Josiah Concept Ministries

The pope has released a new encyclical entitled Spe Salvi, which is a theological reflection upon hope.  Here is the summary (another one here) from Catholic News Agency.  I am going to read the entire document and comment as soon as I get time.

For now, the Pope’s introduction interests me:

According to the Christian faith, “redemption”—salvation—is not simply a given. Redemption is offered to us in the sense that we have been given hope, trustworthy hope, by virtue of which we can face our present: the present, even if it is arduous, can be lived and accepted if it leads towards a goal, if we can be sure of this goal, and if this goal is great enough to justify the effort of the journey. Now the question immediately arises: what sort of hope could ever justify the statement that, on the basis of that hope and simply because it exists, we are redeemed? And what sort of certainty is involved here?

See, I have a problem with the first sentence.  If salvation isn’t a given, and redemption is only offered to us as a trustworthy hope, then what of Paul’s firm statement in Romans 8:38-39?  No, Paul was certain of salvation the same as any Christian can be sure of his own eternal security.  That immovable certainty is what we are talking about, in answer to the Pope’s final question.

I agree with the Pope’s statement that the present, harrowing though it may be, is livable if we are working toward something.  And the goal of being with God more than justifies the effort of our journey in this life.  The only hope I can think of that would justify bearing this fallen world is certainty–a certainty found in a true contextual understanding of “hope” in the Bible, not in the “hope” of the modern world.

I hope the rest of the encyclical is stronger than the introduction.

In my previous post, I examined the verses that appeared on all four of Steve Ray’s lists of infallibly defined verses according to the Roman Catholic Church. In this post, I will take a quick look at two verses which appear on two of the lists, Matthew 16:16-19 and Matthew 26:26-28 et. al. with 1 Corinthians 11:23-29.

Before I look at those verses, I thought that I would point out that the Catholic interpretations of these verses neglect the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet 2:4-5).

Matthew 16:16-19

The massive debate over this verse is centered around whether the “rock” is Peter, or his confession of Christ as the messiah.

The New Testament seems to assume that all believers are a holy priesthood (1 Pet 2:4-5).   Given that there is only one mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5), and all believers are baptized into one body (1 Cor 12:13), it is unlikely that the apostles were made special priests.  Instead, all believers were made ministers of a new covenant (2 Cor 3:6).

See a longer argument here.

Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29

It isn’t much of a surprise that Jesus’ exact words were recored in the gospels, given that they are biographies of His life.  Paul repeats the key phrases “This is my body . . . This is my blood” in his first letter to the Corinthians.

But the larger context of 1 Corinthians 11 is rules and order for spiritual worship, not a theological treatise on the body and blood of Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist.  Therefore, it is unlikely that either Paul or any of the gospel writers were attempting to validate transubstantiation.

Moreover, interpreting these verses literally then asks us to interpret John 6:53-57 literally:

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. . . .”

But reading that passage literally fails to take verse 63 in to account: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life” (emphasis added).

Defining the verses this way seems to be self-defeating.

It amazes me that the Catholic Church defines teachings infallibly, yet fails to leave a convenient list somewhere that tells us what has been infallibly taught. Steve Ray has posted four lists of infallibly defined Bible verses. One list contains 15 verses, while the other lists contain between 5 and 7 verses. This is still not the answer that we were looking for.

I decided to lay the verses out in a matrix and then tackle the verses that appear on all four lists. Amazingly, with fifteen verses to choose from, only five verses appear on all four lists. So I thought I’d take a peek at these five and see how the Catholic Church defines Bible verses.

Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23

These verses speak of the sacrament of penance in Catholic thought. The lists are unanimous in that interpretation. The sacrament of penance confers upon priests the power to forgive sins. Amazingly, only God had been able to forgive sins up to that point. Now, He has delegated this authority to Roman Catholic priests.

But who is a priest? Well, in the mind of the first Pope, all believers were priests. That drastically changes the reading of those verses. So does the context of the verses themselves: Jesus isn’t speaking directly to the apostles, He is speaking to a crowd that had gathered. Jesus follows this up with a parable that indicates if we withhold forgiveness from anyone, God will withhold forgiveness from us. This means that we are all called to forgive others of their sins, as our heavenly Father forgives us (cf. Mt 18:35). Turns out, God hasn’t delegated His power; the Roman Catholic Church would like you to think that He has. I have a longer argument on this verse here.

Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24

The larger context of these verses should dictate their meaning, not some imagined implication of transubstantiation.  Obviously, as a biography of Jesus, the Gospel of Luke would contain His words.  No big surprise here.

The passage in 1 Corinthians isn’t a theological treatise on Christ’s words; rather, it is part of a set of rules for how church services are conducted and the proper etiquette at each phase of the service.

Taken together, these two verses cannot form the basis for the doctrine of transubstantiation. That isn’t to say that Christ isn’t promising His presence in the Eucharist.  All I’m saying is that that concept is not defined within Scripture at these points.

John 3:5

Jesus commanded baptism not just here, but also in the Great Commission:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (Mt 28:18-20, emphasis added)

I have no doubt that baptism is necessary. However, like any “work,” salvation isn’t contingent upon it. Think of it this way: if I desire to follow Jesus and all of His teachings, would I refuse baptism? The Lord clearly commanded it, and great things happen in the Bible to people who are baptized. The Lord wants us to be baptized. The apostle Paul comments:

We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. (Rom 6:4-5)

Why, if we desire to follow Him, would we not be baptized? This is a no-brainer. Of course we’ll get baptized. But out of a desire to serve the Lord as He commands, not out of necessity. Same reason that we do any work of law. As I’ve become so fond of saying in posts lately, “For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6) Find a longer argument on the necessity for baptism here.

Romans 5:12

I have no problem with the definition of this verse pertaining to a sinful nature. Adam, through his original sin, imputed a sinful and fallen nature to all men. Christ, through His perfect life, imputes righteousness to all men who call on Him (Joel 2:32; Hab 2:4).

Jms 5:14

I have no problem with the elders praying over the sick and anointing with holy oils. The problem I do have is that the NAB translates the word “elder” in this verse as “presbyter,” clearly an attempt to add the presbyter class into the Bible.

In a future post, I will detail the verses found on two lists. There are two of them, Matthew 16:16-19 and Matthew 26:26-38 (and its counterpart within the other gospels) with 1 Corinthians 11:23-29.

The $10 million dollar question asked of Roman Catholic apologists has finally been answered, and not because we asked it about a zillion times.  It was answered because Steve Ray got curious.  The $10 million dollar question is thus:

Which Bible verses are infallibly defined by the Roman Catholic Church?

The answer still isn’t a definitive answer.  Instead, he gives us 4 separate lists, which he asserts are similar, but really are very different.  I thought I’d take a look at each verse over the next few days, compare the dogmatic definition with a traditional, common sense exegesis of the text, and see how different they are.  James White apparently isn’t going to do this.  The only other person I could see doing this is Carrie from But These Are Written, but she’s more of a quotation kind of girl.

I’ll keep an eye out to see if anyone else is doing something similar, and link to their analysis.

Here is each list:

First List

1. Romans 5:12
2. 1 Corinthians 4:7
3. Isaiah 7:17
4. Genesis 3:15 in conjunction with Luke 1:28
5. Philippians 2:6
6. Matthew 16:16-19
7. Luke 22:32
8. John 3:5
9. Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24
10. Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29
11. Malachi 1:11
12. John 6:54-57
13. Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23
14. James 5:14
15. Deuteronomy 6:5 and Matthew 22:37

Second List

1. John 3:5
2. Luke 22:19
3. 1 Corinthians 11:24
4. John 20:22-23
5. Romans 5:12
6. James 5:14-15

Third List

1. Romans 5:12
2. John 3:5
3. Mathew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:23
4. John 20:22
5. James 5:14
6. Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24
7. Matthew 16:16, John 21:15

Fourth List

1. John 3:5
2. Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24
3. John 20:23
4. John 20:22
5. Rom 5:12
6. James 5:14

Starting from the first list, I have no disagreement with the “sin” referred to in Romans 5:12 as “original sin.”  This is our propensity to sin, this is why we are totally depraved.  Remember that famous verse, Romans 3:23: “. . . for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

I don’t have a problem with divine grace as being a gift from God, solely given to us without merit of our own.  I’m just not sure that 1 Corinthians 4:7 is the sole proof text for that concept.

I also have no problem with Isaiah 7:14 defined as a prophecy of Christ.

Finally, I believe that Philippians 2:6 clearly states the divinity of Christ as the RCC asserts also.

Now, the rest of that list I have some problems with, which I will detail in my next post.

When a reasonable human being encounters a phrase like “I want to believe X,” he won’t assume that the person making the statement holds position X. He will think that this person “wants to believe X,” but for whatever reasons does not. I am on record as saying that I want to believe in Young Earth Creationism. In fact, first I state emphatically that I do believe in YEC, but then I begin to notice that the reasons for which I reject the Christ-myth are present to a much greater degree in YEC. In fact, one Christian site lists YEC as a cult with dangerous and destructive beliefs.

Here are my exact words regarding this issue:

We all know that I’m a Young Earth Creationist, that I don’t believe in evolution, and that I work at Burger King. So what? I’m still looking at this argument with the eyes of a person who could be dead wrong, since more scientific evidence supports an Old Earth and universe. I want to believe in a Young Earth since that fits more closely to what the Bible says, . . . Maybe, instead of my previous post on changing over to Young Earth creationist, I should have stated that I want to believe it, but the jury is still out. (quoted by DA, emphasis mine)

I admit that I’m a YEC, but then I go on to say that I want to be a YEC because it fits more closely to the Bible. Then I change my opinion wholesale by the end of the paragraph: “I should have stated that I want to believe it, but the jury is still out.” I’m not a convinced YEC anymore, thank you Mike the Geocreationist.

The original title of the post that DA is quoting is “A Few Unfocused Thoughts.” Maybe next time, DA will grab some of my more “focused” thoughts when he wants to explain my position.

Alas, even when he grabs my focused thoughts, he still (as Severus Snape in The Prisoner of Azkaban) put his keen and penetrating mind to the task, but came (as usual) to the wrong conclusion. Dave quotes a bunch of sound bytes from my various writings in an attempt to prove that I’m anti-Catholic. Again, I’m not anti-Catholic in the sense that I despise or somehow denigrate fine Catholic brothers and sisters who serve Christ as faithfully (or hopefully more faithfully) than I do. The sound bytes serve to highlight exactly the point I have made time and again: I’m against the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

The fact that DA fails to see the distinction between a Catholic person and Catholic doctrine is exactly why TurretinFan put the debate on hold. DA cannot talk about the differences between faiths without doctrine coming up, yet he seems to want to do this.

The central issue is, and always has been, the gospel.

But I think that DA’s final quote from me sums up my no answer the best.

[W]ith a daughter due in two months, a full-time job, a blogging ministry, and three different forums I try to frequent, I know well the constrains [sic] of time. I have responded to you [Steve Ray], I have responded to Jimmy Akin, I have responded to J.P. Holding. . . . at least one of you “famous” apologists have taken the time to read my little old blog, and did leave a comment. And that guy, a nemesis of yours to be sure, has just as little time on his hands as you do! The point is that if it is important to you, you will make the time. . . . If you make a claim, you should expect to be called to back it up at some point. . . . if you are unwilling to listen to what an honest person is trying to say to you, wouldn’t that make you the troll? [quoted by DA, emphasis mine]

I do follow this advice.  I do make time for what is really important to me!

Gene Bridges turned down the debate because Dave didn’t send him a notice by e-mail. He had to Google search to find the challenge on his own blog.

Saint & Sinner turned down the debate because he’s already doing an extended critique of Dave’s book, The Catholic Verses.

TurretinFan deferred the debate  because Dave changed his mind one too many times on the terms, and couldn’t even decide if he (Dave) was going to debate as a Roman Catholic or not.

Even though I am announcing that I’m turning the debate down today, it seems that DA had made the announcement for me Thursday-ish. Either Dave now possesses exhaustive divine foreknowledge, or he jumped to an unwarranted conclusion. I’m guessing the latter.

Even though I created a thread expressly for the DA debate challenge, Dave continued to post notes about it in my blog entry on the celebration of atheist women. He continued to accuse me of saying that Catholics aren’t Christians, which is something that I have never asserted.

I, like Gene, am a little miffed that DA didn’t contact me by e-mail, when my address is the easiest of the whole group to locate: top left corner of my blog. So, along with everyone else, I am rejecting Dave’s Debate Challenge. Even though Dave already did that a few days back for me.

I know that I have promised this and promised this. I’m sorry it has taken so long. New parents and anyone who has suffered depression in their lives will totally understand. I’m sure that many of you have doubted that it would ever arrive. But here it is, in PDF format. I hope that it was worth the wait. Enjoy!

Dave Armstrong has issued a debate challenge to me, as well as to Saint & Sinner, Gene Bridges of Triablogue, and TurretinFan.  The topic is the unimaginably broad question, “Is Catholicism Christian?”

I don’t want to be considered a chicken for not accepting the debate.  However, as I’ve never said Catholicism isn’t Christian, I’m confused as to why I’m being challenged.   What I have said is that certain beliefs and practices within Catholicism have departed from the traditional Christian faith.  In other words, people are saved within the Catholic Church in spite of what it it teaches, not because of what it teaches.

Carrie has a great example of what I’m talking about right here.  Notice how this document states that communion with the Church is the key to salvation, not saving faith in Jesus Christ.

This debate topic is too huge to take on in a 90-minute cross-ex format.  There are far too many areas to delve into in that time period.  You have patristic writings, synods and councils, the ever-popular Marian dogmas, the supposed connection between Augustine and Calvin (a topic that I’ve only seen mentioned in a single line in R.C. Sproul’s Chosen by God), and the papacy.  None of these are topics that I have researched in any great depth, so maybe the focus could be on the Sacraments, which is a topic that I have researched before–I would only have to brush up a bit.

However, new baby, job search, and this blog are taking most of my time right now.  Also, I would like to leave Burger King a little better than I found it, which means that I’m trying to focus a lot of effort on improving my management style.  Of course, I can take those sharpened skills anywhere.

So I’m going to hold off on making a decision on this for right now.  When my baby is on a more regular schedule, then perhaps I’ll talk to Dave more seriously.

There are several notable difficulties in replying to Dave Armstrong, not the least of which being his uncanny ability to ramble on and on about nothing in particular. The fluff in his posts is absolutely unreal.

In responding to his argument that the Vicar of Christ is not a blasphemous title, I have come across a gross example of fluff. DA claims that “disciple” and “vicar” are “not far in meaning” from each other.

Looking at the same dictionary entry that DA was using, Merriam-Webster online, we can see that the definition of “vicar” is as follows:

1: one serving as a substitute or agent; specifically : an administrative deputy2: an ecclesiastical agent: as a: a Church of England incumbent receiving a stipend but not the tithes of a parish b: a member of the Episcopal clergy or laity who has charge of a mission or chapel c: a member of the clergy who exercises a broad pastoral responsibility as the representative of a prelate (source)

The definition of “disciple” is as follows:

1: one who accepts and assists in spreading the doctrines of another: as a: one of the twelve in the inner circle of Christ’s followers according to the Gospel accounts b: a convinced adherent of a school or individual 2capitalized : a member of the Disciples of Christ founded in the United States in 1809 that holds the Bible alone to be the rule of faith and practice, usually baptizes by immersion, and has a congregational polity (source)

These two words have nothing in common. A disciple is someone who is a convinced pupil of another, while a vicar is someone who shares in the authority of a prelate. They are different concepts and I hardly see any similarity between the two.

But this is the type of fluff that becomes a convincing argument in DA’s mind. This is one example of the voluminous chaff through which a person responding to Mr. Armstrong must sort to get to the meat of the argument.

Words in English are precise, and are chosen to convey something specific. No convergence was ever meant or implied between the words “vicar” and “disciple.” Dave needs to head to the book store and get himself a copy of On Writing Well by William Zinsser and carefully read the chapters on Simplicity, Clutter, and Words before he constructs his next “paper.”

DA, as he is affectionately known to my fellow “anti-Catholic” apologists James Swan and James White, has now made two posts, here and here, in reference to this one post from me.

Two posts for the price of one?  Shucks, I don’t know what to say.  This post has quelled my fears about this little item, cited on Swan’s blog:

To the extent that I deal with anti-Catholics at all, I’ll stick to at least influential ones like James White. He affects a lot of people, and so, needs to be countered and refuted. But Swan is a lightweight in the anti-Catholic apologetic world. Let him write posts like this, then. I have better things to do than to waste my time reading them, let alone responding.

I was worried that DA wouldn’t respond to me anymore, even once I post my reply to the Vicar of Christ fiasco from the previous week.  Since, after all, if James Swan is a lightweight, then I must be sub-atomic-particle-weight.

But, I see that my mini-feud with Mr. Armstrong is still alive and well.  Perhaps it is because I’m keeping it more friendly and less drenched with sarcasm than Swan is?  Friendly theological debate is far more edifying and both parties stand to benefit from the interchange.  After all, I’ve learned about perichoresis from this debate and that has placed me in greater awe of God than I already was.  Concepts like perichoresis make me all that much more devoted to Him, solidify my trust in the gospel, and make me all the more willing to proclaim my faith to others.  Perichoresis shows how infinite God really is.

The fact that He is contained by nothing, but in fact contains everything, just leaves me in perfect wonder.  And I suppose I have Mr. Armstrong to thank for starting me on this journey, because if I had never happened upon the information in his blog, I would never have researched it to provide a proper response to his other musings.

I hope that I have, or will, benefit him in some small way as well.