Reply to links in comments from earlier posts

One reader posted three links from www.gotquestions.org, and my thoughts about them are long enough I'm going to devote one blog post to my response, rather than putting it all in the comment section. I have also posted a link to this blog entry in the comment section, so readers of the comments should be directed here.

In general, responding in detail to each argument in these links would amount to pulling texts that prove one way, against texts that prove the other claims, it all comes down to which lens of the entirety of Scripture are you going to use. So I’m not going to really engage in individual verse retorts, they exist for both sides, but will focus on several general thoughts I have in response.

1. I'm disappointed by the authors' judgments, in multiple locations, such as "yes, Catholicism is a false religion. If a person believes what the Catholic Church officially teaches, he/she will not be saved," found here. They have also made some nonsensical arguments; some are standard and reasonable arguments from the Protestant position, but others are severely lacking in substance and consistency of application. The authors should have stuck with the few credible/reasonable arguments, but by going to an extreme position, in my opinion, they undermine and diminish their credibility.
2. The answers on this website are the perfect example of the vitriolic response of Protestants to Catholics that I've alluded to in my personal/verbal conversations with my readers, and possibly in previous posts in this blog. Most Protestants don't simply chose to disagree with the Catholic position in the same way they disagree with other denominations they aren't a part of. Rather, they very publicly and adamantly claim Catholics are not true Christians, and it is this attitude of animosity that drives deep divisions and wounds in the Body of Christ. This is also an inconsistent reaction. Are these Protestants (e.g., from this website) acting this way toward Pentecostals/Vineyard Movement who require proof of salvation by tongues? No--they have entries (here and here) where they address these teachings, but they simply state disagreement without going to the extreme salvation judgments that they do with Catholics. I should also mention this website has two entries on Eastern Orthodoxy, in which they argue many of the same positions as against the Catholic church. So throughout my blog post, one could easily add Orthodoxy to it, but I'll just use the word Catholic for ease.
3. Their fundamental argument (e.g., here) seems to be “the teachings of Catholicism are unbiblical, therefore if you subscribe to them, you are not saved.” This makes no logical sense—the argument that subscribing to something that’s not in the Bible makes you not saved. Some churches teach that you shouldn’t partake of wine at all. That is not insisted upon in Scripture, but if a church wants to “bind the conscience” of its members to that, and their members are willing to submit to it, then I have no problem with it and won’t say they aren’t saved. But with the logic of these authors, they would need to say that.  Similarly, some churches don’t allow dancing. Or celebration of Halloween. Or eating meat. Or divorce, in order to serve in positions of leadership. These aren’t merely suggestions for increased spiritual disciplines, they are requirements to be faithful to and "in good standing with" those denominations. Simply proving that something is not made explicit in the Bible is not a suitable argument for a belief being so detrimental that those persons are not saved.
   That being said, Catholics would argue that Catholicism does not contradict scripture, it simply elaborates upon areas where Scripture is silent. Not that this makes Protestants any happier, but it does change the argument--Protestants can no longer argue that the Bible doesn't speak about doctrine X, but rather must show that doctrine X is contradictory to Scripture.
4. The authors frequently emphasize their literal interpretation of Scripture, as here. "Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally. This is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us. ...One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation...The disciples also took the demands of Christ (which are part of the Bible) literally." Yet these authors (and others in Protestant circles) are not consistent with this position--they pick and choose what is literal. For me, the most striking example is John 6. Yes, there are situations when Jesus is clearly speaking in a parable. However, in John 6, he isn't. I'm not going to paste the entire chapter here, but reading its entirety gives greater context and umph to the punchline, in my opinion. After quoting the Old Testament passage (which the authors of the website would say is indication that Jesus is about to speak literally) saying, "He gave them bread out of heaven to eat," Jesus says, "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Bible records, "Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”  If they had misinterpreted Jesus, he'd have corrected them. Instead, "Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.  He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.  For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.  He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.  As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.” Jesus doesn't merely give a one-liner pithy remark like he's done in other situations, instead he reiterates the claim, he doesn't back down but rather makes it more elaborate...and radical.  So of course, this causes more listeners to think he's nuts. "Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” And again, Jesus doesn't correct their misinterpretation. Instead, Jesus eggs them on, "Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore." 

If the disciples' literal interpretation of this was so wrong from the outset, causing people to leave out of a misunderstanding, then God would have corrected this, for the sake of the Church, the Body of Christ, for the many generations to come, and made such a foundational concept crystal clear. But He doesn't correct them, and instead elaborates, confirming their interpretation.  This literal/mystical view of the Eucharist is what the church believed from the time of the disciples, through the time of the Reformation, until sometime after that. (Even Luther believed in the mystical real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.) Okay, so if someone wants to take a figurative interpretation of John 6, fine, but please don't boast about an emphasis on the literal interpretation of Scripture. 

The authors of the website don't stop here, they then write, "Finally, when we make ourselves the final arbiters of which parts of the Bible are to be interpreted literally, we elevate ourselves above God. Who is to say, then, that one person's interpretation of a biblical event or truth is any more or less valid than another's? The confusion and distortions that would inevitably result in such a system would essentially render the Scriptures null and void. The Bible is God's Word to us and He meant it to be believed--literally and completely." I totally agree. This is my point, one of the catalysts in being on this journey! The Protestant tendency is to say it's up to each individual's interpretation and conscience about what is binding in Scripture and what should be taught and passed down. This position has left Christendom in a state of disarray. It's fascinating how they could write these four sentences so strongly, yet so adamantly perpetrate a system and behavior that fosters this very thing.

In order to determine the appropriate interpretation, how about looking at the other writings from that time period, to understand how the people and leaders were interpreting the teachings? How about reading the writings of the people who were discipled by the Apostles? Those 1-2 generations from Jesus, and seeing how they described the church and the discussions and decisions coming out of it, to get an understanding of how people understood the Scriptures to mean? For example, Polycarp was a disciple of John. And Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. So what did these guys believe and teach about the Eucharist? (And baptism and Mary and such). I'll approach matters in this way in future blog posts, examining their descriptions.  Actually, the authors of this website write, "Churches should strive to follow the model of the early church in Jerusalem." Yet they clearly haven't been reading the writings of the early church leaders (regarding theology as well as form/liturgy of the service), or they couldn't hold the position they do. They act as if it was 1500 years before we correctly realized what the Bible really consisted of (after all, they removed books of the Bible during the Reformation, without fear of this violating the notion of no "jot and jittle shall be removed.") and how it should be interpreted, and all those early thinkers had it wrong. It seems to me a Protestant would have to hold some version of this position--that the Reformers "saw the light" and the error of the early church's ways, or how else can they ignore the teachings of the earliest church fathers? Indeed, as John Henry Newman once wrote, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

In the end, the writers do say, "There is no infallible interpreter of Scripture, nor is there a need for one. There is no infallible denomination or church. Even after receiving Christ as Savior, we are all still tainted by sin. We all make mistakes. No denomination/church has absolutely perfect doctrine on every issue." Okay then.  Seeing all the disagreements among Christians inclines us to throw our hands in the air and conclude that each denomination/branch of Christianity has some error. 

So. If I take that position, then the bottom line when deciding where to worship each week, to me, comes down to the Eucharist. Christ commanded us to partake of it, saying, "Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you have no life in you." I want the life of Christ to permeate me. Even regardless of the extent to which one believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the emphasis of Christ's words in John 6 (and elsewhere in the New Testament) gives me the desire to partake more than once a quarter, as in many Protestant denominations.  So this element of weekly church services offering communion is for me a central criteria of where to regularly attend. I'll write my next post on this.