?

2) What does it say about the viability of Sola Scriptura, and individual fallible interpretations of Scripture, if it is apparently okay to interpret a passage of Scripture one way, and then two weeks later interpret it in exactly the opposite way?

3) How can a branch ever be a part of the vine that is Jesus Christ, if that branch is an unbeliever? Don’t you have to believe in order to become a branch of the vine in the first place, before you could ever be cut off from the vine? I mean, you can’t be cut off from something unless you are first a part of it, can you?

4) Do you interpret not bearing fruit to be the same thing as not believing? If so, why?

5) Will you admit that my understanding of John 15:1-6 is at least, possibly, what that passage is actually saying? And that it is also at least as authoritative an interpretation as yours?

Strategy/Comments
Basically, what I'm doing here is trying to tighten up the conversation. Reign it in a little bit. If you ever get into a conversation like this one, that starts to get a bit out of hand and starts straying away from the main issues you want to focus on, then just do a little summary by asking some questions so as to start bringing it back to where you want it to be.

In Conclusion
I'll continue with Part 2 and Part 3 in the next issue.

Closing Comments

Well, I hope that wasn't too much of a trial.

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