Share on
Apologetics for the Masses #553 - The Theologically Insane
Unsubscribe/Subscribe
https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter
https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter
Topic
Replying to a comment I received on my YouTube video: Balaam's Ride (Episode #2) - The Dirty Little Secret of Sola Scriptura.
Introduction
A few days ago I posted Episode #2 of my new Balaam's Ride podcast: Balaam's Ride - The Dirty Little Secret of Sola Scriptura. Within a day I had several rather unhinged comments on the video from Protestants. I mean, this video really set some folks off. If you go and watch the video, though, you won't see those comments there because I am strictly adhering to my personal rules of engagement. Rule #1: If someone does not respond to my questions/arguments with direct answers/counter-arguments, then, after asking the same questions or making the same arguments 2-3 times, and not ever getting a direct and coherent response, plus also giving them a warning that non-response will result in loss of commenting privileges...well, I remove their ability to comment. And I have done that with those folks.
I did, however, save one person's comments. Those comments were in the newsletter I sent out a couple of days ago. In this newsletter I will give you my response. After reading those comments, and the other unhinged comments from individuals on that video and some other videos I posted, the phrase "theologically insane" just kinda popped into my head. You've heard of people who are insane; people who are legally insane; and people who are criminally insane. Well, I'm coining a new phrase - at least, I've never heard it before - the theologically insane.
These are people who believe in Sola Scriptura and love to engage with folks - particularly Catholics - on social media; yet, they cannot put together any kind of logical, rational, coherent argument to support their theological belief system. Nor can they give direct, logical, and coherent answers to very basic and simple questions. I am going to start referring to these folks as the theologically insane.
Theologically Insane - a condition where a person believes that their particular private, fallible, interpretation of the Word of God, is the absolute best interpretation of the Word of God and that everyone should listen to what they have to say about doctrine and morals and religious practice because they are right and anyone and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong. Yet, they are unable to defend their belief system from even the most fundamental of logical, rational, and scripturally based arguments against those beliefs. And they are either unable, or unwilling, to give direct, logical, and coherent answers to the most basic of scripturally based questions about their beliefs.
Also known as: Sola Scriptura-ism
Also known as: Sola {My Personal, Non-Authoritative, Fallible Interpretation Of} Scriptura.
I thought I would put my response to this one guy in the newsletter simply to give one example of how one can respond to folks like this. It dawned on me that this particular guy is not really an anomaly in the online world. I've come across people like him not only on YouTube, but also on a number of different Facebook pages and elsewhere. These guys love to come on Catholic pages or Catholic/Protestant discussion pages and go after Catholics. I'm willing to bet you've encountered the theologically insane in your own online evangelization efforts.
So, this is just an example of how to deal with the theologically insane, which will, hopefully, help you from having them drive you insane. So, I recommend, if you wish to fully understand and follow the "dialogue" below, that you first watch the Balaam's Ride video liniked above (it's just shy of 12 minutes long), and then come back and read this newsletter. He conveniently lettered his points (a) - (g), so I'll respond to him point-by-point. He goes by the pseudonym, @WalkwiththeSpirit.
Challenge/Response/Strategy
@WalkwiththeSpirit - Response to Balaam's Ride (Episode #2) - The Dirty Little Secret of Sola Scriptura
a) Bro, your arrogance is insane. You do realize Catholic Church literally murdered anyone who questioned them for like 1000 years right?? So the prayer for Unity thing is crap, you also have Scism in the high Church you're not better than Protestants who have denoms. Protestants get along with each other and catholics just like Catholics do the same, You think Unity means we are all in one establishment, nonsense, Your own Churches stance on Prots is not that they are separatist or unfriendly, Catholicism claims unity but authority. Everyone disagrees on stuff, Disagreements means there is work to be done proving doctrine still, if you had sound arguments and logic that is undeniable people would not choose any other Church, but you, like all denoms, have issues and misunderstandings. Disagree does not mean you cannot be one unless you think Paul separating from Barnabas means one of them is anathema? How can catholicism fulfill Jesus prayer? Only prots can because they accept any trinitarian, you only accept your own version, that's YOU breaking unity.
My Response
a) Sorry, but you're a bit misinformed (well, more than a bit...a lot misinformed) when it comes to history. I noticed all the sources you cited...oh, wait, you didn't cite any, my bad. Paul and Barnabas did not separate over a doctrinal disagreement, did they? So, when it comes to doctrinal and moral truth, they were indeed still one. Catholicism can be one in the truth. The truth handed down from the Father to the Son. From the Son to the Apostles. And from the Apostles to the rest of the world. Not the multiple and contradictory "truths" that each person, such as you, come up with from their own personal, non-authoritative, fallible interpretations of Scripture.
"Disagreements means there is work to be done proving doctrine..." But, how can you "prove" doctrine if no one has the authority to definitely decide what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice and if everyone's interpretations are prone to error?
Comments/Strategy
Okay, what I will often see Catholics do in response to something like this is try to respond to every single misguided assertion this guy makes. Don't do that. It's a waste of time. And, it will become a source of frustration as the conversation quicly spins out of control and goes in a hundred different directions. Basically, it allows the other person to control the conversation. When you encounter this kind of thinking - fractured, stilted, kinda all over the place - do not entertain any thoughts that you will somehow eventually break through this jumbled mess of a response to find a reasoned and thoughtful human being (at least, not when it comes to religion) hiding back there.
So, what I did was to simply make a few points and move on. First, I took note of the fact, in my own unique way, that he has no historical sources to back up what he was saying about the Catholic Church murdering everyone who disagreed with it for 1000 years - for which there are no historical sources because that did not happen. Here's the thing, I almost never try to argue history with a Protestant because their "history" almost never comes from original sources. And, even on the rare occasion they might quote an original historical source, they generally either get the quote wrong or they take it out of context.
Can't tell you how many times I've heard Protestants say, for example, that the Roman Emperor Constantine's plan, back in the 4th century, was to purposely introduce pagan religion into the Catholic Church. When I ask for an authentic historical source to back up that claim, they can't give me one. They might say, "Google it." Which, I usually refuse to do. But, when I have, guess what? No original source can be find. Or, this person might give me a book/article that was written by some anti-Catholic as his source. When I try to check out the source that anti-Catholic used for his information, it's either another anti-Catholic book/article, or it's nothing. I.e., no historical source. When presented with that evidence, the response I've gotten is: "Well, but it's true." As my good friend, Bugs, says, "What a maroon."
Another point I made was to note the fact that while Paul and Barnabas did indeed have a disagreement, it was not a disagreement regarding faith and morals. So their example is irrelevant to the points made in my video. Theirs was a disagreement about whether or not Mark should continue to accompany them. They did not disagree on matters of doctrine. I then reiterated the main point of the video - the Catholic Church is one in the truth of its doctrinal/moral teachings. And, finally, I closed by taking a shot at his logic, or lack thereof, by pointing out that he claims that all denominations have "issues and misunderstandings". Well, then that means no one can definitively decide matters of doctrine and morals. Which is, essentially, the point I was making in the video.
One other thing that I was tempted to comment on, but decided to hold it in reserve should I get the chance to use it later (you don't have to fire all your ammunition in the first volley), was his comment about how "prots" are one - as Christ and the Father are one - because they accept anyone as long as they believe in one particular dogma - the Trinity. So, if you believe in the Trinity then it doesn't matter what else you believe in, you are one - as the Father and Son are one - with @WalkwiththeSpirit and all Protestants everywhere. Doctrinal chaos is all good (except in regard to the Trinity). Moral chaos...all good. In this guy's logic, chaos = unity. Disagreeing with error = breaking unity. Shining example of being theologically insane.
@WalkwiththeSpirit
a) Bro, your arrogance is insane. You do realize Catholic Church literally murdered anyone who questioned them for like 1000 years right?? So the prayer for Unity thing is crap, you also have Scism in the high Church you're not better than Protestants who have denoms. Protestants get along with each other and catholics just like Catholics do the same, You think Unity means we are all in one establishment, nonsense, Your own Churches stance on Prots is not that they are separatist or unfriendly, Catholicism claims unity but authority. Everyone disagrees on stuff, Disagreements means there is work to be done proving doctrine still, if you had sound arguments and logic that is undeniable people would not choose any other Church, but you, like all denoms, have issues and misunderstandings. Disagree does not mean you cannot be one unless you think Paul separating from Barnabas means one of them is anathema? How can catholicism fulfill Jesus prayer? Only prots can because they accept any trinitarian, you only accept your own version, that's YOU breaking unity.
My Response
a) Sorry, but you're a bit misinformed (well, more than a bit...a lot misinformed) when it comes to history. I noticed all the sources you cited...oh, wait, you didn't cite any, my bad. Paul and Barnabas did not separate over a doctrinal disagreement, did they? So, when it comes to doctrinal and moral truth, they were indeed still one. Catholicism can be one in the truth. The truth handed down from the Father to the Son. From the Son to the Apostles. And from the Apostles to the rest of the world. Not the multiple and contradictory "truths" that each person, such as you, come up with from their own personal, non-authoritative, fallible interpretations of Scripture.
"Disagreements means there is work to be done proving doctrine..." But, how can you "prove" doctrine if no one has the authority to definitely decide what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice and if everyone's interpretations are prone to error?
Comments/Strategy
Okay, what I will often see Catholics do in response to something like this is try to respond to every single misguided assertion this guy makes. Don't do that. It's a waste of time. And, it will become a source of frustration as the conversation quicly spins out of control and goes in a hundred different directions. Basically, it allows the other person to control the conversation. When you encounter this kind of thinking - fractured, stilted, kinda all over the place - do not entertain any thoughts that you will somehow eventually break through this jumbled mess of a response to find a reasoned and thoughtful human being (at least, not when it comes to religion) hiding back there.
So, what I did was to simply make a few points and move on. First, I took note of the fact, in my own unique way, that he has no historical sources to back up what he was saying about the Catholic Church murdering everyone who disagreed with it for 1000 years - for which there are no historical sources because that did not happen. Here's the thing, I almost never try to argue history with a Protestant because their "history" almost never comes from original sources. And, even on the rare occasion they might quote an original historical source, they generally either get the quote wrong or they take it out of context.
Can't tell you how many times I've heard Protestants say, for example, that the Roman Emperor Constantine's plan, back in the 4th century, was to purposely introduce pagan religion into the Catholic Church. When I ask for an authentic historical source to back up that claim, they can't give me one. They might say, "Google it." Which, I usually refuse to do. But, when I have, guess what? No original source can be find. Or, this person might give me a book/article that was written by some anti-Catholic as his source. When I try to check out the source that anti-Catholic used for his information, it's either another anti-Catholic book/article, or it's nothing. I.e., no historical source. When presented with that evidence, the response I've gotten is: "Well, but it's true." As my good friend, Bugs, says, "What a maroon."
Another point I made was to note the fact that while Paul and Barnabas did indeed have a disagreement, it was not a disagreement regarding faith and morals. So their example is irrelevant to the points made in my video. Theirs was a disagreement about whether or not Mark should continue to accompany them. They did not disagree on matters of doctrine. I then reiterated the main point of the video - the Catholic Church is one in the truth of its doctrinal/moral teachings. And, finally, I closed by taking a shot at his logic, or lack thereof, by pointing out that he claims that all denominations have "issues and misunderstandings". Well, then that means no one can definitively decide matters of doctrine and morals. Which is, essentially, the point I was making in the video.
One other thing that I was tempted to comment on, but decided to hold it in reserve should I get the chance to use it later (you don't have to fire all your ammunition in the first volley), was his comment about how "prots" are one - as Christ and the Father are one - because they accept anyone as long as they believe in one particular dogma - the Trinity. So, if you believe in the Trinity then it doesn't matter what else you believe in, you are one - as the Father and Son are one - with @WalkwiththeSpirit and all Protestants everywhere. Doctrinal chaos is all good (except in regard to the Trinity). Moral chaos...all good. In this guy's logic, chaos = unity. Disagreeing with error = breaking unity. Shining example of being theologically insane.
@WalkwiththeSpirit
b) Sola Scriptura is not the foundational principle of Protestantism, that's just a bold faced lie. Sola Scriptura does not produce any form of segregation, or are you saying the bible in its face value is a separatist book that needs reinterpretation into a unity book? How can sola scriptura turn Christianity into a democracy? Prots seek their entire lives they don't settle on day one. If anything denying Sola Scriptura leads to heresy and dictatorship. Everyone SHOULD get a vote on doctrine, because interpretations can be wrong, even in the bible people constantly misunderstand Jesus including apostles. Why should all of humanity trust a few peoples incorrect understanding? Saying people cannot authoritatively define doctrine is a huge red flag, you are essentially saying no one can then. Kingdom? There is no slave or master in heaven, there is ONE King of Kings, you think God is heirarchical like ROME was before it failed miserably? No. No one in Protestantism denies the apostles, they usually claim apostolic succession that broke off at some point, this is absolute cope. Sola Scriptura cannot fail, or Jesus words are meaningless?
My Response
The lack of anything even resembling logic is mind blowing. So, respond point-by-point to what he's saying here? Absolutely not. Just point out a few examples of contradictions in his words, and ask him some questions, and that's pretty much it. No explaining. Well, some one sentence explanations as to why the things he is saying are contradictions, and that's it. Not really expecting, at this point, to get any kind of response that will make any kind of sense.
@WalkwiththeSpirit
c) Plenty of people believe in sola scriptura I am not a protestant, but no, they don't all think their own interpretation is the way, they think the bible is clear, and it is. I am a logical necessitist at best, I don't mince words or go half truths, you're the one passing opinion and emotion as fact here. "What that means is" is a perfect way to start a sentence about what something means. You are trying to pretend the word of God is the word of other MEN while they are relying on the word of God, it is YOU who is reliant on men, and it's painfully obvious. The only reason to deny the veracity of Sola Scriptura is if you do not have the Holy Spirit.
My Response
Also, have you ever noticed that in my dialogues with Protestants, atheists, even cafeteria Catholics, probably 80% of the time the questions I ask end with, "...yes or no?" Why do I do that? Well, because I want to make sure I understand what exactly it is they believe, so I want them to tell me, yes or no, do you believe this or do you not believe this? If they want to explain their answer after that...fine. But just tell me, yes or no, do you believe this particular thing or not. I'm trying to get to the basics of their beliefs. And, most of the other 20% of the questions I ask, at least, of Protestants, end with, "...book, chapter, and verse?" I want to know where in the Bible it says what they are saying. And I pretty much never get an answer because the Bible doesn't say what they are saying. Plus, yes/no questions take all of 2 seconds to answer, if they would bother to answer them.
And you know what, those yes/no questions and "book, chapter, verse" citation requests, drive folks crazy. As a Catholic, I have absolutely no problem with them. But Protestants - I think they realize, if not consciously then subconciously, that to answer my questions will lead them to a place they do not want to go. So they almost never answer the questions. Which, hopefully, plants a seed.
@WalkwiththeSpirit
d) If Catholicism worked, there would not be EO, OO or Protestants then, by the same standard. Catholicism is fragmented within itself, tons of different types of church and sects, and no they don't all agree, or do you affirm gay churches? I bet you don't. Saying protestantism is rotten for relying on mens interpretation when you do exactly that is peak irony. If scripture is secondary to interpretation, then how come they have to read before they can interpret? LOL
My Response
@WalkwiththeSpirit
e) top down authority claims are cute. true kingdom structure involves hundreds of years of massacres? interesting lie. Where is your authority? in the guys who were running around conquering the planet and murdering in Gods name?! Get off your horse. Is your authority in the mass amount of child abuse scandles? Let me guess only the good things count, but only for your denom, right? Catholicism can be the solution to division when they accept the whole truth, stop trying to run fear driven logic that doesn't track. Entirely possible, but first we will have to see the pope denounce false religions for what they are and take his foot off your already aching necks.
My Response
e) "...top down authority claims are cute." So, you don't believe that the authority in the Church...in Christianity...comes from the Father to the Son and from the Son to the Church? Authority comes from the bottom up, right? So, majority vote determines what is or is not authentic Christian teaching and practice then? Or, actually, each individual vote determines what is or is not authentic Christian teaching and practice, right? You've turned the concept of "one man...one vote," into "one man...one church".
Comments/Strategy
No need for further comment.
@WalkwiththeSpirit
f) Your goal is 100% to prove prots wrong, and I'm not even a prot I can smell it a mile off. To overcome division maybe try giving true interpretations instead of lies in your videos? what is truth? Not your hogwash. Christians dont have to agree on moral truth or doctrinal truth, salvation yes, but you don't understand salvation so that's only going to cook yourself. No, only by letting people do their study and guiding without force can we be one, opposite of your Church essentially.
My Response
f) "Christians don't have to agree on moral truth or doctrinal truth, salvation yes, but you don't understand salvation so that's only going to cook yourself." Where, exactly, does the Bible say Christians don't have to agree on doctrinal or moral truth? Book, chapter, and verse? Doesn't the Word of God say, "...charge certain persons not to teach ANY different doctrine?" (1 Tim 1:3). 1 Tim 4:1 - people will depart from the faith (i.e., lose their salvation) by giving heed to false doctrines. Eph 4:14, Paul warns against being tossed about by every wind of doctrine. And I could go on and on and on.
John 8:32, "Know the truth and the truth shall make you free." Not some of the truth, or partial truth, the whole truth. Jesus tells us He is the truth. But, right after that He said, "But, if you don't have truth in your doctrines or morals...it's okay." Then He said He would send the Holy Spirit to guide each Apostle into different "truths" so that we could have tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of denominations, not a single one of them with the entire truth that He left us. And, hey, that's okay, right?
"No, only by letting people do their study and guiding without force can we be one, opposite of your Church essentially." But, you said you can't trust people with interpretations because their interpretations could be wrong, didn't you? So, Jesus' plan for the Church was to give everyone a book to read and interpret for themselves, by their own authority, and then "hope" they will all come to the knowledge of the truth? Brilliant, don't you think?
@WalkwiththeSpirit
g) 0 proof that Sola Scriptura causes any division, that's throwing a scapegoat onto your own issues. plenty people follow sola scriptura Honestly, this is not it bro.
My Response
My Response
b) Wow! After you type something, do you ever go back and read it before you post it? I mean...the contradictions! "Sola Scriptura does not produce any form of segregation...everyone should get a vote because interpretations can be wrong." Well, that's a contradiction. If interpretations can be wrong, those errant interpretations create division..."segregation". So, by your own words, Sola Scriptura does indeed produce division.
"How can sola scriptura turn Christianity into a democracy...Everyone SHOULD get a vote on doctrine..." And, there's another contradiction.
"Everyone SHOULD get a vote on doctrine, because interpretations can be wrong...Saying people cannot authoritatively define doctrine is a huge red flag..." If people can be wrong in their interpretations, "bro," then how can anyone authoritatively define doctrine? Yet another contradiction. By the way, who do you believe has the authority to definitively define doctrine? You?
"How can sola scriptura turn Christianity into a democracy...Everyone SHOULD get a vote on doctrine..." And, there's another contradiction.
"Everyone SHOULD get a vote on doctrine, because interpretations can be wrong...Saying people cannot authoritatively define doctrine is a huge red flag..." If people can be wrong in their interpretations, "bro," then how can anyone authoritatively define doctrine? Yet another contradiction. By the way, who do you believe has the authority to definitively define doctrine? You?
"Why should all of humanity trust a few peoples incorrect understanding?" How do you know if anyone has an incorrect understanding, if your interpretations could be wrong?
And yet another contradiction. "Kingdom? There is no slave or master in heaven, there is ONE King of Kings." Well, if there is a King, that means it's a kingdom. You seem to be having trouble with basic logical concepts.
And yet another contradiction. "Kingdom? There is no slave or master in heaven, there is ONE King of Kings." Well, if there is a King, that means it's a kingdom. You seem to be having trouble with basic logical concepts.
"Sola Scriptura cannot fail, or Jesus words are meaningless?" And where do I find that in Scripture? Or is that one of your interpretations that could be wrong? Sola Scriptura has failed. Look at all the tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of divisions within Protestantism as proof of that. They can't agree on anything...except, Sola Scriptura. They can't even agree on the Trinity. The concept of everyone interpreting the Bible on their own, answering to no authority other than their own imagination - like you - is found where in the Bible? Book, chapter, and verse, please?
Comments/StrategyThe lack of anything even resembling logic is mind blowing. So, respond point-by-point to what he's saying here? Absolutely not. Just point out a few examples of contradictions in his words, and ask him some questions, and that's pretty much it. No explaining. Well, some one sentence explanations as to why the things he is saying are contradictions, and that's it. Not really expecting, at this point, to get any kind of response that will make any kind of sense.
@WalkwiththeSpirit
c) Plenty of people believe in sola scriptura I am not a protestant, but no, they don't all think their own interpretation is the way, they think the bible is clear, and it is. I am a logical necessitist at best, I don't mince words or go half truths, you're the one passing opinion and emotion as fact here. "What that means is" is a perfect way to start a sentence about what something means. You are trying to pretend the word of God is the word of other MEN while they are relying on the word of God, it is YOU who is reliant on men, and it's painfully obvious. The only reason to deny the veracity of Sola Scriptura is if you do not have the Holy Spirit.
My Response
c) "I am not a protestant..." Actually, you are a Protestant. You use the 66-book Protestant Bible, and your fundamental principle is Sola Scriptura. And you protest the Catholic Church.
"...but no, they don't all think their own interpretation is the way, they think the bible is clear, and it is...'What that means is' is a perfect way to start a sentence about what something means.'" And yet another contradiction. They don't think their own interpretation is the way, the Bible is clear on its own, and yet, it's okay to read a Scripture verse and then say, "What that means is..." to tell you what they interpret the Bible to mean. So, another contradiction. They don't go by their own interpretation, yet, they go by their own interpretation. Beautiful.
"You are trying to pretend the word of God is the word of other MEN while they are relying on the word of God, it is YOU who is reliant on men, and it's painfully obvious." This video really shook you up, didn't it? I will prove to you - and I don't often use the word "prove" - that I go by the Word of God directly, and that you do not. John 6:53, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life and I will raise him up at the Last Day." As a Catholic, I believe that exactly as written. Do you? Or do you have to say, "What that means is...?"
"The only reason to deny the veracity of Sola Scriptura is if you do not have the Holy Spirit." Oh, so you get to decide who does or does not have the Holy Spirit? That makes you God, right? I mean, it's only God that searches the hearts and minds of men, isn't it? How about this as a reason to "deny the veracity of Sola Scriptura": Because it is a false doctrine that leads to nothing but division within the Body of Christ. Would that be a good enough reason to deny it...yes or no?
Comments/Strategy
More contradictions. More nonsense. This guy is the poster child for the theologically insane. Absolutely, 100%, positive that he is correct; yet, it is exceedingly difficult to make any sense out of what he is saying. So, I just asked him more questions. Challenged him. And keep this in mind - I've asked him a lot of questions and I'm not even halfway through my response. What if, going against all the odds, he were to answer every single question? Wouldn't that blow up the conversation and take it in all sorts of directions? Well, it could, if you let it. Always keep in mind, that you do not have to respond to every single point or answer or argument the other person makes. Be selective in what you respond to so as to direct the conversation to where you want it to go.Comments/Strategy
Also, have you ever noticed that in my dialogues with Protestants, atheists, even cafeteria Catholics, probably 80% of the time the questions I ask end with, "...yes or no?" Why do I do that? Well, because I want to make sure I understand what exactly it is they believe, so I want them to tell me, yes or no, do you believe this or do you not believe this? If they want to explain their answer after that...fine. But just tell me, yes or no, do you believe this particular thing or not. I'm trying to get to the basics of their beliefs. And, most of the other 20% of the questions I ask, at least, of Protestants, end with, "...book, chapter, and verse?" I want to know where in the Bible it says what they are saying. And I pretty much never get an answer because the Bible doesn't say what they are saying. Plus, yes/no questions take all of 2 seconds to answer, if they would bother to answer them.
And you know what, those yes/no questions and "book, chapter, verse" citation requests, drive folks crazy. As a Catholic, I have absolutely no problem with them. But Protestants - I think they realize, if not consciously then subconciously, that to answer my questions will lead them to a place they do not want to go. So they almost never answer the questions. Which, hopefully, plants a seed.
@WalkwiththeSpirit
d) If Catholicism worked, there would not be EO, OO or Protestants then, by the same standard. Catholicism is fragmented within itself, tons of different types of church and sects, and no they don't all agree, or do you affirm gay churches? I bet you don't. Saying protestantism is rotten for relying on mens interpretation when you do exactly that is peak irony. If scripture is secondary to interpretation, then how come they have to read before they can interpret? LOL
My Response
d) "Catholicism is fragmented within itself..." Actually, no, it's not. Catholicism is one set body of truths. Catholicism holds to the deposit of faith as delivered to the Church by Jesus through the Apostles. It is one in truth as the Father and the Son are one in truth. Now, there are indeed people who call themselves Catholic, who dissent from the well established and well known teachings of Catholicism. Those individuals, even though they call themselves Catholic, are actually...Protestant. They are interpreting Scripture for themselves to come up with beliefs that homosexuality is okay, that abortion is okay, denying the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, denying the authority of the Church founded by Jesus, and so on. But, anyone within the Church who adheres to the truths taught by the Church...they are one as the Father and Son are one.
"If scripture is secondary to interpretation, then how come they have to read before they can interpret? LOL" Brilliant observation! I am, sir...in awe of your penetrating intellect. So, by your reasoning, Scripture would be secondary to each person who wrote Scripture, right? Because they have to write the Scripture before you can read the Scripture, right? So, by your logic, the men who wrote Scripture are more important than the Scripture they wrote. Keen insight you've got there.
Comments/Strategy
Just pointing out the absurdity of the "logic". You know, this person could actually be a very smart person. But he could be suffering from what I call BSS - Bible Stupid Syndrome. A person is relatively smart, could even be a genius, but when it comes to the Bible - they get stupid in a hurry. I once asked a preacher in the Campbellite Church of Christ a couple of Bible questions. One of my setup/close the door combinations. His first answer, followed by my 2nd question, had backed him into a theological corner to where, if he answered my 2nd question, he was either going to contradict something about his faith, or contradict Scripture. I said to him, "You have no logical way out of your situation." His response? "Logic has nothing to do with the Bible." God is the Author of logic, yet logic apparently has nothing to do with the Bible. And this man was a computer science guy at NASA. He was suffering from BSS. Comments/Strategy
@WalkwiththeSpirit
e) top down authority claims are cute. true kingdom structure involves hundreds of years of massacres? interesting lie. Where is your authority? in the guys who were running around conquering the planet and murdering in Gods name?! Get off your horse. Is your authority in the mass amount of child abuse scandles? Let me guess only the good things count, but only for your denom, right? Catholicism can be the solution to division when they accept the whole truth, stop trying to run fear driven logic that doesn't track. Entirely possible, but first we will have to see the pope denounce false religions for what they are and take his foot off your already aching necks.
My Response
e) "...top down authority claims are cute." So, you don't believe that the authority in the Church...in Christianity...comes from the Father to the Son and from the Son to the Church? Authority comes from the bottom up, right? So, majority vote determines what is or is not authentic Christian teaching and practice then? Or, actually, each individual vote determines what is or is not authentic Christian teaching and practice, right? You've turned the concept of "one man...one vote," into "one man...one church".
Comments/Strategy
No need for further comment.
@WalkwiththeSpirit
f) Your goal is 100% to prove prots wrong, and I'm not even a prot I can smell it a mile off. To overcome division maybe try giving true interpretations instead of lies in your videos? what is truth? Not your hogwash. Christians dont have to agree on moral truth or doctrinal truth, salvation yes, but you don't understand salvation so that's only going to cook yourself. No, only by letting people do their study and guiding without force can we be one, opposite of your Church essentially.
My Response
f) "Christians don't have to agree on moral truth or doctrinal truth, salvation yes, but you don't understand salvation so that's only going to cook yourself." Where, exactly, does the Bible say Christians don't have to agree on doctrinal or moral truth? Book, chapter, and verse? Doesn't the Word of God say, "...charge certain persons not to teach ANY different doctrine?" (1 Tim 1:3). 1 Tim 4:1 - people will depart from the faith (i.e., lose their salvation) by giving heed to false doctrines. Eph 4:14, Paul warns against being tossed about by every wind of doctrine. And I could go on and on and on.
John 8:32, "Know the truth and the truth shall make you free." Not some of the truth, or partial truth, the whole truth. Jesus tells us He is the truth. But, right after that He said, "But, if you don't have truth in your doctrines or morals...it's okay." Then He said He would send the Holy Spirit to guide each Apostle into different "truths" so that we could have tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of denominations, not a single one of them with the entire truth that He left us. And, hey, that's okay, right?
"No, only by letting people do their study and guiding without force can we be one, opposite of your Church essentially." But, you said you can't trust people with interpretations because their interpretations could be wrong, didn't you? So, Jesus' plan for the Church was to give everyone a book to read and interpret for themselves, by their own authority, and then "hope" they will all come to the knowledge of the truth? Brilliant, don't you think?
@WalkwiththeSpirit
g) 0 proof that Sola Scriptura causes any division, that's throwing a scapegoat onto your own issues. plenty people follow sola scriptura Honestly, this is not it bro.
My Response
g) "0 proof that Sola Scriptura causes any division." Really? You just provided all sorts of evidence that it does. You stated it doesn't matter if people disagree on moral and doctrinal truths. Well, why is there disagreement on moral and doctrinal truth? Because people are interpreting Scripture in any way they want to interpret it. And, guess what? Disagreements on moral and doctrinal truths cause...wait for it...division! There is division because Sola Scriptura turns Christianity into a democracy, and everyone in the democracy gets a vote. And, not only does each person get a vote, but each person in Sola Scriptura theology has the power to veto the interpretation of any and every other person under Sola Scriptura theology. Each person is, essentially, Pope, pastor, and theologian of their own one man church. Just like you are.
Thank you for being such a beautiful example of exactly what I was talking about in the video.
Summary
He responded with more nonsense, and all I did was to reply by asking him to give me direct answers to my questions and I warned that if he didn't, his commenting privileges would be revoked. He responded with more nonsense. I revoked his privileges.
All of that is to point out that if you just remember a few principles when engaging in an online conversation with the theologically insane, you will waste less time, lower your blood pressure, and, sleep better at night.
The principles to remember: 1) Maintain control of the conversation. You do this by selectively responding to what the other guy puts out there. You don't have to respond to every single point they make. 2) Stay away from "historical" discussions, if possible, as the Protestant will distort, warp, and generally ignore authentic history in favor of their biased, and unsourced, anti-Catholic fabrications of history. 3) Ask questions as often as possible. Use yes/no questions. Ask for "book, chapter, and verse" citations. 4) Only "explain" things if asked a direct question. When explaining something, quote the Catechism as much as possible. Use the Church's words, not your words, wherever possible. 5) If you've asked questions that have gone unanswered, or made arguments that have not been addressed, repeat those questions/arguments until you get a response to them. Do not move on with the conversation until you do get a response - a direct, coherent, rational response. Do not answer any more of their questions until they have answered your questions. If you repeat your arguments/questions 2-3 times, and you get no answer/counter-argument, then shake the dust of that conversation off of your feet and move on.
Summary
He responded with more nonsense, and all I did was to reply by asking him to give me direct answers to my questions and I warned that if he didn't, his commenting privileges would be revoked. He responded with more nonsense. I revoked his privileges.
All of that is to point out that if you just remember a few principles when engaging in an online conversation with the theologically insane, you will waste less time, lower your blood pressure, and, sleep better at night.
The principles to remember: 1) Maintain control of the conversation. You do this by selectively responding to what the other guy puts out there. You don't have to respond to every single point they make. 2) Stay away from "historical" discussions, if possible, as the Protestant will distort, warp, and generally ignore authentic history in favor of their biased, and unsourced, anti-Catholic fabrications of history. 3) Ask questions as often as possible. Use yes/no questions. Ask for "book, chapter, and verse" citations. 4) Only "explain" things if asked a direct question. When explaining something, quote the Catechism as much as possible. Use the Church's words, not your words, wherever possible. 5) If you've asked questions that have gone unanswered, or made arguments that have not been addressed, repeat those questions/arguments until you get a response to them. Do not move on with the conversation until you do get a response - a direct, coherent, rational response. Do not answer any more of their questions until they have answered your questions. If you repeat your arguments/questions 2-3 times, and you get no answer/counter-argument, then shake the dust of that conversation off of your feet and move on.
Closing Comments
I hope all of you have a great week. Please keep the Bible Christian Society in your prayers. We keep you and your loved ones in ours every day.
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
Share this newsletter on:
