Saturday, August 30, 2014

Invite Spencer Allen to Speak at your Event

Spencer speaks regularly at parish and teen events. His book, Mackerel Snappers: How to Explain Even the Most Difficult Teachings about God and His Catholic Church provides the material for talks on a variety of topics of interest to Catholics and other Christian audiences. Click below to see the flier in full.

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Are You Saved?

Do you have assurance of your salvation?

In this continued examination of an anti-Catholic Bible study by a local author (click here for past essays ), we will examine the question of whether Christians can have eternal assurance of salvation.

Bart Larson's study makes a big deal of this point. In the introduction to his study, he includes several verses, pulled out of context, to support the idea of eternal assurance (I'll examine these below). However, despite the fact that Bart claims, both in his study and in e-mails, to present the "strongest" verses Catholics use to counter his claims, he includes none of these in the introduction alongside his verses. His defense of this in personal e-mail to me was that it was his introduction, which he could write as he chose.

Note below that I'll examine both sides of the argument.

Another huge problem Bart has with claiming assurance of eternal salvation is that he rejects the idea that any man can act infallibly (see last essay). So, in addition to the previous questions that I have posed to Bart, which he has not yet answered, here is another: How can he infallibly know that he has assurance of salvation? How can he be infallibly sure that he isn't the victim of self-deception? Many converts to Catholicism have come from groups which taught assurance of salvation, but where life-long members fell from the faith after years in which they (and those around them) were convinced of their own salvation.

In Bart's study, he expresses his deep regret and concern that poor, misled Catholics are riddled with guilt and fear, the result of their Catholic faith.

Bart admits that he is not an expert on Catholicism, yet he feels qualified to critique it in talks and in this booklet. He builds most of his understanding off of anecdotal encounters with poorly catechized Catholics. Jesus tells us that the way is narrow that leads to Heaven. One should expect that all faiths contain great numbers of people who do not take the study of their own faith and their relationship with Christ seriously, including Protestantism. Can you imagine the disrespect Bart would feel toward his faith if a similar study were created using encounters with the least well-formed of Evangelicalism?

Bart blames most of the guilt and fear and superstition that Catholics face on "half-truths" (p. 4). However, what Bart doesn't bother to mention is that Catholics have what is called "moral assurance of salvation". Moral assurance means that, because of Christ's atoning death on the cross (and only because of this), our sins are forgiven. However, we must be moved by the grace of God to ask forgiveness for these sins. Even Protestants agree that we must continue asking for forgiveness, as the Lord's prayer, which we have in common, teaches us to continue to petition the Father to "forgive us our sins". If a Catholic truly and properly repents of the sin, he can be assured he has eternal life. However, he cannot fall into a false confidence of believing that he will not reject God at some later time.

Bart rejects the idea that one can fall from salvation at any point after accepting Christ and being "born again". However, as Bart maintains that his study is about letting the Bible speak for itself, this isn't about what he believes, but what Scripture presents.
A true believer is one who is "standing secure", but Paul warns that he must guard against falling (1 Cor. 10:12).

A true believer is one who "stands fast through faith", but Paul warns that this individual can be cut off like the Jews (Romans 11:13-22).

A true believer is one who "receives the knowledge of truth" and "has been sanctified by the blood of the covenant", yet who the author of Hebrews explains can "sin deliberately" and "face an afury of fire" (10:26-31).
A true believer is one who "escapes the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", but who Peter says can "become entangled in them again and face a worse fate than he who never knew the way or righteousness" (2 Peter 2:20-21).

Just to make sure that I'm not pulling a few select verses out of context, please read these verses and their context for yourself. And, to see that these are not isolated comments in Scripture, here is a link with pages of additional verses supporting loss of salvation:

So what of the verses that Bart presents? Let's take a look:

1 John 5:11-13 - Bart provides this verse as proof of eternal assurance. Actually, this verse only gives relative assurance. John just finished listing a number of signs that someone has a genuine faith. These include acts of love of neighbor and of God, as well as holding to orthodox teaching. He is telling us that someone who displays these things has eternal life, as opposed to someone who doesn't. John isn't writing at all about whether or not belief, itself, guaranteed salvation beyond all possibility of loss. To use this as proof of assurance is to do a terrible disservice to the message. However, Catholics would agree that someone who believes in Christ and follows his word has eternal life. However, Scripture is clear that this individual still retains the free will that allows him to later on toss that eternal life away. Bart can only pull his meaning out of this verse by reading it separated from the context of the verses cited above. In addition, he forgets that John often writes in a language of exaggeration. We see this in context just three verses later when John tells us that a true believer never sins. No Catholic or Protestant would make the claim that he never sins. However, Bart's study picks and chooses which verses to take literally and which to take figuratively.

Psalm 103:11,12; Romans 4:7,8; 5:8; and I John 1:9. - These verses are used to show that all of our sins, past, present, and future are forgiven. The first, from the Old Testament, cannot refer to the life of a believer in Christ, who has not even been born, not to mention died for our sins, but the drafting of the psalms. The first set of verses from Romans simply tells us that, according to David, one whose sins are forgiven is blessed. Who would argue from that. The verse in chapter five reminds us that Christ died for our sins. No argument here. The verse from 1 John is key. Our sins are not automatically forgiven, or else Hell would be empty. Rather, our sins are forgiven "if we confess" them. Whether one believes in confession to a priest or straight to God, the act of receiving forgiveness is dependent upon our being moved to ask for it throughout our life. As Catholics, we understand that we do not turn into spiritual robots after being born again. Even the most devout of us can decide that we no longer regret our sins.
Romans 8:1 tells us that there is "no condemnation" for those who are in Jesus Christ. Bart assumes this is an eternal promise. However, he forgets that the Biblical writers often write in a language of completion, assuming the individual will finish his life in the current state. After all, if the state of being "not condemned" is irrevocable, then the same would have to be said of the state of condemnation given to he who is not a believer in John 3:18. Bart's logic tells us that anyone, Catholic or Protestant, who ever doubted God is condemned forever.

I John 4:16-18 is, according to Bart's booklet, proof that if we are currently in Christ, we can have confidence. But read the verses carefully. They tell us that being in Christ perfects our love so that we may be bold on judgment day - future tense. In other words, if we have that boldness now, we are premature in it. At any point that we chose to leave our relationship with Christ, that perfection of our love ends, and we do not have that boldness when judgment day actually comes.

Jude 1:24,25 tells us that God has the power to keep us from falling. Catholics agree wholeheartedly with this. There are those of us who are members of the elect, and we are guaranteed to see heaven through the infallible power of God. Bart, however, makes the mistake of believing that we can infallibly know if we are members of the elect. The Bible is very clear that there is such a thing as false assurance. Only God knows for sure whose name is written in the Book of Life. Even Paul was unwilling to declare himself as saved (1 Cor. 4:4). Paul wouldn't have made a very good Evangelical, according to Bart's booklet.

Bart will claim that he is presenting the Bible for you to make up your own mind. Why, then, doesn't he present any of the verses on losing salvation in his introduction? Why doesn't he explain the context of the verses he does provide? The answer - because, despite his claims that he is simply a servant to the Word of God, Bart is feeding you his interpretation. He wants you to believe Catholic teachings are contrary to Scripture, even if he has to hide some of Scripture from you to make that case.

For the next issue, here are two more questions for Bart. He will either not be able to answer them, or his answer will be inconsistent with the doctrines promoted by his Bible study:

What are some examples of things which are now dead, but which were not once alive?

According to Christian belief, does the body animate and empower the spirit, or does the spirit animate and empower the body?

Sunday, July 24, 2011

An Infallible Church?

What is your pillar and foundation for truth as a Christian?

This is a great question to ask the next time someone suggests that Christians should go by the Bible alone, and the answer, most likely, will be that the "Bible" is our pillar and foundation. However, the Bible itself says that the "Church" is the pillar and foundation for truth - 1 Tim. 3:15.

In this series, which focuses on a "Catholic" Bible study by author Bart Larson (scroll down for the last few essays), we have examined the premise of whether or not Christians are meant to go by the Bible alone. So far, these conclusions have been reached:

Scripture never explicitly says or even implies we are to go by the Bible alone.

Going by the Bible alone is a construct of the reformers, who came over one-and-a-half thousand years after Christ.
Early Christians didn't go by the Bible alone.

Scripture, in fact, tells us to go by the Bible AND the oral traditions of Christ and the apostles.

Even though Bart's study does not make the case for going by the Bible alone, it moves very quickly into the area of infallibility, trying to demonstrate, through various verses of Scripture, that there is no infallible Church. In this essay, we will first look at the verses he provides and then look at many he does not, which show that Christ indeed instituted an infallible Church.

First, a definition. Infallibility does not mean sinless. Many think that Catholics believe that the popes and bishops are incapable of sin, but this has never been the teaching, and history shows it isn't the case. Bart knows this - I've explained it to him several times, but he still uses his study to disprove infallibility based on the sinful nature of Peter, which is a dishonest tactic. Second, infallibility does not mean that the Pope is right in everything he writes or says. For instance, what the Pope writes in his personal journal or says in a Sunday homily is not protected by infallibility. Nor would he be infallible if he predicted the winner of the World Series or tried to identify the location of Jimmy Hoffa. Finally, infallibility does not mean that the Pope receives new revelation or that he is on God's special e-mail list. Many accuse Catholics of "adding" to revelation. However, when the Pope makes an infallible declaration, he is slave to the original deposit in Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Infallibility, simply put, is the teaching that God will not let any mere man destroy his Church with heresy. It is a limitation upon the leaders of the Church, not a special power. When the Pope (or the bishops in unity with one another and the pope) officially proclaims a doctrine related to faith or morality, and when he intends for this teaching to be binding upon all the Christian faithful, he is protected from error. As you can see, infallibility has a pretty limited reach. It is about the teaching, not about the man. We'll examine the Scriptural, historical, and logical proofs for infallibility in a bit. Before then, let's look at the verses Bart's study uses to disprove it. This section begins with the heading: Did Jesus and the apostles teach that there would be an infallible church, along with infallible Christians?

• Matthew 7:15-20 - This verse warns that there will be false prophets. The Catholic Church agrees. However, the truth that there do exist false prophets doesn't specify who those prophets are. And it certainly doesn't demonstrate that there cannot be an infallible Church which is protected, by God, from the rot of false prophesy.

• Acts 20:29-31 - Similar to the last verse, this verse warns that there will be grievous wolves sneaking among the flock, but fails to disprove an actual infallible Church.

• Romans 16:18 - This verse warns us to avoid those who cause division, but never specifies who they are. Bart would have more difficulty with this verse than Catholics, as he would have to explain the division caused by so many interpretations from a Bible only approach.

• Galatians 2:11-21 - With these verses, Bart includes the note: "Note the moral issues and who was involved." While infallibility has nothing to do with "moral issues", which Bart knows, he still tries to disprove it. He wants Catholics to tie infallibility to moral issues, but we have never claimed that any man is without sin except Christ. In this verse, Peter refuses to eat with Gentiles. He does not, however, teach this is okay. Does this destroy Peter's ability to act infallibly? Bart should hope not, or else the two epistles authored by Peter are fallible, which means Scripture contains error. So this leads to another question for Bart: How can Peter not be infallible in official teachings, yet still write infallibly?

• I Timothy 4:1-3 - More verses which warn against false prophets - see notes above.

• II Peter 2:1 - Another verse which warns against false prophets - see notes above.

• Revelation, chapters 2 and 3 - Bart includes this note: "Were all of the 7 churches infallible?" This passage has nothing to do with infallibility for a couple reasons. 1) The Catholic Church does not teach that individual churches are infallible. My local pastor can, by all means, be in error. Even local bishops can be in error. 2) These verses are talking about the local churches falling into sin and needing to repent. It is referring to moral conduct, not "official teachings".

• (For additional verses read: II Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 4:14; Titus 1:10,11; I John 4:1 and II John 1:7-9.) Bart throws these last few verses in, but they simply refer, again, to those who are false prophets and those who teach false doctrine. Catholics can agree, pointing out that these deceivers are those who stray from the official teachings of the infallible Church.

So, at this point, Bart has failed to disprove infallibility. To be fair, though, he has the herculean task of proving a negative. After all, he would be hard-pressed to find a verse that says, "There is no infallible Church." The burden of proof is upon us, as Catholics, to find the proof that such a Church exists. We'll examine this through Scripture, history, and logic.


Even though Bart claims that his study is fair and presents the strongest verses he is aware of to support Catholic teachings, he actually includes no such verses for infallibility. This isn't because he isn't aware of them, as he has referred to Matthew 16:16-19 in private e-mails, so this raises the question of why he doesn't share this passage and others with his readers.

Before reading the passage in Matthew 16, one should note that the original readers of this passage would have been very familiar with the Old Testament and would have recognized that Christ was creating an amazing parallel with Isaiah 22:22, which tell us that the Davidic king would appoint a prime minister, who had the authority to act on behalf of the king. To signify this appointment, the king would lay the "key of the house of David ... upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."

In Matthew 16:18, Christ (who is the fulfillment of the Davidic king) gives Peter the keys to the kingdom and tells him that what he binds on earth is bound in Heaven and what he loosens on earth is loosed in Heaven.

This parallel couldn't be accidental (God doesn't do anything accidentally), and it shows us some important things:

• If Christ is the new "Davidic king", Peter is in the role of the "prime minister" who can act with his authority.
• Just as the key of the house of David was a transferable gift, the role of Peter can be transferred to others.

What makes this passage even more striking is that Jesus goes a step further and gives Peter a new name. Whenever God gives someone a new name, it is of great significance (e.g. Saul - Paul; Abram - Abraham). At that point, Peter's actual name was Simon, and Jesus renamed him Kepha, which is Aramaic for Rock. He then says that "upon this rock" he would build his Church. In other words, "Simon, you are rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." Of course, God is the rock of our salvation (Psalm 94:22), but Christ desired that, when he ascended into Heaven, we would have a visible leader through whom the Holy Spirit would act to keep the Church in check.

Christ spoke Aramaic, and there is evidence that Matthew might have originally been written in Aramaic or Hebrew (Hierapoles wrote, around 100-140 AD, that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language), yet some still try to appeal to the Greek text to claim that Christ was referring to Peter as a small stone "Petros", and to the foundation of the Church as a rock "Petra". However, this doesn't reflect the original Aramaic, and it shows an ignorance of Greek grammar, which relied on word endings to show gender. Petra (rock) is a feminine noun, and since Simon was male, Kepha had to be translated as "Petros", which is simply the masculine form of the noun. Petros and Petra once upon a time referred to different types of rock, but this in a different type of Greek (Attick Greek). By the time of the New Testament, which was written in Koine Greek, they were synonyms. The two types of Greek are as different as Shakespeare's English is to ours.

Simply put, though Christ is the cornerstone of our Church, he established Peter as the foundation for the earthly institution. While Bart's study fails to present any verses to support this, there are more than can be covered in this essay. Catholic Answers does a good job of summarizing the primacy of Peter in the tract, "Peter and the Papacy":

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter's faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ's flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

In addition to this, the early Church is full of writings recognizing the primacy of Peter and their successors. Catholic interpretation of Scripture is consistent with those in the first centuries. The interpretation that Bart's study leads one to believe (by leaving out key verses), is not. Here are a couple examples of such writings:

Clement of Alexandria wrote: "[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly gasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? 'Behold, we have left all and have followed you' [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Cyprian of Carthage wrote: "The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.' . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
However, even if Peter is the leader of the apostles, and therefore, the Church, does this mean that the Church is infallible? We should both hope this is so and conclude this is so based on the following point:

• Scripture tells us that it is the Church, not the Bible alone, which is our "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). How can a Church be the pillar and foundation of truth if capable of error?

• While Christ is our "shepherd" (Ez 34:15, Jn 10:16, 1 Pet 2:25), he transfers this title to Peter, as well, by telling him to feed his sheep in John 21:15-17. This doesn't replace Christ as the good shepherd, but emphasizes Peter's earthly role while Christ is in Heaven.

• In Luke 22:31-32, Jesus prays that, while the faith of others will fail, Peters would not, so that he could strengthen them. This further illustrates Jesus' desire that, after his ascension, we would have a visible and present leader to be our anchor to truth.

• In Luke 10:16, Christ gives the amazing declaration that whoever listens to the leaders of his Church listens to him, and whoever rejects them rejects him. How could this be if the leaders of the Church teach error? This would mean Christ teaches error. Likewise, how could this be if, as is the case in Protestantism today, several "true" Churches teach contradictory doctrine? Does this mean that Christ contradicts himself?

• During the first couple hundred years in the Church, that nature of Christ's divinity and the nature of the Trinity were debated until officially defined by the Catholic Church. These teachings were vague enough in Scripture that our limited minds struggled with them. Thus, if the Church is not infallible in defining them, doesn't this mean we might be wrong in our interpretation of Christ's divinity and the nature of the Trinity?

• During the first couple hundred years, the table of contents for the Bible were debated. Christians were in disagreement as to which books were inspired and which were not. The Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, officially defined the list of inspired books. If the Church could not act infallibly in this, then can we be sure that we have the correct list of books in the Bible? Many Protestant scholars realize this and have started referring to the Bible as a "fallible collection of infallible books." The implications of this statement are striking, as it is an admission that error could exist in our collection of 27 New Testament books (not to mention the Old Testament). If we lack that security, how can we be confident of anything the New Testament tells us if we have no firm confidence in the collection of books that exists there?

This last point recalls our question in the last essay, which Bart has not yet answered, which is how we know the book of Hebrews is inspired if we have no infallible Church? Actually, we could ask that of most books in the New Testament. Many point to 2 Tim. 3:16, which tells us that all Scripture is inspired, but there are two problems here:

1) Even if all Scripture is inspired (which it is), we can only know which books are Scripture in the first place after a source of authority tells us. If we remove the infallible Church, we have removed that source of authority. It is easy to say a book is inspired after we know it is Scripture (thanks to the Catholic Church), but put yourself in the mindset of a first century Christian, who is debating whether Hebrews should be included in the New Testament to begin with and it isn't so easy.

2) There is a problem when we rely on the text inside of a source to verify the inspiration of that same source. Scripture claims inspiration for itself. So do the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and the writings of many cult leaders. I could even include this line in my essay: everything Spencer types is inspired by God. It would be circular logic to conclude my essay is inspired because I typed it, and because that line is in my essay, it must be true, and if it is true, my essay is inspired ... This logic is similar to a man trying to lift himself into the air.

Now that the subject of authority has been explored, the next essay will look at the teachings on salvation in Bart's essay, and specifically the question: Do you have eternal assurance of salvation?

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Test All Things

Bart Larson is a Christian apologist and the author of a booklet called Perfected in Love: A Bible Study for Catholics.

I met Bart several years ago as he served in his role as a hospice minister. My grandpa was dying, and while he slept in another room, Bart and I got acquainted in the living room. He gave me some stories and other writings he often hands out to his hospice patients. These writings, themselves, were rather benign with regard to doctrine - mostly aimed at comforting the very sick with the promise of God's love.

However, when I later visited the website listed at the bottom of his writings, what I found was one of the most offensive anti-Catholic works I had seen before. Since then, the study has gone through major revisions over the years, as Bart and I have discussed it and I've pointed out many errors. In that time it has been pulled from the website. However, he has informed me that he is posting it again, despite the fact that it is still fundamentally flawed and highly offensive.

Once it is posted again, I invite you to read it yourself at Bart's website:

Note that I have no problem with you reading Bart's study or visiting his site. I have that much confidence in the solid truth of Catholicism, which you will see defended in these e-newsletters. I've even invited Bart to write a letter of response to my critiques, and I will publish his letter at the end of my series, allowing Bart time to revise according to the content of my essays.

Bart, however, is apparently not interested in letting visitors to his website hear the arguments that I am presenting. He extends no courtesy of inviting his readers to visit the AFS website through a link in his study and isn't willing to let me write a response to be added to his study. He has also refused several offers to debate some of the core doctrines he brings up.

While Bart insists that I should be focusing on what unites us, rather than what divides us, his study does not follow this guideline. It is systematically set up to attack most of the teachings of the Catholic faith, and I will simply be refuting that.

I will sometimes refer to Bart or his work as anti-Catholic. This is an accurate term. He does not hate Catholic individuals, but he openly attacks the teachings, practices, and leaders of the faith. He is, therefore, anti (against) anything distinctly Catholic.

This would be fair enough - if Bart had solid arguments against these teachings. Instead his study relies on a number of sleight-of-hand tricks to make you think that he has refuted much of Catholicism. We will examine the biggest of these in the next issue. Until then, here are some things to watch for:

• Bart claims his study is letting the Bible speak for itself, but he only gives you the verses he wants you to see and leaves out many that present a problem for him. When I pressed him to explain why he did this regarding verses on eternal security at the beginning, he explained that this was because it was his booklet and he could write his introduction how he wanted. Not much of a defense. In other places, I am convinced that Bart doesn't even know the verses or reasoning that Catholics use, and it is irresponsible for him to dismiss these teachings without researching this.

• Bart claims that his study is just a pure list of Bible verses and that he is reserving editorial comment. However, editorial comment is sprinkled throughout, and at one point he even refers the reader to a Hollywood movie (not a documentary) to make his points. Apparently, deep down, Bart doesn't believe that the Bible is as self-interpretive as he claims in the introduction.

• Bart will often "beg the question" - making a statement based on an unproven assumption. An example would be if he asked, "Does the Bible teach that we should worship anyone except God?" This is begging the question because the assumption is that the Catholic Church teaches that others can be worshipped, which it doesn't. Worship is for God alone.

• Bart will pull verses out of context. While his introduction tells you to study the "context" by reading the verses immediately above and below a certain verse, Bart doesn't mention that context is much larger than a set of five or six verses. Often he pulls verses and interprets them in a way that is contrary to the entire rest of the book in which they appear, as well as other books. He shows you just enough to put doubt in your head.

• Shotgun approach - Bart will throw so many verses and arguments into his writings that he hopes someone can never respond to all of them. He purposely overwhelms his readers.

• Straw man - Bart will attack the weakest argument for a belief, claiming victory. He does this especially in his section on the authority of the Pope.

• Bart admits he is not an expert on Catholicim, and our conversations over the years have shown many, many errors in his understanding of what Catholics believe. These errors are still grossly present, but Bart feels qualified to publish this study anyway and to give talks about Catholicism to Protestant groups.

Finally, as will be seen in next week's issue, Bart reads the Bible in a way contrary to how Christ and the Bible itself says Scripture should be read. He reads it in a way that, according to Scripture, leads to error and rejection of the full truth of Christ. Bart has declined to debate this issue and says his study stands for itself on how the Bible should be read. Therefore, in the next issue, we will see what his study says about reading Scripture, and then we'll see what Scripture has to say about itself by including all the verses and context that Bart left out.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Graven Images

Here is my experiment with the movie making website "Xtranormal".

Friday, June 8, 2007

Strike One for "Trey" on Homosexuality

A comment from "Trey" on my post regarding homosexuality writes that "The number 1 reason why God doesn't need you to worry about other people's sexuality: 1. Because he is God, and can judge us individually."

Typical of today's rationalistic mentality, Trey seems to believe that because God is the one who ultimately judges our hearts, we should back off in trying to guide one another from paths of spiritual destruction.

The truth is, however, that we are each responsible for speaking for truth and reminding others to avoid sin. It is not our place to judge another person's heart. It is not even our place to judge our own hearts, as Paul makes clear in his epistles. However, it would be silly to infer from that that we shouldn't step in when we see another engaging in behavior that is destructive to himself.

I'm sure that if Trey knew a friend of his was viewing child pornography, he wouldn't be so cavalier as to say, as he did in his comment, that God does not need us to "add to the pile of condemnation flying about on any given topic."

If he found out his own son or daughter was cheating on a spouse, would he really take the attitude that it isn't his problem because God is the only one who (again, as his comment suggests) should "guide our lives".

If Trey had read my post carefully, which he obviously did not, he would see that I absolutely did not encourage a condemnation of people with homosexual tendencies. I also did not encourage a condemnation of people who chose to act on such tendencies. What I did condemn, however, was attitudes such as Trey's, which tell us to ignore the teachings of Scripture and Tradition on homosexuality. I did write that the most unchristian thing we could do when a friend or relative is battling homosexuality is to withhold the truth of Christ from that person.

People who are tempted by sin do not need Trey's indifference. He may be perfectly content with allowing them to fall into sinful behavior. Maybe it is just easier for him to allow others to face judgement without his support and Christian guidance. Perhaps he even thinks he knows better than the Church, which was entrusted by Christ to uphold a moral standard.

He wouldn't be the first to make that assumption either. That credit goes to Adam and Eve, who chose for themselves the right to decide right and wrong.

Trey ends his comment with a snide suggestion that perhaps, instead of worrying about those who are slipping into sin, I should, "Go do some work for an elderly person instead." The hypocrisy here is that, in attempting to chastise me for condemning others, Trey, himself, condemns me (and anyone else who would uphold a moral standard), assuming that our adherence to truth means that we are callous individuals who do not contribute to social welfare. How, exactly, does Trey know my own personal contributions, either monetarily or physically, to charitable works? I have observed it to be a mark of his own brand of moral superiority that such an indignant attitude would be displayed to anyone who chooses Christian morality over a trendy political correctness. Is he not able to take to heart his own suggestion that God does not need him to "add to the pile of condemnation flying about on any given topic?"

Finally, his comment is evidence that the age of indifference in the Christian church (assuming Trey is Christian) is marked by a characteristic promotion of the social gospel to the exclusion of our first duty, which is to be God's tool in bringing others to salvation. The Christian mandate isn't a sum-zero proposition. We can be concerned for the less-fortunate (and Trey seems to assume that anyone who is elderly is less fortunate), and speak the truth of Christ and his Church.

Trey may not be willing to take on this responsibility. As he suggested in his comment, though, God will hold each of us individually accountable. I am not in a place to judge Trey's heart, but I am curious how he will explain to Christ his unwillingness to defend the teachings that Christ, himself, passed on.

Sunday, June 3, 2007

Figuratively Speaking

One of the things that non-Catholics are most surprised about when they really begin studying our faith is how literally Catholics take much of Scripture. Perhaps the clearest example of this is in the Last Supper passages, where Christ says of the bread, “This is my body”, and of the wine, “This is my blood.”

Often, however, when Catholics bring these verses to the attention to someone who does not believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the conversation goes something like this:

Catholic: “Christ says, ‘This is my body’. Why can’t we take him at his word?
Non-Catholic: “Because Christ also calls himself a vine (John 15:1) and a door (John 10:7), among other things. Are we to believe he is actually a plant or a thing on hinges?

It’s interesting to see how an otherwise literalist student of the Bible suddenly turns figurative when it comes to reconciling his rejection of a distinctly Catholic doctrine.
The point such a person would be making, of course, is that Christ often spoke in metaphors to help his followers understand the full scope of his being. Why, the non-Catholic might ask, would we believe that the Last Supper discourse is any different?

To be fair to this perspective, here are several more “things” that God (in the person of Christ or otherwise) compares himself to through inspired Scripture:
  • The Branch (Zech. 3:8)
  • The Bright and Morning Star (Rev. 22:16)
  • The Chief Corner Stone (Eph. 2:20; 1Peter 2:7)
  • An Eagle (Deut. 32:11)
  • A Fountain (Zech. 13:1)
  • The Lamb (John 1:29; Rev. 5:6)
  • The Rock (1 Cor. 10:4)

This line of reasoning has never really made sense to me. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that, for the last eleven years, I spent a great deal of time teaching eighth graders grammar and figurative language.

There’s something of a verbal sleight-of-hand trick happening when non-Catholics try to equate the institution of the Eucharist to Christ’s many metaphorical statements about himself.

A metaphor works this way. The subject of the sentence is joined by a linking verb to a seemingly different predicate nominative, which reflectively describes something unique about the subject. A literal truth about the predicate nominative describes a figurative truth about the subject. For instance, in the sentence, “My dad is an ox”, the subject (dad) is probably big and hairy, given his resemblance to the predicate nominative (ox). It is important to note that, given the structure of a metaphor, “ox” is describing “dad”, not the other way around. The ox literally weighs near a thousand pounds and is literally covered from head to foot with hair; my dad is only figuratively an ox in that his size and hair exceed that of the average person. To understand it more clearly, one can take the metaphor and turn it into a simile by adding “like” or “as”: My dad is like an ox.

The simile approach emphasizes that it is impossible to flip the comparison around without outright changing the meaning. “My dad is like an ox” becomes outright weird when we flip it to say, “An ox is like my dad.”

Let’s take the metaphors of Scripture and state them in simple declarative sentences (using the generic “God” to simplify the process):

  • God is a vine.
  • God is a door.
  • God is the branch.
  • God is the bright and morning star.
  • God is the chief corner stone.
  • God is an eagle.
  • God is a fountain.
  • God is the lamb.
  • God is the rock.

Now, notice the problem when we look at the institution of the Eucharist:

This [bread] is my body.

Or, to make the comparison easier, I’ll substitute the word “God” for the words “my body”:

This [bread] is God.

Or, to be specific:

This [bread] is Jesus.

It would make no sense to flip the comparison (unless one’s grammar resembles that of Yoda):

  • A vine is God.
  • A door is God.
  • A rock is God.
  • A lamb is God.

These last four don’t make sense because, in the figurative examples above, God is always the subject. The predicate nominatives describe qualities of God. God is a source of life, like a vine. He is our entrance into Heaven, like a door. He is the foundation of our faith, like a “rock” or “cornerstone”. He was sacrificed for us, like a lamb.

This is how metaphors work, which is why it is outright silly to claim that in the last supper narrative, when “God” or “my body” becomes the predicate nominative. To do so would mean that we are using the divine figuratively to describe a literal truth about the bread. How is this possible? Is the bread in anyway omniscient? Omnipotent? Omnipresent? To illustrate, let’s turn our “metaphors” into similes:

  • God is like a rock. Makes sense.
  • God is like a lamb. Makes sense.
  • God is like a vine. Makes sense.
  • God is like a door. Makes sense.
  • This bread is like God. Huh?

Even the original text would fail this test (This [bread] is like my body). The reason? By putting God as the predicate nominative, the metaphor serves to exalt bread to something divine by comparison. This makes no sense and has no place in the unity of Scripture unless

Unless it wasn’t meant to be figurative …

Which would mean it was literal …

Which would mean that the bread isn’t bread anymore.