A New Baptist Holy Day

The last two posts have been a man named Ken, who doesn't hate Catholics, but hates the Catholic Church. Expanding this discussion to look at the greater community of Concord, I would have to say that I was a bit disappointed, on the first night, to see how many of the participants mentioned that they had come to the class simply to learn more about the Catholic faith that their friends and family practiced.

I later addressed them and asked why, instead of picking up a book about Catholicism by a Catholic, they would choose to attend a class by a man who admittedly hates the Catholic Church.

Would one go to Hatfields to learn about the McCoys?
To the Capulets to learn about the Montagues?

Shrug.

Beyond those who attended the classes, though, someone in the comment box of this blog asked, hypothetically, whether Dr. Monte Shinkle, the head pastor of Concord, is aware of the content of these classes.

First off, you will notice that the Southern Baptists at Concord do not call their pastors "Father", as Catholics do, because Protestants have never ever done this (except back when they used to do it all the time). There is Scripture, after all, where Christ strictly condemns calling anyone "father", as well as "master" and "Rabbi" or "teacher". That the Catholic Church allows this is one of the reason that faithful Catholics are on the fast road to Hell, along with Paul (Acts 21:40, 22:1; 1 Cor 4:14-15), Stephen (Acts 7:2), and the apostle John (1 Jn 2:13, 14).

It is fairly important that one remember that Monte Shinkle has a doctorate (just like John MacArthur!!), as this signifies his authority to tell people what the Bible really means. "Doctor", after all, is Latin for "teacher", and because he "teaches" from the pulpit, it's okay to call him that even though Matthew 23 forbids it. Jesus meant something else then, but he was serious about that "father" business.

Monte Shinkle and the elders of Concord are the ones who authorized Ken to be a ... well, a teacher of the anti-Catholic classes. His series was part of the special in-depth classes Concord offers, called the "Masters Classes", where apparently people learn enough about a particular subject to be called "masters" of it. Wait a second, doesn't Matthew 23 ... oh, nevermind.

One could argue that Dr. Shinkle isn't aware of the content of Ken's classes and of his striking inability to defend Baptist theology. To answer this objection, it is necessary for me to go into the history of Ken's attempts to ignore the Bible verses that disprove the once-saved-always-saved theology.

When I first contacted Ken, I simply presented the five verses that I mentioned in the last post. I should note here that there are not only five such verses about loss of salvation (Scripture Catholic documents a nice, long list of them), but I found the most obvious ones. The reason I didn't throw more at Ken is because that would be a strategy called a "shotgun argument", which is a dirty trick that debaters use to pile soooo much on one's opponent that he cannot possibly respond to all, thus appearing to have failed to respond. The shotgun argument is used by those who have reached desperation with an otherwise bankrupt position.

Ken wrote back and thanked me for my time and mentioned that Dr. Shinkle would be helping him in the response. If you think about this request, it poses a lot of problems for a Bible-alone mentality, but that's another post. Eventually, I received back an extremely long response from Ken, with Dr. Shinkle and Pamela Bultmann (the director of the education program) carbon-copied. The e-mail used something called the "shotgun argument", if you've ever heard of that.

This e-mail covered a number of subjects, but not one of the dangerous five verses.

Dr. Shinkle and Ms. Bultmann were cc'd on most of the exchange, and Dr. Shinkle received a letter from area Catholic pastors about the class. Ms. Bultmann, also has been contacted. Given their decision not to renounce or correct the content of the classes or the e-mail that Dr. Shinkle supposedly helped write, it is safe to say that both are equally culpable for the deception used in the class, the anti-Catholic rhetoric by which the tone was set, and (worse of all) the inability of Southern Baptist theology to answer five simple verses.

In the end, I can only think of four reasons that these verses have been irrefutable by, not just Concord, but any Baptist preacher with whom I have interacted

1) The Catholic Church added those verses while riding upon the beast and drinking the blood of martyrs;

2) Ken and Dr. Shinkle simply have never encountered these verses before and are simply confused by them. This should be especially scary for a man, like Ken, who switched faiths before examining all of the evidence at hand;

3) They are aware that these verses contradict their theology and chose to overlook them. This has its own terrible implications;

4) Or all of Baptist theology is built, not upon a careful examination of Scripture, but upon an presumption, and the verses are then greased and shoved until they fit into that mindset.

This last one seems to be the most likely (after all, any Catholic can assure you that it is way too bumpy of a ride upon that beast to be writing Scripture, especially with a glass of martyr blood in the other hand). Baptists may object to Catholic holy days, such as the Feast of the Assumption, but at Concord, the Feast of the Presumption is apparently celebrated whenever all evidence is at the mercy of a mindset.

Catholicism is evil. Salvation is assured. The Bible alone is our authority.

Chant these platitudes long enough, and they almost sound believable.

In the meantime, five simple verses are waiting for Ken and for Dr. Shinkle.

Reading Assignment for the Holy Spirit

In the last post (below), I introduced Ken, a former Catholic who has made it his mission to spread the message of love and anti-Catholicism at Concord Baptist, in Jefferson City.

It should be noted here that my conversations with Ken have generally been respectful and filled with academic integrity. This is, of course, excepting the e-mail Ken sent to inform me that my eyes were not opened to the truth. Apparently the truth had nothing to do with putting his proof-texts into context and also citing several verses that contradicted his theology.

After Ken later apologized for his reaction, we continued our e-mail conversation for a couple months. Unfortunately, despite my repeated requests that he reconcile his beliefs with five simple verses that appeared to disprove them, Ken complained that I was "focusing on a couple difficult passages that are hard for anyone to understand."

So much for Scripture being self-interpretive.

If, then, the Holy Spirit-inspired words of Scripture are not important in forming one's theology, to what source does a dedicated Southern Baptist turn? Ken helped to clear this up when I asked him for Biblical evidence for one of his assertions. A man who goes by the "Bible alone", after all, should be able to find support for his beliefs somewhere within Scripture.

Ken's answer: "This has been from my reading and understanding of the Bible over the years. I have also heard many preachers talk about this topic in the past. And I have read a good book on this topic by Dr. John MacArthur called “Saved Without a Doubt”. This is an excellent resource for this."

What verses, though, Ken? Seriously, can you just tell me a verse or two I can look up to read about it for myself?

No answer, but we do have the specific testimony of "many preachers" and a book by John MacArthur, who has a PhD, by the way. And this is obviously more than can be said about the Holy Spirit, who through the pen of the inspired authors, gave us such verses as 1 Cor. 9:23; 1 Cor. 10:12; Romans 11:13-22; Hebrews 10:26-31; and 2 Peter 2:20-21, which clearly show that believers can lose salvation.

Perhaps the Holy Spirit and guys like Peter and Paul should have read John MacArthur's book. He has a doctorate, in case I haven't mentioned that.

Or maybe we should just ignore those verses. They are troublesome buggers, you know.

Ken, in his last correspondance with me, prided himself as a man of logic. Logic, however, is the art of evaluating all of the information at hand, not simply those which agree with our preconceived ideas. For those who have taken courses in logic, let me try to explain this Southern Baptist thought process, as demonstrated by Ken, in the form of a classic syllogism:

Premise 1: Sound theology cannot contradict Scripture.
Premise 2: Southern Baptist theology contradicts Scripture.
Conclusion: Therefore, Catholics are going to Hell!

Ultimately, Ken ended our discussions and excused his inability to defend his beliefs on his "lack of time", stating his assumption that my own life must not be as busy as his.

Quite the contrary is true, but defense of God's word is our first priority. I understand Ken's reluctance to work too hard at this out of fear that he may accidently earn his salvation. But if we have put any worldly thing before the salvation of souls, we have chosen for ourselves a false idol.

But I would never accuse Ken of such idolatry because, as I think we all know, lack of time isn't really the issue at all for a man who will not persist in sharing the good news.

Obama Baptists

While there are a number of reasons to disagree with the current president (I'm personally up to 328), it recently became obvious to me why there is such a deep-seated dislike of him by Southern Baptists, at least if one's opinion of Southern Baptists can be generalized from the example of one man, Ken, who has taught two classes in a series designed to attack Catholic teachings.

It wouldn't be fair to stereotype all Southern Baptists based on the example of one man. But I think the conclusion could realistically be applied to the leadership of Concord Baptist, the Jefferson City church where Ken, a former Catholic, conducted his class.

In a friendly conversation, Ken expressed to me his great concerns over the Obama administration. And after interacting with him through extensive e-mails and a few meetings, I am now reminded of the idea that we despise most those bad qualities in others that we secretly recognize in ourselves.

After a brief introduction of himself, Ken helped us to understand the purpose of his class by explaining that "I don't hate Catholics, but I hate the Catholic Church." And Ken wasn't kidding. The following several weeks of instruction would have made proud our current president, who has been criticized for defining himself, not by the strength of his policies, but by his attacks on another administration.

And just like with a typical political speech, the material that Ken presented would have had trouble standing the scrutiny of an astute fact-checking team. The clearest example of this was when Ken had us read out loud the Catholic Church's official promulgation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The document stated no fewer than four times that Mary's sinless nature was by "virtue of the merits of Christ." Yet, as soon as Ken finished having us read the document, he asked, "If Mary is sinless by her own merits, what did Christ die on the cross for?"

Huh?

To be fair, Ken apologized immediately when called on this misleading statement.

Well, he sort of apologized, in a round-about way.

Actually, he immediately changed the subject, but that is kind of an apology, right?

The problem with the classes at Concord isn't that Catholic doctrine was examined and challenged. A simple look through this blog shows that I have no problem with "testing all things", as Paul exhorts. It is, rather, the presentation of a make-believe Catholicism, a caricature of what the Church really teaches in order to tear it down. One has to ask how much insecurity goes into deciding to take such an approach.

This isn't much different from the political game that Democrats and Republicans play each election year. Republicans will take social security away from the elderly, and Democrats will take away your guns. What is often missing from these discussions is an honest reconciliation with the facts and logic at hand.

The other, and more significant, problem is Concord's unwillingness to engage in an open-invitation debate with a Catholic such as myself on this or any other topic. A public condemnation of another group should be defensible by a public examination. After all, if God is truth and truth is on the side of such Catholic-bashing, what should there be to fear from some Catholic who never spent a day of his life in a theology course?

As will be shown in the next post, Ken prides himself as a man of logic and a devotee to Scripture. Unfortunately, five simple verses of Scripture will be shown to have proved him wrong.

The Baptists have their origin in the hard work of those "community organizers", the reformers, who rose to power and decided that the Bible that God gave us means something completely different from what it had meant for over one-and-a-half thousand years.

This almost sounds like calling the Constitution a "living document", doesn't it?

The point here is that the Baptists are just a few hundred years old, similar to the notable lack of experience in administration that our current president has. His naivete is beginning to show as his press secretary fumbles through attempts to justify new policy and outrageous statements.

Maybe, then, Ken is more like a loyal press secretary and is simply doing the best he can to defend so little substance.

Jon and Kate's First Mistake

I've never watched any more than a few moments here and there of Jon and Kate Plus 8, but how can anyone miss the saga of their crumbling family life lately. Apparently, the parents of eight kids have recently filed for the dissolution of their marriage, though TLC plans on continuing to run the series. There have been no announcements to change the title of the show to Jon and Kate Sharing Custody of 8, but there will certainly be something awkward about the part of the title that joins Jon and Kate and something cruel about the part that brings the plus 8 into the cameras during the televised aftermath of the divorce.

While much of the attention has focused on the alleged infidelity of both parents, one aspect that never gets discussed is the means by which the eight kids were conceived in the first place. According to Wikipedia, the couple experience infertility, explained by Kate's diagnosis of polycycstic ovary syndrome. After this, the couple underwent in-vitro fertilization twice, resulting in a set of twins and a set of sextuplets.

As explained by an earlier post (click here), in-vitro fertilization is not only unnatural, but contrary to God's plan. While the word "evil" is something of a sinister term, which modern society tends to associate only with movie villains and people who don't recycle, anything that is contrary to God's plan is sinful, and therefore evil. We all commit evil acts, sometimes out of ignorance, and the suggestion that some evil might be done for a greater good doesn't excuse the fact.

No doubt Jon and Kate were ignorant of the harm that can come from bringing intrinsically sinful acts into the marriage, as society champions in-vitro fertilization as the answer for all couples who are struggling to have children (while simultaneously championing contraception for couples who are struggling not to).

In direct contrast to contraception, which is sinful because it removes the potential of procreation from sex, in-vitro fertilization is sinful because it removes sex from the act of procreation (among other reasons). Either act makes a mockery of the miracle in which God has asked us to participate.

No doubt this is a sensitive subject, as is evidenced by one attempted comment in my earlier post on in-vitro from a husband whose wife had conceived through that method. Part of the reason for this sensitivity is the attitude among couples today that they have a right to children by virtue of their sexual organs. It is quite possible that God had other plans for Jon and Kate, such as adopting a teenage girl, which they had the opportunity to do earlier in their marriage, before deciding to go another route. Or maybe they were meant to apply their parental instincts to work with youth at their church or community organizations.

Whatever plan God had for them, the decision to conceive through in-vitro fertilization was surely at least one contributing factor to what TLC is now chronicling for the world. This is just one subtle reminder that TLC stands, not for "tender loving care", but "The Learning Channel". Unfortunately, until society realizes the evil nature of in-vitro fertilization, this is a lesson that has been taught while most of the class is on spring break.

Update: After the posting of this blog, TLC announced that Jon and Kate Plus 8 would go on indefinite hiatus. Rather than rewrite the blog, I wanted to leave this note for those who read after this announcement.

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.

What Goes Up ... Just Keeps Going Up

Here's our national debt clock:

The Gross National Debt

It's like watching a fire burn, isn't it? For some strange reason you just can't take your eyes off it.

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.