Catholicism: Satanic copy or the real Church.

Bob,


You went from deciding between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, to leaning towards Catholicism, to having trouble discerning if it is satanic or true, to sounding as if you think it is obviously satanic and wondering why I am so misled, you went through all that in a matter of a few weeks. So what follows is my response I started yesterday to a letter of yours from the “deciding if it is satanic” time, and I will end with my response to your letter from the “it is satanic and Dave is a dupe” phase.

You said:

"I have been (and will continue) dwelling on the issue of the RCC. It is one of two things. It is either THE church that Christ instituted, or it is a most satanic copy designed to lead people astray. I find myself in a situation where I am having trouble discerning."

I agree it is either all or nothing. And you should take your time to discern. Here is something that might help. Find all the claimers to the title “Church founded by Jesus” and see how their evidence for the claim stacks up with the Catholic Church.

The hardest one to nail down is of course Protestantism. But if you take their standard idea of an invisible church comprised of all those who believe "the gospel", you will get their conception of what the “Church” is. OK, so put that on the list as exhibit “A”. Now throw on Eastern Orthodoxy as “B”, Catholicism “C”, etc.

Then do some research on what makes the Church the Church. Include everything. Holiness, the gospel, apostolic succession, the ability to authoritatively resolve disputes about theology, etc. Each of these criteria should be there, because each is part of the evidence. Make a chart or something and see who can plausibly claim to have all the points you come up with. For instance, the early Church fathers put a lot of stock in apostolic succession and obedience to ones bishop, and they claimed that was what had been passed down to them from the apostles, so those criteria should be there.

What happened when I did this was I was left with only a few claimants that even tried to meet all the criteria. Mormonism tries for instance. They claim apostolic succession. Obviously they weren’t on my list for long (never really). In the end I had the big 2. Catholic and Orthodox. And I must say, many of the issues you are working through would be the same in Orthodoxy.

But one thing is for sure, Protestantism is not in the running. They do not even claim to have succession! They do not (in general) even claim to have an living, infallible Magisterium!

If I approach the RCC from the standpoint of "authority" - they seem to have a very good argument, and really do appear to be correct. However, if I approach it from what they do and preach, then the parts of the argument only make sense if you buy the whole argument.

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3). (my emphasis)

Jesus told people to obey the Pharisees because they sat in the seat (cathedra) of Moses. He said to do what they said, not what they do. This is a key point. Like the rulers of ancient Israel, the Magisterium of the Church is to be obeyed because they have the authority from Christ, but we don’t always have to “do what they do”. Many of your examples fall into their “doing” not their “saying”. The distinction is everything, as Jesus points out. You need to look more into the distinction between what things are dogma, discipline, pius custom, precept, just farting around, canon law, abuse of a good thing, or none of the above. It seems that you are not making these distinctions precisely enough.

For example, the papal power to depose kings - it makes sense from the RCC structure, but flies in the face of Peter's command to obey earthly authorities.

I have not looked into that issue much. So I don’t know if that was mainly a medieval thing or just a temporary thing or what. But I honestly can’t see how it flies in the face of biblical commands to obey governing authorities. The bible says the authorities were put there by God, so obey everything they tell you that does not violate what one owes to God. If, -if- the Church has the power to depose governments, or to encourage disobedience to them (what it has traditionally done), then wouldn’t that just be another way God could get rid of governments He doesn’t like? So Peter says “obey earthly authorities” in one breath and in the next breath says “Don’t obey Stalin”. Well, I think that makes perfect sense! No contradiction at all. And honestly, that power is enjoyed by all the bishops, not just the pope. Our Archbishop Nienstedt could tell us to ignore Minnesota government attempts to force our children to attend contraceptive training classes for instance. That authority goes right on up to the ability to relieve our responsibility to obey them in anything if things got bad enough. The Apostles command (through the bible) to obey governments can’t be taken woodenly. And neither can the magisteriums statements. In Church history we have lots of examples of good disobedience to governments (from day 1).

Another example: When celibacy for the priests was instituted,

Whoa, wait. Last time I checked St. Paul was talking about how beneficial celibacy was in the New Testament. And as far as being “instituted”, in what way? Was the practice ever dogmatized? [No.] Is it a discipline that has grown over the years for many good reasons? [Yes.] Has the practice been abused at times? [probably, I don’t know… or care] Have there always been married priests in the Roman Rite? [yes] Are there right now? [yes] Even ones with 4 kids? [yes!].
http://www.dwightlongenecker.com/Content/Pages/Bio/

And in the Eastern Rite Catholic churches (and E. Orthodoxy) it is not even a discipline for priests! And like I have said before, this is something people sign up for. As a man with a growing family, do you seriously not see how being unmarried is a great help to someone in the ministry (Paul is clear about this)?



getting married as a priest was elevated to a sin that the pope himself had to pardon.

So if someone promises to not do something and then does that is ok with you? People do not become priests overnight, and they do not get married overnight. If a priest gets married after swearing not to, he is in disobedience to the Church (and thus to Christ).



However, having relations with anyone could be confessed to another priest.

Any sin of any kind can be confessed to a priest. Are you implying that that makes it ok to do the sin? Obviously a one time fling is different than a priests desire to settle down with a family. The situations are just not comparable.



This seems exactly backwards of biblical teaching.

Leaving aside what "seems" like biblical teaching to you and what does not, that celibacy is a good thing is totally biblical. I don’t agree with you at all. And no one is forced to be celibate! They sign up for it!



Not only that, but celibacy was instituted in an attempt to keep wealthy priests from giving their money to their descendants.

I think that is not true. Because you are implying that is the only reason. And I think you are implying some kind of ill will on the part of the Church to “rich priests” (cue the imperial march). The rule is in place to keep the cares of the world out of the church. Priests know what they are getting into. If they want a family, or wealth, or land to pass on to children, they shouldn’t become a priest. (or they could become a Byzantine Rite priest)



If you can't be married / can't have a family, then the church has the "right" to all your earthly possessions.

Should the church not own property? I don’t see why it shouldn’t. And if a Priest owns Church property then his sons will get it. That wont work for very many generations. Also, get real man, owning property orients one more towards business and the affairs of this world more than to what a priest should be concerned with. He should not be thinking of how to pay for college or braces or splitting up property between his kids.



Again, backwards of what one considers "biblical". Peter himself was married (unless you read the RCC bible, in which case his wife is refereed to as sister).

No, of what you consider biblical. Catholics know Peter was married, that fact is explicitly stated in tradition that Peter saw his wife martyred. I have read the account myself, it is beautiful. The "RCC bible" is not trying to pull the wool over your eyes. I don't know where you are getting some of your info but it is way off.

Priest celibacy is a discipline! It is not dogma! It is like holy water, Catholics could stop doing it if they want, and that would be ok.


If you approach it from the RCC "explanation" then it all makes sense - and I get that,


I don't think you do get what the explaination is actually.

but what is the outcome of the rule? Satan has his way with unmarried priests who can't control their lusts. Homosexuals flock to the priesthood. Illegitimate children are born to all these men of God -but it is OK

It is ok? Can you give me a citation?
cause they confessed it to another priest. Pedophilia (the caboose in a long train of sexual sins) enters into the church -

Just the Catholic Church right? Not your Church? Uh huh...

Here is where you have completely gone off the deep end while swallowing a camel.

The incidence of pedophilia is absolutely not a bit higher in the Catholic Church than any other organization, including Protestant churches. And that is according to widely accepted data.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/07/mean-men.html

In fact, my own research leads me to believe that the incidence in the Catholic Church is less once all the factors are balanced out.
thats [pedophilia] OK too cause they confessed it.

Can you give me a citation for this? Why do you think the fact someone can confess their sins means the sin is OK? This reminds me of people telling Calvinists “Well just go ahead and get a hooker, your elect right? So what does it matter?” The Calvinist is not impressed.

Or when Protestants in general are scorned for believing their sins (past, present, and future) are all gone because of Christ's finished work on the cross, so doesn’t that mean they can just sin with impunity?

For most Calvinists and most Protestants in general these examples fail. That is just not what they believe. And neither does the Catholic faith teach that evil becomes “ok too” because we confessed it.


In fact, the more I read and learn, the more it seems like the RCC believes the exact opposite of the protestant truths I recognize.


That is often the case. Is this news to you? You grew up Reformed right? Did you not realize what the “Reformed” thought they were reforming from? And if it is dependent on you “recognizing” a truth, will you ever get it right? How sure are of your abilities to “recognize” all the truths of the Christian faith? If you have changed your mind in the past, what makes you think you have it right now? Wouldn’t God know that we fail in this way and provide us with a sure guide?

Here is an example from the thread you pointed me to:


"Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. (Lumen Gentium, 16)"


Brian applied that to protestants, but the words are clearly about heathens.

Wrong. They are about those who “do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church”. That includes “heathens”, but also unborn babies, Buddhists, frozen embryos, Muslims, retarded people, AND Protestants. AND it includes CATHOLICS who don’t understand their own faith. Of which ALL Catholics, including myself, are to some degree! We are all “heathens” Bob, needing God’s grace to lift us out of the muck. Lumen Gentium is merely pointing out that there are ordinary means by which people come to God. (the sacraments, Baptism, trust in Christ and His Church) God is not bound by the ordinary means. He can do what he wants. As a father of a miscarried baby who was most likely already dead when he was baptized, I take comfort in that.

The RCC teaches that heathens can be saved by good works without the church.

No one can be saved outside of the Catholic Church! PERIOD. Get it? So please learn what Catholics believe before you stuff a straw man and take him all the way to Emerald City! If heathens are saved it is through imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.

And I bet you agree with the idea expressed in the document Bob. You yourself “strive to live a good life” in the way Catholics are meaning. They are not talking about the straw man of “good works” Protestants often have. What the document is saying is did they follow God the best they knew how? That is something you yourself do! When (by grace) the Holy Spirit prompted them, did they respond? Or did they reject? I assume you believe a tribesman who has never heard of the name of Jesus can go to heaven Bob. Assuming you believe that, doesn’t it make sense that he could go to hell also? If he sees someone hungry and does not feed him, that tribesman may go to hell for that. He rejected grace. If he feeds him, he is following Christ. He is responsible for what God reveals to him. This is basic Christianity Bob.

You yourself “strive to live a good life” just like Lumen Gentium says. You strive to obey Christ, you try to be contrite for your sins, you strive to trust Christ more each day. Why do you blame the RCC for teaching something that is false which you yourself practice?


I brought out a few things here - again they "make sense" with the extended RCC explanation machine working at full throttle.

Saying it is a “machine” implies there is no logic or emotion but only a desire to be right at all cost. If something “makes sense” then it should be because it is true, not because of sly arguments or rhetoric. Many aspects of Reformed theology “make sense” to me from within the Reformed paradigm. The reason I reject them is not because they do not make sense, but because they are not the faith of the Church which Christ founded and gave His authority to.



It seems that the RCC's interpretive authority expands not only to the Bible, but also to any statements that any pope through history makes. Why can't anyone just mean what they say and say what they mean?

I think you want everything tied up in a bow and tailor made for Bob in 21st century USA. You’re not going to get it. The scripture is FAR HARDER to interpret than any statements of popes. “Why can't [Jesus] just mean what [He] says and say what [He] means?” I sure wish all Christians could agree on what John 6 says, or any # of other passages of scripture. Oh well! They don’t. Magisterial statements nowhere near as misread. Time, place, intention, and language all matter. And those statements are not “inspired” like the scripture is, so in that sense they are easier to interpret, because they are only the words of men. Not the multivalent words of God. They are protected from error, but are still just the words of men in a certain time period, with their own foibles and such.

When Proverbs 26 says: “DO NOT answer a fool according to his folly” and in the VERY VEXT verse says “answer a fool according to his folly.” Is there a contradiction? Only to the jaundiced eye atheist reader of scripture. To God’s people, we (in general) know what is meant. We are not “explaining away” the text when we give reasons why there is no contradiction. We don’t have an agenda, and we TRUST proverbs. If the same attitude is had with the Magisterium, the contradictions and problems usually melt away. Your quote from Lumen Gentium is being interpreted by you in your own terms and definitions. Right down to the idea of “works”. If you read it in that light, with assumptions the writers did not intend, you will not understand what the writers meant.

(Now my response to your most recent email)


Bob,

First off, you didn’t answer my (bolded, italicized, and underlined) question concerning the African bishop in 2000.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/aprilweb-only/46.0a.html

What do you think you have proved by citing this bishops statement?
I think it is very pertinent. You seem to think naughty bishops disprove Catholicism or something. And I just don’t understand why you think that.



"I can articulate and reject the Roman Mass."

Well if you can, you certainly have not done so. Nothing you have said shows that you understand it.
For instance, I can explain what "imputation" means and why I reject it, you have not shown you understand what Catholics believe the mass to be. You just reject my cursory explanation as unbelievable.
What is more unbelievable: God saying someone does not have sin, when in reality they do (simul iustus et peccator/imputation), or Calvary taking place both in and outside of the temporal realm? I don’t think one is more believable than the other really, they both are hard concepts to fully grasp (at least for me), and in fact I think both can make sense to a reasonable mind. The reason I reject imputation now is primarily because that is not the faith of the Church, not because it doesn’t make sense. I guess for you the mass being Calvary and happening outside of time just stretches belief somehow, yet all the other impossible paradoxes of Christianity fit like a puzzle?

I don't know how seriously to take all of this and how much you even want a response. Whatever, I will keep responding as long as you show even just a bit of desire for one, or if you want to present real arguments of why I am led astray I will mull them over and talk about those ideas. I am trying my best to understand here you are coming from.

I do have responses to what you have to say, but I wonder if you even care. Normally if someone says I am stupid I cut off the conversation, because that really is the end of conversation. If in your eyes I am brainwashed and in a cult, and not "thinking for myself", there is absolutely NOTHING I can say that you will accept.

Honestly when you said "I would ask you to think for yourself. Blind obedience is a sign of a cult."

If you are trying to piss me off, you win.

Blind obedience? Wow you seem to know a lot about me. I do try to be obedient, but I like to think I am not a cool-aid drinking robot about it and just obey blindly. Perhaps I am wrong? Perhaps if you could show me an example of this "blind" obedience I could take the blinders off? One thing about "discussion" or "argument" Bob, is that it is much easier to cast aside a viewpoint you don't like if you use the "poisoned well" fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Cuz hey, if I am "blind", what is the point of trying to put forth effort to SHOW me something? (never mind the fact you haven’t seriously tried to show me anything)
But if I am blind, what else can you do but just quietly pity me and pray for me? *It is so sad that I choose to not talk about religion and never read books or discuss things. I really am just so blind.*

And the "cult" part? Puh-leese. Lets see...

• I guess 51% of Christians COULD be in a cult.
• I guess the church with the most extensive coverage of the planet COULD be a cult.
• All that praying to Jesus I do and seeking to follow what He did COULD be a tricky sign I am in a cult.
• Confessing sin and trying to root it out... cult.
• Thousands upon thousands of the most intelligent men the world has ever produced having no problem being Catholics... cultish.
• Brilliant men like G. K. Chesterton, Marshal MacLuhan, John Henry Newman and hundreds of others CONVERTING to the Catholic Church for reasons of conscience, intellect and principle (not simply marriage or something)... cultish.
• My Protestant sister thinks baptizing babies means it is a cult. She COULD be right. About you and me!
• Believing salvation begins, is carried out with, and ends with 100% unmerited, and unasked for grace... culty.


Anything you say about the Catholic Church being a cult I can turn right back onto you. I see all the same warning signs: A Charismatic leader who spurns all authority, the leaders insistence on his own interpretation of scripture, etc. The main difference is you are only ONE GUY with a congregation of 3.

Which is more likely to not be a cult? A 2000 year old 1.1 billion member multinational organization with a wide diversity of cultures, or .... Bob.

I researched the Catholic Church for months Bob. And before I even considered it, I spent a lot of my hard earned money on Amazon to buy books on sola Scriptura. THE MAJORITY OF THEM WERE PROTESTANT BOOKS. And I read them all. And I gave them a fair hearing, trying to not be biased the best I could. I truly and honestly wanted them to disprove the Catholic authority claim. Some of them, like the shape of sola scriptura, I had already read back in ~'02, but I read it again, with a highlighter. I then had an email discussion with the author (it is on my blog). That book is the premier Reformed book on sola Scriptura. Recommended to me personally by R. C. Sproul Jr., Doug Wilson, and many other local Reformed guys. Have you read it? Have you even read the article on Called to Communion which refutes it?
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/

I doubt you have read either one.

AFTER I read the sola Scriptura books, then I started on the apostolic succession and papacy books. Keep in mind that the books I gave you are some of the THIN ones that were on my shelf. The Fortescue one is the only one I bought before deciding on Catholicism, and even that one is thin and a brief overview of patristic writing on the topic of papal authority. I have 3 other much larger books on THAT TOPIC ALONE that I read also. One of them is just on Matt. 16! The whole book! Not to mention watching debates with the best Protestant apologists, reading many of their articles, interacting with them personally online.
Perhaps you are accusing me of “blind obedience” because you feel yourself being tempted toward blind obedience? I don't know, that is for you to decide. If that is the case, then don't do it. DO NOT become a Catholic for stupid reasons! I keep saying that over and over. If you think "The God of the Protestant church" (whatever that church believes) will "not let you down", and you think the truth is in Protestantism, then by all means stay there! But don't call me blind. I might be wrong, but I didn’t stumble blindly into it. If I am headedfor hell, it is with both hands on the wheel and foot to the floor. But with my eyes wide open. I guarantee I have researched Catholicism far more than you have, I can articulate the positions better than you can, and I was anything but "blind" when I made my decision.



"Crossing the Tiber could lead me closer, or to the pits of Hell. Closer would be nice, but is it worth the risk of my own salvation, and that of my children?"

If you think Catholicism is evil, then don't do it! If I make it, I will hopefully see you in heaven some day. If you are convicted that she could be who she says she is, then pray and research it, and pray some more. The main reason I started researching it was because of my children. I had the nagging feeling for years that I was responsible to teach them the truth of the faith, yet I could not be sure I was not leading them astray. Will the PCA, OPC, or CREC have lesbian pastors in 60 years? Perhaps. Is the federal Vision good or bad? I don't know. These are too important of questions to be left up to us layman. THE Church should be guiding us in these questions, but instead, Protestant churches leave it up to us as individuals to decide. Sorry, but that is not what the scripture says is supposed to happen. When I "take it to the Church" like Jesus says to, I want an answer. I should not have to ask "which church?" My children are looking to me to give them truth. I couldn’t honestly keep giving them my "best shot" at the truth any longer. I knew the true Church was something outside of "me".

And If you can't decide if Catholicism is evil or good, then you need more information. Have you prayed? Have you asked God NO.... BEGGED God for wisdom? Have you studied each topic in depth that you find crucially important? If not, then you need to go back to the drawing board. I suspect that you are being swayed from both sides, including by me, by quips from the internet and fallacious arguments like your paganism one. You need better resources, and you need to try to get under the skin of each side’s arguments- in their shoes. Even the Catholic Answers website can be deadly simplistic sometimes, with one page “just so” papers on very complex topics. When it comes to Protestant apologetic websites, it is a mixed bag too, some are similar to Catholic Answers, with just one page generalizations, some are fair and more in depth, and some are sensationalistic and outrageous, and they talk about obiliscs and funny hats. Ask each side what the best resource for a given topic is, and read each side. Read shape of sola scriptura, then read the CTC article. Decide for yourself, but do the research.
Take care you are not like Naaman, who didn’t like what he heard from the prophet and turned away.
http://www.childrenstory.info/biblestoryforchild/chdbblelishahelpsnaaman.html

Many times now you have said that it appears the Catholic Church is what she says she is... The Church. Well, if you suspect that might be true, then it is worth taking some time to explore. Don't let me or anyone else convince you with simple statements and personal anecdotes. Look at the evidence yourself. Read the Church fathers.

Read the 7 letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who died in the coliseum in 107AD.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/10/st-ignatius-of-antioch-on-the-church/

Read him for yourself here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/index.html

See if he sounds more Catholic or Protestant. Listen to what he says about the Eucharist, Church authority, Apostolic succession, etc.

Get arguments from many sources for the same topic. For instance, your view of the mass is simply not the faith of the Catholic Church. There is much more to it, and you have stated things in a simplistic way that makes it easy to dismiss the Catholic view. Read a couple Catholic books about that topic if it is a big deal to you, and a couple Protestant ones. Honestly, you even oversimplified the Protestant view of Calvary. You seem to imply the work of Christ on Calvary needs no applying, as if the fact that it was once for all means nothing happens to apply it after that. Well, both Protestants and Catholics say it needs applying to be effective to individuals.

" If you want to believe that somehow the elements are "outside of time" so that you are participating in Calvary of the 1st century then you have a much higher threshold for believability than I do."

Huh? So you believe in the Trinity, which is one AND three, AT THE SAME TIME, but believing something can occur outside of time is crazy? Even the Reformed liturgy of covenant renewal is often said by Reformed scholars to take place in heaven outside of time. Nothing unique about the mass in that sense. Even the Reformed believe it. I did/do. This was one of the easiest transitions for me: from covenant renewal to the mass. The parallels are amazing.



"The protestant position, as you know, is that purgatory doesn't exist..."

No. I don't know that. Cuz It aint true. There are prominent Protestants who say it could very well exist, so your info is incorrect. But here again, you show that you just simply need to research things more. This reminds me of when you though the perpetual virginity of Mary was “low hanging fruit” on the tree of Catholic retardedness. I informed you then that many Protestants, including Luther and Calvin, believed it. Augustine believed it too. It just is not as big of an issue as you make it out to be.
"...and that Christs death on the cross pays the penalties for sin."

Of course Catholics believe that. It is sad to have to even say it. So no one will ever go to hell then? Is that the "Protestant position?" Of course not. Because they too believe it needs applying. And there is no "Protestant position" on how it gets applied. There are a dozen Protestant positions on how that happens. And of course Catholics believe that "Christ’s death on the cross pays the penalties for sin" and have their theology of how it is applied as well. I assume you have heard of "sacraments" at some point in your Reformed upbringing?

Honestly Bob, I don’t personally care which way you decide to go. I want you to love Jesus, teach your kids about Him, and I want you to go where you think God is leading you. For me, that was the Catholic Church. For you it might be back to choosing a session you agree with and "submitting" to them, or it might be the Evangelical Free Church or whatever. That is all fine and good. If you make the decision in good conscience, God will be with you. But if you abandon a path you know in your heart could be where God is leading you, that would obviously be disobedient to Him. Only you know these heart matters.

If there are specific, single, issues you want to go into, please let me know if you desire my input. I do better one at a time.

Peace to you and yours,

-David

Response to David Hagopian's Romeward Bound

Tiber river and the Vatican (the water is warm, dive on in!)

Dear anonymous potential convert,


You asked what I though of it, so this is my response to the article by David Hagopian on reasons people convert to Catholicism titled Romeward Bound: Evaluating Why Protestants Convert to Catholicism.

He rushes through lots of topics, some of which are obvious straw men. So I will skip some things. Overall he tries to be fair, but in the end misses the point of these conversions. The worst was his critique of the Catholic convert’s accusation of Protestant interpretive subjectivism. It is just a simple fact that there are many, many opinions of what scripture is saying among Protestants. It is just a fact! And yes, of course that does not consequently mean that they must all be wrong, Catholics are not implying that. But what is obvious to anyone who has ever been in the situation of interpreting scripture in order to find the truth or lead his family is this:

Godly, Holy Spirit filled men interpret the scripture differently.

That blows perspicuity out of the water! The only way to claim there is perspicuity AND Godly men disagreeing is to claim that *obviously* you are right and they are wrong. Or that the other guy has a devil. But that rightly strikes us as arbitrary and arrogant. If someone is content that their interpretation is correct, and is not bothered that men which are his betters in the faith in terms of learning, holiness, and wisdom have a different interpretation, then that is subjectivism, because his opponents feel the same way. He can complain all day that it is not “insipient subjectivism”, but it is. Hagopian says:

“[God] has given His people the means of understanding [the bible] such that the true believer has no need of anyone else -- let alone a Magisterium or Pope on high -- to teach him.”

Ohhh. A *true* believer eh? That reminds me of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, and I believe Hagopian is using that fallacy here. Well I guess we will just ask David Hagopian who a *true* believer is next time we need to do some biblical interpreting. The obvious problem with his statement is it does not reflect reality. Protestants that are *true* believers find themselves disagreeing on interpretation with each other all the time! We have all had the experience of having a trusted teacher who is a *true* Christian as far as we can tell, yet we find another of our preferred teachers who disagrees with him on an important theological issue. Which one of them is not a *true* believer? If they both are, then Hagopian is wrong, they do need someone else to guide them in their interpretation. If only one is a true believer, how the hell will I ever be able to tell that unless they fail in some obvious way, like adultery or something? If they both appear to be faithful, solid, true believers, yet disagree on important issues of interpretation, what should the sola scriptura Protestant do? Hagopian does not answer the question, and my guess is he would want to know what issue was being interpreted and then he would think it was obvious I should agree with his (or his favorite teachers) interpretation. But that is just more of the same. I have often had the situation of bringing up the different interpretations among Protestants of, say… the Eucharist. I bring up the fact to show that there are *true* believers who disagree on interpretation. Often the Protestant who hears this will start trying to convince you of his view of the Eucharist! He will say “the other views are wrong, my view is the right one”. That completely misses the point. The point is that godly and smart men will disagree, and the bible cannot be pointed to as a unbiased judge by both of them to resolve the disagreement. Each becomes their own authority.

That subjective situation just might be how Christianity works. It might really be all up to our individual subjective judgment, with all those who disagree being seen by us as not true Christians, or that they are deceived. I grant that Christianity might be that kind of religion. But if it is, it is a joke and I certainly don’t want a part of it.

But I don’t think it is that kind of subjective religion. I think it makes sense that Christ would leave us a Church to guide us, but it is more than just it “making sense”, it is part of the Tradition (in Scripture and the Church fathers) that Christ gave us such a Church! Even in scripture we have tons of evidence that He DID leave us that kind of Church. He himself says “take it to the Church” when there is a problem. But didn’t Hagopian just say that a *true* believer “has no need of anyone else -- let alone a Magisterium or Pope on high -- to teach him”? If that is true, why would Jesus tell us to resolve a problem by “taking it to the Church?” And what Protestant Church could honestly resolve a problem? What if I want to know about infant baptism, if it is scriptural or not. Well depending on which Protestant Church I ask to “resolve” the problem, I will get the answer I want. That is not a resolution! It is subjectivity! If I submit to the Baptist church’s decision, it is because I agree with them. If I don’t, I will go to the Presbyterian church and agree with their decision. Can they BOTH be the Church which Christ was telling me to ask to resolve my issue? Protestants say yes. With a straight face!

But, if I only submit when I agree, the one to whom I submit is… me.

“Reichert erroneously assumes that a plurality of interpretations necessarily entails subjectivism…”

I doubt that is what Reichart believes. This is a really dry, overstuffed strawman. Of course there can be a plurality of opinion while having a single truth. The subjectivism comes in in the determination of what the truth is, not merely in the plurality of opinion. Protestants have no set way of determining the truth and therefore have many separated sects. Catholics do have such a way in the magisterium, and therefore are united in the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Example: Did the Blessed Virgin Mary die before she was assumed into heaven? There is a variety of opinion among Catholics. The Church has no definitive belief about that issue. Yet there is only one right answer. So there is no “subjectivism” here for Catholics, because the Church has decided. It has decided to not decide. And that is an important decision.

The Catholic Church claims the authority of Christ to determine doctrine, and does so. Therefore the Catholic position is internally consistent, because it actually accomplishes what it claims it can accomplish.

Protestants on the other hand, disagree about all sorts of doctrines they consider to be crucial. Yet where is their authority to mediate the dispute? They say it is in a book they claim will lead them all to the same truth as long as they are a *true* believer. That does not work. Empirically, we can see that there are people who appear to be genuine believers, yet they disagree. Therefore, the Protestant system does not do in reality what they claim it will: resolve disputes and remove doubt about the truth. Right or wrong, the Catholic system does do what we claim it will.

“Just because there are many Protestant denominations and sects does not prove that all of those denominations and sects are false.”

This sounds childish to me. Like my 5 year old saying “just because there is jam all over my face doesn’t mean I was eating jam!” So yes, all the Protestant sects might not be false. But only one can be right at a time! So I guess one of them could have the *true* view of sola scriptura, and be the *true* and real heir of the reformation. And it is obvious to their tiny sect that they are the true believers. Just like it is obvious to all the other sects that they are not. Yes that could be the case that they are the one and only true sect. And my daughter could have not eaten the jam.

“while plurality is not necessarily an indicator of falsity, uniformity is not necessarily an indicator of truth.”

I agree. BUT, the true Church will be uniform! Uniformity alone might not prove it is the Church (there are other things necessary) but unity is a necessary mark of the Church. Obviously Mormons are unified to some degree, and claim to be the only Church, so unity alone does not prove they are so. But any sect or schism that has a non-unified view of the Church cannot be the Church. And very few Protestant sects believe they are the One True Church.

“Truth, you see, is not to be sacrificed on the altar of misguided ecumenicism.”

Thanks for the lecture you pompous blowhard. WHO sacrifices truth on the altar of ecumenism? Is it the Catholics or Hagopian? Lets see, which one sees dispensationalists as part of the Church? Answer: Hagopian. The Catholics do not. The Catholics will not sacrifice the truth for a false unity of ecumenism. The Reformed and most Protestants will. 1.2 Billion Catholics have ONE catechism. If you want to know what they believe, you can buy a paperback for $7 and find out. If you want to know what the “Protestant church” believes, you will simply never know. You will never get two answers that are the same. If ever there were a “misguided eccuminism”, it is the Protestant concept of the invisible Church! If you can understand Protestantism's "invisible Church", you might also be good at nailing Jello to a tree.

“they embrace transubstantiation and believe that at the sound of the bell, the substance of bread and wine turn into the physical body and blood of our Lord.”

This is just totally incorrect. The words of the priest offering the elements in persona Christi are what makes this change, the bell is just for the convenience of everyone at the mass to know when it happens so they can pay closer attention. Christ causes the change, not a bell. Hagopian says “they believe…” then lies about what Catholics believe on a very basic and important point.

“In passing we must also note that lavish churches, while architecturally and aesthetically pleasing to some, come with a hefty price tag. […] But advancing the kingdom of God and meeting the needs of others often compete for the same limited resources.”

That is the wimpy lecture Judas gave to Jesus when the perfume was used on him by the woman. There are no “limited resources” in the Church of Jesus Christ. Christ will provide it’s needs. Judging people for making something beautiful and implying they should have spent it some other way is the same sin Judas was reprimanded by Jesus for. Shame on Hagopian. Go back to your boring, stripped down, bare, regulative principle church and stare at your blank wall. Meanwhile, we Catholics will send money to Mother Teresa’s nuns from our beautiful cathedrals.
“You see, Neocatholics have to name drop because name dropping is built into their ultimate authority (Tradition).”

Yep. I am 100% a name dropper. Starting with the name J-e-s-u-s. Just like it was in the early Church. People listened to the apostles because they “name dropped”. Their authority was primarily from who they were, not primarily what they said. Paul himself says to follow the “traditions” he has handed down “whether by word of mouth or by letter.” Paul is the focus based on his position and his name.

“When all of their [Catholics] rhetorical dust settles to the ground, however, the only true authority left standing is God speaking to His people through His veritable Word.”

When will the “rhetorical dust” settle to the ground for Protestants? After 500 years the rhetoric is more diverse all the time. Would God really speak that kind of confusion to all these people through His word? Better to listen to the men who have the authority handed down from Peter and Paul to interpret the book.

Hagopian also just glosses over apostolic succession, which is historical, and scriptural, and for some people is the main reason for conversion. He also implies that Catholics believe only they have it. Not true. We believe the Eastern Orthodox still have all 7 sacraments, including Holy Orders.

“Falling in love with everything Rome has to offer is ultimately why Neocatholics have found their home in Rome.”

Wrong. Every convert I know has had and does have areas where there was anything but love for “everything Rome has to offer”. Areas where they needed to submit to the wisdom of the Church over their own desires. I find myself in that position frequently. By far the main reason for conversion I have personally encountered, and Hagopian barely touches on, is authority, not "falling in love" primarily. Right or wrong, most converts feel there was just no objective authority in Protestantism, and that it could not claim to be the true Church which Christ left on this earth. That is a big reason! Telling converts how all the other protestant sects are wrong (Hagopian does this near the end) is just more of the same. Even if his arguments are convincing, what authority does he have to interpret scripture and demand others listen to him? Has the apostolic authority landed on his shoulders? Puh-leeese.
Another thing here. What the hell is wrong with falling in love? Shouldnt Hagopian ask why people aren't busting down the doors of his "frozen chosen" Reformed church because they have just "fallen in love" with everything Reformed? I have a lot of reasons for being married to my wife. Lots of great reasons. But a kind of visceral, emotional love better be on my list of reasons for loving her. I converted to Reformed in '01, and Catholic in '10 so I think I can speak to this. I "loved" Reformed theology because I believed it to be the most biblical, the closest to the truth, but I didn't fall in love with it. Once I realized she was who she said  she was, I fell in love with the Catholic Church because she is my mother.

Overall, Hagopian does a weak job in his paper. As a convert myself, read many inaccuracies and falsely attributed motives in his arguments. Many of his examples are obviously not the only reason someone converts (more liturgical worship, beauty, or weekly Eucharist for instance), yet he often ends his critique with the following sentence:

“But [he names some minor issues] do not prove that Catholicism is true. Nor do they prove that Protestantism is false.”

Almost all converts have a couple dozen reasons for converting, and not all of them have the same priority. Sometimes 2 dozen little reasons add up to a very convincing reason for conversion also. That is very reasonable. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. I for one find the size and scope of the Catholic Church to be a very important proof in favor of Catholicism. It alone is not proof of course, but it is significant to me, and was on my list of "circumstantial" evidences in favor of conversion.
Hagopian treats each reason as if it were stand alone, and often even misunderstands the reasons, thus presenting a straw man. For instance, having the mass be the same everywhere in the world is not just nice because one knows what to expect in the way Mc Donald’s is nice because the “Big Macs will always taste the same!” as Hagopian says. It is *nice* because it is the ancient liturgy of the Church! The mass is what was handed down from the apostles! That is the main reason a convert wants the Catholic Liturgy, with matters of convenience or stained glass in second (but still significant) place! Hagopian chooses to gloss over what are probably the primary reasons though, and talks about Big Macs.

“Perhaps after travelling part of the way down the yellow brick road of Neocatholic rhetoric, we are now in a better position to "give an answer" -- in an introductory way, to be sure -- to those who are considering making their home in Rome and even to those who are already there.”

My criticisms of Protestantism are still hanging out there unanswered. So big F Fail on your part buddy. Giving just any "answer" is not enough. And if that is your goal, you will fail. What we converts want is for you to give us the truth, and give it wherever it takes you. It seems more often however, that people just want to give an "answer" even if it makes no sense.

“After all, even Dorothy, with the blink of an eye, realized that her adventure in the land of Oz was only a dream.”

If I wake up and realize Catholicism is a dream, I am abandoning the Christian faith entirely because to me it would be shown to be a complete joke. There is either ONE Church who has Christ’s authority and demands submission, or the whole thing is a big joke. What is implied here also is that Catholicism is too good to be true, like the Wizard of Oz. But this is Christ's Church! Doesn't that seem just like Him to do something so extreme? It is not obvious enough that people don't still think it is fake, but if you give it a chance, and look at its history fairly, it will surprise you as a 2000 year old miracle of beauty holiness and truth.

I'm Back... I think.

Ahh. That was a nice break.

My plan was to stop doing this blog and facebook. Then I found out 2 people have been influenced by some of my links and comments and are strongly considering converting to the Catholic faith. One has just informed me he is basically ready to jump in the Tiber from his OPC Church! I am so glad that I had something to do with that. Nothing makes me happier than to see people come to the Church.

So I decided to come back half way. Even though facebook (contrary to all human reason) does in fact appear to be a good venue for evangelism, it is just not for me. I will leave it at that.

But I do like to blog sometimes. I will just try to be more deliberate about the whole thing so as to maintain my sanity.

This Blog is Done

This is the final post for this blog. I hope it has been enjoyed by some. My purpose in starting it last year was to keep a record of my conversion to the Catholic faith. It has served it’s purpose. I find myself increasingly frustrated with online communication. People say anything and everything, my brain is assaulted with unwanted information on a huge scale. It is just too much to take without going insane. I highly recommend reading Marshal McLuhan or Neil Postman to understand how I feel about the communication technology that we are blindly moving forward with as a culture. Postman’s book Amusing ourselves to death is a must read. In it he proves that McLuhan was right when he coined the phrase "the medium IS the message". Like television, there is no commonly understood teleology (purpose) of the internet, and certainly no teleology for the “social” venues on the internet. Which is dangerous. It is Orwellian, and I don’t want a part of it anymore. I just quit Facebook, and I am downloading and deleting this blog. Anyone who wishes to remain in contact with me can use email. At dub[DOT]lord[DOT]of[DOT]the[DOT]sith[AT]gmail[DOT]com.
This article expresses how I feel in general. To it I would add that as a Christian, I feel that the internet is... well, imodest and dehumanizing. I think that is the best way to describe it. And I don't think that situation can be gotten around easily. If it can be gotten around, it is rare, and not usually done in a deliberate way. We don't know why we have the internet or what it is for, yet we use it constantly. That is dangerous. We need a teleology to continue. And with the state of cultural decay we are in in the west, no teleology is even close to being agreed on. The internet is for everything and anything anytime and for anyone. I cant explain well why that is not good, but I am growing very suspicious of the whole thing. It just feels wrong.

The Orwell in me wants to turn away from the screen in my living room like Winston Smith did in 1984. Am I crazy? Yeah, probably. But in 40 years perhaps I won't be. The internet is de-humanizing. Perhaps it does not have to be that way, but it is. Untill that changes I am severely limiting my involvement in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Postman

I will be trying to do the liturgy of the hours and developing a prayer life instead of staring at a screen so much. Pray that I have success.



Best wishes to all of you! And God bless you and yours!



David M.

Protestant non-participation in Communion

Jed said:

“I am not aware of any protestant group that doesn't participate in the sacrament of communion.”

I replied:

“just off the top of my head, there are people within your own movement that don't. Not the "Grace" churches probably, but the more Acts 28 types. If you disagree, I can show evidence.”

Jed then said:

“Regarding Communion: I don't disagree that there are splinter factions of many churches that either do it very rarely or not at all.”

 

But you did deny that exact thing! And the main ones are Dispensationalist “splinters” like the Acts 28 types. And they use much of the same reasoning you use to reject water baptism.

“If we were really going to be serious and follow Jesus' example we would do it while eating a feast as they were at the last supper. There is a strong tradition in both the Circumcision and Grace for communion.”

Jesus example was not to have a “feast” per se, it was to have a liturgy. The celebration of the passover meal was a liturgical act for the Jews, where they participated in the actual passover, and Jesus transformed that act into the liturgical act of the new covenant when He said “this is my Body” and then said “do this in remembrance of me”. In the original passover the word “remembrance” is used also, and the disciples knew what was going on. And the Hebrew idea of remembrance is far different than ours. Their concept was one of “reliving” but more like actually being there. They would actually refer to themselves in the passover meal as having been there with Moses! It is much more than a feast Jed. It was a participation in the passover for those celebrating it. And they had to actually eat the flesh of the sacrifice to participate. So when Jesus changes it into the “passover” of the “new covenant in His Blood”, they would have understood this in a liturgical way, just as they understood the passover meal. And when He said “this is my body”, you can bet they thought back to the incident in John 6 when he goes on and on about eating his flesh, and that his flesh is “real food”. Once it is in the context of the passover, it is an “aha” moment for them.

And EVERYTHING we know about the early church shows they thought of it this way as well, that it was literally the flesh of God that must be eaten (with faith of course) to gain eternal life. Ignatius in 107AD called it the “medicine of immortality.” St. Paul is really clear to the Cointhians as well that it is “a participation in the body and blood of our Lord”.

“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”

Just like the passover, when we follow the Tradition handed down to us by the apostles and partake in the liturgy of the Eucharist (thanksgiving), we “participate”. We don't merely “remember” in the english meaning of the word.

This leads me to your use of the word “sacrament.” Your denomination calls it an ordinance, and I will bet you $100 bucks that if you ask your pastor if it is a sacrament he will adamantly say “no, it is an ordinance” and he will say it does absolutely nothing other than help us have a reminder of Christs death for us. Sacraments “do” things Jed. Dou believe the eating the bread and wine “does” something? That God acts in a special way? If not, you do not believe it is a sacrament. If so, then you do. But if you do believe it is a sacrament, I would be very interested to know that! Jesus and Paul sure thought it was a sacrament!

Demographics of the Real Presence



Demographics of World Religion 2011 compiled by David Meyer

 Kendra said:

Just a side note, "most Christians" do not take John 6 literally the way you do, just Catholics. Do Calvanists also?

Actually, you are badly mistaken, "most Christians" do take it quite literally, and it is central to their doctrine.

2/3 of them (67%)!

And it is not just Catholic. Remember that Eastern Orthodoxy is half the size of Protestantism, and Catholicism alone is over half of Christianity. And that is just in 2011. Historically it was near 100% who believed in the real presence. Until Protestantism in the 16th century, the vast majority of Christians believed in the Real Presence. So if we take the # of Christians of all time who believed it, I would estimate it being well above 90%

Also, Calvin’s view would be considered by Zwinglians (your view is the Zwinglian view) to be a “Real Presence” view. But most modern Calvinists do not follow Calvin in his thinking on this and have become Zwinglians on the issue.

Calvin believed that we truly and substantially parkate of the flesh of Christ, but that it happens through the intermediary of the Holy Spirit. This was my view as a Calvinist, and I took John 6 quite literally, as the text itself demands.

How do I get 67%?

As far as the demographics of who believes in the Real Presence, We can take the Catholic (51%) and Orthodox (11%) and get 62% of Christendom right there. Although they explain it poorly, I would add 25% of Calvinists, All Lutherans, and certainly some % of Anglicans and other groups to the “Real Presense” list. They (including Luther himself) would interpret John 6 literally. (“Truly I say to you…My Flesh is real food, and my Blood is real drink…”) So I think it is fair to include Anglicans (12% of Protestants) and Lutherans (11%) with a quarter of the Reformed and “other” (3+% of Protestants) ... for a total of ~26% of Protestants being convinced from scripture of the Real Presence. Protestants are 21% of Christianity, and ~26% of 21% is ~5.5%. So 5.5% of Christianity is protestants who believe in the real presence.

If we combine the 100% of Catholics (51%) 100% of Orthodox (11%) and 26% of Protestants (5.5%) we get a total of 67.5% of Christianity which believes in some way in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

I think a lesson here is that we often have a colored view of demographics and history. You seemed to think your view was the strong majority, when it is the minority. When I was Reformed, I knew that Reformed people made up only 11% of Protestant Christianity, and conservative ones far less than that, perhaps 5%? Yet even with that 5% in mind, I was tempted to think of my Reformed theology/Calvinism as a serious player in the game. It just isn’t. If we are talking about conservative Protestants, they are Pentecostal… hands down, and that trend is increasing rapidly.

You might be interested to know that your Mid-Acts Dispensationalist denomination Grace Gospel Fellowship reports 60,000 members. Perhaps we could double or triple that figure for all people on earth with your particular views about scripture? If you are correct, you are really lucky to have found the truth while nearly the entire globe is so deceived! And who believed what you believe before Stam and the others in the 20s/30s? From what I can tell they are the first. (other than St. Paul *of course*) Bulinger would be the closest, but I know you guys don’t agree with his more Acts 28 type view. (he rejected communion btw Jed) Just food for thought. I mean, numbers don’t make something true of course. But isn’t it just a bit weird to be part of something that is so small and goes back less than a hundred years? 150 years tops if you include “traditional” Dispensationalism?

My overarching point is that Protestantism continues to splinter, while it still contains people who truly desire the truth from scripture. Either the scripture is false, or the way Protestants are trying to access its truth is wrong. You simply cannot claim the scripture is “clear” and have thousands of conflicting interpretations. The only option then is to say all the other guys just don’t get it. That is the position you are in. You are forced to say that even among fellow Protestants, who have largely only been around <500 years, that even they have totally missed the whole point of scripture.

So not only have the Catholics and E.O. been utterly and fatally wrong for 2000 years, but even the 99.9% (not an exaggerated # btw) of your fellow Protestants have gotten the scripture totally wrong until Stam and the boys came along.

You can choose to dismiss all this by saying numbers don’t matter, and your right, alone they prove nothing. But it is really hard to take you seriously if you say the Scripture is clear and at the same time only 0.000000001% of Christians who have ever lived and read the scripture can see that same *clarity*. It can’t be clear and yet billions of spirit filled Christians completely missed the main point of the new testament for 1900 years!

My Family is on Youtube!

This is our family's first evangelization video! I noticed our kids were enthrawled by other kids online in videos. So I got an idea to have them evangelize other kids (and their parents possibly!) At the same time it is a great incentive for them to learn their memorization verses and catechism. Enjoy!

Visit the youtube channel for "The Catholic Kids" here.

If you like the video please say a Hail Mary for my family!

Blessings!

David Meyer

To Mom

This is a plant my Mom asked me to video and send to her. Love you Mom!

THIS is what we need to pray for Fr. Corapi

For Father Corapi,

That the Lord would Shut his mouth.
That he would return to his order and prostrate himself before his superior.
That he would live out his life as a silent cloistered monk praying for the Church.

Please dear Lord, hear our prayer. Have mercy on your Church and defend us from men like Corapi who would heap scandal upon scandal. Close his mouth Lord.

In nomine Patris et fillii et Spiritus Sancti

Does the Bible say the Church rejected St. Paul and immediately apostatized?

In the context of the Catholic claim to succession, Kendra cites verses in scripture showing people “rejecting the truth within the church since before the church even began.”


My response which I will defend here is twofold:


One, that these verses do not show that the Church was “plunged into the long dark ages for more than a thousand years”.

And two, these verses do not show the Catholic conception of apostolic succession to be false.

The verses are from this article:
www.bereanbiblesociety.org/ohair/HTML/BEREANFEBRUARY1936/notes.html
Here is the pertinent paragraph:

“Nevertheless, the devil also seems to have scored a great victory in that he instigated a deadly hatred, against the human teller of this secret. It is very important to see that from the time he told this mystery, Paul was forsaken by many of his old friends. Study carefully Philippians 2:20 and 21; Colossians 4:11; II Timothy 1:15; II Timothy 4:10; II Timothy 4:17; Ephesians 6:19 and 20. The great apostasy which plunged the Church in the long dark ages for more than a thousand years, commenced with the rejection of Paul’s message, mystery and ministry. At least eighty per cent of the confusion and delusion of our troubled days is also directly attributable to the same cause.”

First, I will admit that these verses showing very early apostasy are *consistent* with there being “The great apostasy which plunged the Church in[to] the long dark ages for more than a thousand years, commenced with the rejection of Paul’s message, mystery and ministry.”

But they do not prove any such thing happened, and they are also consistent with a quite opposite situation with a faithful remnant of a Church under severe persecution (what I would say), which is what we find in the scripture (St. John) and in the late 1st and early 2nd century with men like Pope St. Clement (90’s) and St. Ignatius (107). These men also speak extensively about unity and apostasy. Clement does so to the SAME Corinthian church Paul had written to! That right there shows that the Corinthians had not apostatized even as late as the 90’s. In 107 Ignatius writes to 6 different churches (including Ephesus, where St. John had been) that had not apostatized. And as far as these apostates rejecting Paul in some *specific* way, no, because every single other (I’m pretty sure) New Testament writer besides Paul gives examples of or speaks against apostasy. For instance if we look at 1John, which was probably written in the 90’s, he also talks about apostates and “anti-christs”. 30 years after Paul’s death there are still Christians apostatizing, just like today. Also Paul nowhere implies in these verses the apostasy is universal (could effect the entire Church.)

These verses do not prove a mass apostasy started with Paul any more than the rich young ruler leaving Jesus or many of his disciples who leave Him in John 6 proves that that was the point of a great apostasy, or that the apostles abandoning him on the cross proves it. We all can agree that in the early church before and after Paul there was apostasy. No one denies that, but the entire NT taken as a whole paints a picture of a Church losing apostates yet surviving intact.


Second, these verses do not show the succession (which we clearly see in scripture) to have been broken or to not be in effect in the NT. One of the great things about succession is that it shines light like a laser on apostasy. In fact it is the only way to objectively identify apostasy. When multiple men claim to speak with the authority of God and all use scripture to back their claims, succession can show us who is legit and who is not. The actual scriptural proofs for succession are not the topic here, so I wont side track.

My point is merely to say that these verses are consistent with apostolic succession and in no way disprove it or show it to not be in effect in NT times. Apostolic succession does not imply there will not be apostasy from the Church, in fact it assumes it! It is an objective way of identifying the Church and who seperates from the Church. Those who do not even claim apostolic succession (such as you Pauline Dispensationalists) generally have some other way of determining if they are an apostate. (for your denomination I believe it would be something on the order of "not recieving the free gift of God's grace") But history (even right away in NT history) has shown that abandoning physical apostolic succession and the teaching of the apostles is what makes an apostate. That is why John says “they went out from us”, and why Paul says he hands people over to Satan. There is a positional change, not just merely a change of doctrinal opinion, but a change in *who’s authority* the apostate is under. From the apostles and their successors they leave to go to some other authority.

I will comment briefly on a few of the verses:

Here is a link to Biblegateway with the scriptures all on the same page for reference:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202:20-21;%20%20Colossians%204:11;%20II%20Timothy%201:15;%202%20Tim.%204;%20Ephesians%206:19-20&version=DRA


Phil. 2:20-21: “For I have no one like him, who will be genuinely concerned for your welfare. For they all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ.” Paul is highly recommending Timothy, one of the faithful men whom he has ordained in the line of succession. His point is not to say the whole Church is apostate, but that Bishop Timothy is a diamond in the rough. (Btw, in 2 Tim. 2:2 Paul give the first four generations of apostolic succession.)

Col. 4:11: “and Jesus who is called Justus. These are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me.” He is talking about those “fellow workers” he is working with directly, face to face. He is not implying everyone else is apostate. Side note: Notice he is working for the “Kingdom” program as well, which is the only NT program.

1Tim. 1:15: “You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes.” Paul is talking about those who have left him to rot in prison, as the following verses show. He is not saying that every believer in all of Asia (Turkey) has apostatized.

2 Tim. 4:10, 17: (The writer of the article meant 16, not 17 I think) Again Paul is merely talking about those who have abandoned him in prison. As verse 9, and 10-15 put into context. There is no “Great Apostasy” that is “commencing with the rejection of Paul’s message”. Just in chapter 4 alone, Paul mentions 14 people by name that are not apostate, he mentions a whole household, plus 5 cities (including “all the brethren” at Rome, including the future pope Linus who is also mentioned) including Ephesus and Corinth which have non-apostate churches.

Eph. 6:19-20 I am at a loss. I don’t understand how this verse relates even a little bit. Paul asks for prayer that he may boldly preach the gospel. How does that relate? Perhaps it was mis-cited?


I set out to show two points. And I think I have shown here how #1 these verses *do not* prove that “The great apostasy […] plunged the Church into the long dark ages for more than a thousand years, commenc[ing] with the rejection of Paul’s message, mystery and ministry.” And that #2, they do not in any way contradict the clear NT teaching on apostolic succession. Even if half the NT Church apostatized, there still was a sizeable Church that we see (in the NT and early Christian writings) handing down the apostolic faith.

At the very least, someone inclined to use these verses as reason to believe that a “Great Apostasy” began directly after Paul must concede that it is quite reasonable for others to disagree about that particular interpretation even based on scripture alone. (The vast majority of Protestants disagree vigorously with that interpretation) If we include post NT history which shows a continuing faithful church directly seeded by the apostles…

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

...the case becomes even more undeniable.