![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2024\/04\/Svendsen4-scaled.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/p>
*****<\/p>\n
\u201cPlease Hit \u2018Subscribe\u2019\u201d!<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,500+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (w your email address) on the sidebar to the right, above where there is an icon bar, \u201cSign Me Up!\u201d: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a\u00a0YouTube<\/em>\u00a0channel. Please also consider\u00a0following me on Twitter \/ X<\/a>\u00a0and purchasing\u00a0one or more of my 55 books<\/a>. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n <\/p> It never did \u201cbecome\u201d a sin, since sin is sin, in God\u2019s eyes. God is eternal; therefore contraception has been a sin for eternity (unless, as the Anglicans would have it, God \u2013 and hence Christianity \u2013 changed His mind in 1930).<\/p>\n I\u2019m saying have the courage to take a stand. You\u2019re courageous enough to bash the Catholic Church with impunity, but won\u2019t even say that your fellow Protestants are wrong on something or other?! Your fathers Luther and Calvin did it; why not you? Or is it the case, rather, that God doesn\u2019t care about truth when it comes to baptism, the Eucharist, ecclesiology, etc.? Is Protestantism thus reduced to an Orwellian \u201csome doctrines are more true than others\u201d? Besides, you can disagree but still be brothers in Christ. I\u2019m doing that in this group. My Church does it officially with regard both to the Orthodox and Protestantism. The two aren\u2019t mutually exclusive, you know.<\/p>\n Guess again. I say it is primarily referring to love, but also secondarily to doctrine, because Scripture doesn\u2019t separate the two, but holds them in unity (no pun intended).<\/p>\n No Dave, I am not going to anathematize a brother in Christ for believing wrongly on the issue of baptism or the Lord\u2019s Supper. I will certainly disagree with him, and point out his error.<\/span><\/p>\n Maybe we\u2019re not that far apart after all, then. But you miss the fact that I was asking for James White\u2019s answer as to what the\u00a0Apostles\u00a0<\/b>believed on my 18 points. The original context of my challenge was for James to define his own terms. His reluctance (and everyones\u2019) is heartening to me at least to the extent that Protestants are squeamish about their own disunity, chaos, and relativism, as evidenced by the fear of dealing with it straight-on in answering a friendly Catholic critic. One tries to avoid dilemmas that might possibly be fatal to one\u2019s position. Understandable. But I will not cease my probing, especially as long as you guys accuse or misunderstand my Church. What\u2019s good for the goose is good for the gander.<\/p>\n It occurs to me that it is exceedingly strange for Protestants to relegate the Eucharist to relativism and relative insignificance, when our Lord (yes,\u00a0ours<\/b>, despite John MacArthur\u2019s insistence that I worship a different one) made it a point of division Himself. John 6:66 tells us of \u201cmany of his disciples\u201d forsaking Him. Now, if the Eucharist were just minutiae on the grand scale of matters theological, why didn\u2019t Jesus beg and plead with these people to stay?<\/p>\n If your view is correct, it seems reasonable that Jesus should then have said, \u201cHey, don\u2019t go: this isn\u2019t a matter which should divide us \u2013 we agree that I am God. Who cares about what happens in the central act of Christian worship!\u201d And we know also that Jesus said \u201cunless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you\u201d (Jn 6:53). But that\u2019s \u201csecondary,\u201d \u201cnon-essential\u201d? I\u2019m sorry, but I can\u2019t give my assent to such an incoherent and unbiblical viewpoint. Call me obtuse if you like.<\/p>\n And of course, Scripture intimately relates baptism with both repentance and salvation (for the latter, see e.g., Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21, Mk 16:16, Rom 6:3-4, Acts 22:16, 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5). But no matter, \u201cus Protestants value a false, pick-and-choose unity rather than biblical truth.\u201d Or so it seems to this observer, one who has lived a committed Christian life in both worlds. Now I will give you a multiple choice test. Please mark an \u201cx\u201d in the appropriate boxes (Protestants can have more than one right answer, Catholics only one):<\/p>\n YOU\u2026..BIBLE \u2026..APOSTLES\u2026\u2026.CHURCH HISTORY Now, for your homework tonight, I\u2019m asking you to explain why (if you differ from either the Bible, the Apostles, or the vast majority of Christians for 2000 years), your belief diverges from that of the others. In 500 words or less. Thank you. Protestants will be graded on a scale, so that most of them will get an \u201cA\u201d no matter what their answers are . . .<\/p>\n NOTE:\u00a0<\/b>I want\u00a0all<\/i> of you Protestants out there to take this test, not just Eric. You\u2019ve ignored my questions long enough, and it is getting downright rude! [none answered]<\/p>\n What do you call Lutherans or Calvinists drowning and torturing Anabaptists \u2013 a quibble among family? How do you view the multitude of capital offenses for heresy in Protestant countries in the 16th and 17th centuries (is that \u201ccoercion\u201d?). What about the thousands of \u201cwitches\u201d who were put to death by Protestants (the Spanish Inquisition having condemned witch hunts as mass delusion)? Need I offer any more examples? But the wicked Catholic Church and its anathemas . . . How do we regard Protestants\u00a0now\u00a0<\/b>(however one regards our views in days past when men still cared enough for religion to fight over it)? And how do many of you regard\u00a0us\u00a0<\/b>(e.g., James White and Phillip Johnson, and you)? A bit hypocritical of you, wouldn\u2019t you say, Eric? You ought to spread your moral outrage around a little more \u2013 shall we say indiscriminately.<\/p>\n Is this not a fine example of bigoted, foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Catholicism? \u201ckilling . . . all Protestants who opposed . . .\u201d? We don\u2019t condemn anybody to hell, not even Luther. This is not what \u201canathema\u201d means, any more than it was when Paul used it. The Catholic Church doesn\u2019t claim the authority to sentence people to hell. Last time I checked, that was God\u2019s sole prerogative.<\/p>\n Good, then please give me your list of my 18 points, since you\u2019re a good, \u201cuncompromised\u201d Protestant. That will be a wonderful start for the man on the street to ascertain apostolic and Christian truth. Real progress . . .<\/p>\n We\u2019re working on that. Rome wasn\u2019t built in a day. :-)<\/p>\n \u2013 then, indeed, I\u00a0would\u00a0be compromising doctrine. Certainly no more than you and yours are now! It\u2019ll be a giant step up!<\/p>\n Now\u00a0that\u00a0<\/b>is a true statement, provided the beliefs are\u00a0true<\/b>, of course.<\/p>\n I agree 100%. Thus the question boils down to (as always): is what the Catholic Church teaches true or false? (and the same for Protestantism). But you (and James White) try to caricature my position as calling for a blind, absolute, clone-like unity (hence the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses comparison). Of course not, as this is clearly lunacy. My whole point in critiquing Protestant disunity is that\u00a0that\u00a0<\/i>is clearly, unarguably against the biblical injunctions to be unified, of \u201cone mind,\u201d etc. Try as you may, neither you nor any Protestant can overcome the strength and validity of this objection to your position. That\u2019s why I asked someone \u201cwhat would convince you that your view is wrong: 240,000 sects?\u201d (rather than 24,000). What does it take? How absurd and chaotic must things become before you start to question your first principles? <\/p> I respectfully disagree. This is one where we will have to just agree to disagree. You guys don\u2019t think my \u201cperspicuity\u201d argument applies to you, and us Catholics return the favor when you say liberals in our ranks cast doubt on our general position on authority\/Tradition, etc. So what can you do? I\u2019ve seen nothing to cause me to change my mind on this particular point thus far.<\/p>\n I stated that if one had a Bible on a desert isle, and that\u2019s all he had, sure, he could be saved. But I also said that some Church or authority will be ordinarily necessary, so that, in the final analysis it is a moot point. I believe that all Catholic doctrines can be found in Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly or indirectly. If that is material sufficiency, then I am in that camp. But if it means that somehow the Church and Tradition are thereby taken out of the picture as not intrinsically necessary to Christianity, then I must dissent, because I don\u2019t see\u00a0that\u00a0<\/i>in Scripture (I believe\u00a0sola Scriptura\u00a0<\/i>is self-defeating, in other words). Catholics regard Scripture as\u00a0central<\/b>, but not\u00a0exclusive<\/b>, with regard to authority and Tradition. Thus, to critique\u00a0sola Scriptura\u00a0<\/i>does not at all imply a lessening of respect for the Bible, as has been implied in this group and elsewhere.<\/p>\n All in all, personally I see this \u201cpartim-partim<\/em>\u201d debate as boring and irrelevant (that\u2019s not to say that others can legitimately think differently). I think we need to determine what Tradition(s) were in fact believed by Christians through history, and whether these can be found to possess a scriptural basis, and I consider Church history as evidence of God\u2019s hand, working to sustain and protect His Church (however that is defined) from error. I approach these things (i.e., the\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\/Tradition debate) from an historical and pragmatic perspective (and of course, biblically, as do we all), rather than more philosophically. I\u2019m all for philosophy, but since the nature of authority is a very practical matter, I think it is better to stick to a pragmatic method in this case.<\/p>\n Ha ha ha. I meant Protestant figure, of course. In any event, we can determine what our Church teaches by looking in the Church\u2019s official documents. That\u2019s the point I was making.<\/p>\n <\/p> Aaargghhhh! :-( (exercising much self-restraint). I merely make one mini-argument in reply: if this is true, how is it that people in this group assume without question that Catholics believe certain things: e.g. (just recently), a very high regard for apostolic Tradition, apostolic succession, the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, and Perpetual Virginity of Mary, infused justification, baptismal regeneration, an\u00a0ex opere operato<\/i>\u00a0notion of sacramentalism, papal infallibility, papal supremacy, etc.? On the other hand, there is no identifiable Protestant \u201cposition\u201d other than C.S. Lewis\u2019s \u201cMere Christianity,\u201d which takes in Catholic and Orthodox theology anyhow, and so is not even distinctively Protestant. About all that \u201corthodox\u201d evangelical Protestants agree on is\u00a0sola Scriptura\u00a0<\/i>and an agreement that Catholicism must be wrong (and even a strict\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i> view is questionable among Anglicans and many Lutherans).<\/p>\n According to which tradition: the Lutheran, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Anabaptist, Church of Christ, independent pentecostal<\/a>, non-denom, Baptist, Church of God, Mennonite, Quaker, United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Assembly of God, Copelandites, self-described \u201cBible Christian,\u201d or some other group of your choice, from among the multiple thousands, or simply your own \u201cbiblical\u201d view?<\/p>\n Do you positively assert that such a scenario is a priori<\/em> impossible? If not, what would constitute adequate proof for you?<\/p>\n I teach communication skills to corporations for a living. One of the exercises I love to do to illustrate the ineffectiveness of a message that has gone through many hands is this: I whisper a sentence to one of the participants in the seminar, and then have that person whisper the same message to the person next to him, and that person in turn whispers the same message to the next person, and so on until the message has made its way around the room (approx. 30 people). Then I have the last person to receive the message stand and recite it \u2013 invariably to the roaring laughter of the rest of the class who cannot believe how much the sentence has changed in the process! (try it sometime). The simple fact is, we will botch up the message every time. That,<\/i>\u00a0my friends, is why God chose to commit the essential teachings to writing in the first place.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, I\u2019ve heard this. But using it to shore up\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0is a classic example of the fallacy behind Protestant presuppositional objections to Tradition: they assume that (Catholic) Tradition is\u00a0merely<\/i>\u00a0human, and therefore subject to all the foibles of that weak vessel, whereas we assert that it is guided by the Holy Spirit and hand of God, in order to preserve it from error (by means of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church).<\/p>\n You assert that God could produce an infallible Bible by means of fallible, sinful (mostly Jewish) men (such as David, Matthew, Peter & Paul), and confirmed in its parameters also by fallible, sinful (Jewish and Catholic) men, and translated by fallible, sinful (mostly Catholic) men, and preserved for 1500 years before Protestantism was born by fallible, sinful (mostly Catholic and therefore apostate, according to James White) men, too. We contend that God can and does likewise create and sustain an infallible Church and Tradition, which is not a whit less credible or plausible.<\/p>\n As I\u2019ve stated many times, we are discussing Christianity (which requires faith and a belief in the supernatural, God\u2019s Providence, etc.), not epistemological philosophy. Ours is a faith position, but no more than yours (I would say less so). James argues like an atheist when he tries to pretend that our view is largely irrational blind \u201cfaith in Rome,\u201d whereas Protestantism is altogether scriptural, reasonable, and not requiring faith in any institution outside one\u2019s own radically individualistic, subjective, existential \u201ccertainty\u201d (perhaps also, in his case, Calvin).<\/p>\n One must examine premises, and their relative merits. That\u2019s why I like to dwell on the foundations of belief-systems, knowing that if they are found weak and crumbling, the superstructure resting upon them will necessarily collapse. The two pillars of Protestantism are\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0sola fide<\/i>. Like Samson, I pushed the two pillars down, and the house of Protestantism collapsed upon my head, killing me as a Protestant, but luckily, a coherent Christian alternative existed, so I was resurrected. :-)<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,600+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty-five books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here\u2019s also\u00a0a second page to get to PayPal<\/a>. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including\u00a0Zelle<\/a>), see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
But what of, say, contraception? Luther and Calvin thought it murder, and all Christians opposed it until 1930, but now it is a perfectly moral \u201cchoice\u201d in the opinion of the vast majority of Protestant sects. Thus, \u201corthodoxy\u201d changed, and on the flimsiest of grounds (faddism and moral compromise).<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n\n
At this point, I\u2019d accept ANY interpretation. Again, I reiterate: at least Luther and Calvin had the strength of their convictions to excommunicate other Protestants for dissidence, because they truly believed in their own brand of Christianity. There is something to be said for that.<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n
\nBelief in the Real Presence
\nBelief in the Eucharist
\nBelief in infant, regenerative baptism<\/p>\n
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n\n
Thus, you guys went from one extreme to the other: baptism once meant everything; now it means virtually nothing.<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n\n
(how could it, since you are divided into five camps?). So your sinful divisions lead to compromise on doctrine.<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n
\n*<\/span><\/p>\n
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n
\nAs the old pop song goes, \u201cThere, I\u2019ve said it again.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n*<\/b><\/span><\/center>\n
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n\n
Now when James White says that Arminians are not true Protestants (and hence, by deduction from his own premises, not true Christians, either), who am I (or any inquirer) to believe, and why? What \u201cCatechism\u201d or \u201cpapal figure\u201d would I appeal to in that case?<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n
\n*<\/b><\/span><\/center>\n\n
The obvious retort is: of what use is \u201cone\u201d written \u201ctradition\u201d when it produces doctrinal chaos? What is gained by that? It\u2019s as if you have one ruler, but everyone has different systems of measuring with it!<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n
\n*<\/span><\/div>\n