Bible Teaching aimed at helping you enjoy the Scriptures which are the Word of GOD!


Bible Study Broadcast Info

Preaching by: John J. Malone, Sr - JABSBG*

XML Sitemap

Disagreeing to Agree. - Comments (3)

Printer Friendly Category: Applied,Articles,Roman Catholicism
Author: John Malone
Date: 24th February, 2007 @ 11:11:27 AM

Recently, I received a reply to some Scriptural exegesis that read:

I refuse to argue with you, John.

As far as I am concerned, I have the one true religion and you can try to convince me all you want and I will not falter in my own belief, just as you apparently will not falter in your own.

Here is where I believe as mature Christians we will disagree.

So no arguing please.

Obviously, this itself is an argument – one frequently used – which has as its aim to stop a discourse, in this case specifically, my discourse to a small, but heavily Roman Catholic audience.

Here’s the short version: Stop writing.

I’m obliged to answer, in this case.

I admit, it has been a long time since I heard the phrase “on true religion.” Perhaps it has been 40 years or more! Indeed, that is what Roman Catholicism thinks and teaches: it is no misunderstanding. It declares openly there is no salvation in Jesus Christ apart from it.

Now, I can see why it is that a Roman Catholic True Believer (RCTB) would want to stop someone from arguing from the Scriptures. RCTB’s almost always invoke that ploy, and even at times will do what the most wicked of people do (according to the Scripture): {suppress the truth in unrighteousness.|Rom 1:18}.

Now I realize that I am different than most. Today, believers are very quick to embrace RC’s – even RCTB’s – as fellow believers. This is problematic. Because all believers have a nature as sinners – despite being give a new nature at the new birth – there is no sin we cannot demonstrate, even in extreme propensities. There is no reason to name heinous sins here: suffice it to say all are fair game.

For this reason, God has given us more criteria than profession of faith in Christ by which to direct our acceptance of others, and according to which we can guide our associations. These are found in a few places in Scripture, the most easily understood being in {1st Corinthians 5.|1Cor 5:9-13}

I recall when my dear cousin received the Lord as her Savior. It was quite an ordeal. She was hearing from her neighbor and attending a Bible study in my home, and for some period of time was coming under obvious conviction. As I was, she was raised RC, and she actually was a RCTB deeply into adulthood.

One Thursday night, we lingered after the study, and she made a clear confession of faith in Christ, and that she depended on His finished work for her salvation from sin. I was convinced she possessed eternal life, and told her so. We began to discuss what she was going to do from here on in: would she persist in Romanism, with it’s attendant idolatry, now that she had come to faith in Christ?

She said she would.

I said to her, “Well, this is sort of good news – bad news. Now that you have believed in Christ, I am happy you are my sister in the lord, but said that I can’t have anything to do with yot.” Then I showed her the strictures of {1st Corinthians 5|1Co 5:11}, especially the portion about idolaters, and explained some of the idolatry of the RC system, especailly concerning mariolatry and transubstantiation, the RC claim that Jesus Christ is “really, really” present in the “consecrated” wafer.

I understand idolatry, but not from Christians. How could those who have turned FROM idols continue to turn TO them? It’s inconsistent at best.

We just have to inform believers of the Scriptures, and watch their behavior, to see if the conviction of the word of God as it operates on the new nature in that believer will bring about conformity. If it does not, and we see gross immorality suh as idolatry, we follow what the Scripture tells us to do.

To her credit, she abandoned the idolatry, and conducted an honorable Christian life until her premature death by cancer, where she showed her faith in amazing – even heroic – ways.

“Argumentation” has become more and more of a politically incorrect word as public discourse in our society becomes more and more a thing of the past. Somehow, to publicly disagree, or to posit another point of view in the face of some strongly held though errant opinion, is considered as rude as moaking noises at the dinner table.

And yet, we have the definition of “argument.”

In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises.

The example of the apostle Paul, the prototypical servant of Jesus Christ (Whose apostles ate without performing the politically correct ritual washing), who wrote {the theme verse(s) of our ministry,|Rom 1:15-16} and was widely known as “Saul of Tarsus” a citizen of {“no mean city,”|Acts 21:39-40} was to look for opportunity to engage in argument, especially publicly.

Tarsus was an intellectual and political force in the world in Paul’s day. It was the Roman Provincial Capital of Cilicia, a cultural center, and the intelletual capital of the Stoic philosophy. It was home to the leading Stoic philosophers of the first century, including Athenodorus, Zeno, Antipater, and Nestor.

Not only did Paul achieve intellectual superiority in Tarsus, to become “Saul of Tarsus,” but he also had already visited Mars Hill in Athens, and brought the powerful arguments of the Word of God to those trendy intellectuals there, who had the temerity to call Paul a {“seed picker.”|Acts 17:18}

Rome, however, being the capital of the empire, took arrogance to its zenith. We see this kind of arrogance today in our own large cities, where make believe intellectuals deride those who believe the Bible as inferiors, all the {while closing down the public fora|Rom 1:18} (“hold”=”suppress”) where discussions might take place.

Paul writes emphatically that he has frequently desired to come to Rome to preach the gospel of Christ, about which he is “not ashamed,” because it is God’s dynamite unto salvation To both Jew and Gentile: so powerfully does it move the minds of men.

What he means is this: he is very confident to take on the arrogant intellectuals of Rome because that is {the work of the gospel.|2cor 10:3-5}

Now today’s answer to the arrogance of Rome is still, in part, Rome and Romanism. This is not news. Especially, Jesuit Romanism. From the outset, Jesuit Romanism has set up schools, beginning in Sicily, to elevate the thoughts of man – interestingly forms of Stoic philosophy – above the Scripture. In fact, the whole Roman system of magisterium is a “strong hold” that is to keep the Scripture from the minds of men: a suppression of the truth in unrighteousness.

So, when you try to get me to voluntarily withhold the Scriptures in any forum, forget about it. I disagree to agree.

I’m arguing.

Comment by Joanna » 11th April, 2007 @ 11:11:41 PM

First, a correction of the statement about “no salvation outside the Church”: “The Church” in this situation refers to those saved by Christ in their entirety. So basically it’s the same as saying there’s no salvation other than the way Christ intended it – through Him. If you read the documents of Vatican II, you might be shocked to find the belief that people in other religions entirely can be saved. They are not saved through their religions, but through Christ, even though they might not know it. Clearly “no faith outside the Church” is not the teaching.

Secondly, an understanding from Scripture of transubstantiation (it’s a long quotation, but it’s worth it):

John 6:47-

“‘Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.’
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true 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 have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.’ These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, ‘This saying is hard; who can accept it?’ Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, ‘Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.’ Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, ‘For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.’
As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”

Look it over. “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” “Then many of his disciples who were listening said, ‘This saying is hard; who can accept it?'”

If not in the Eucharist, where does anyone ever eat and drink the body and blood of Christ? What would have made this teaching so hard that many of His disciples wouldn’t have been able to accept it?

It IS hard. It’s also a miracle. But if you’re not eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ, it certainly seems like Jesus is saying you do not have life within you…

Comment by John Malone » 16th April, 2007 @ 09:28:38 AM

Well, Joanna, you have given me a real opportunity here, and I am sorry to be so late responding. But it’s tax time …

I’ll respond here briefly to each of your points.

First, I see that you have been trained some in the casuistry that must prevade Boston College there, what with its army of Jesuits assaulting your young mind.

BC plays decent basketball, and I was as happy as anybody when Doug Flutie hit Phelan in the end zone against Miami, but let’s be realistic: Flutie is not Tommie Frazier, the Eagles are not the Huskers, and you aren’t being taught correctly from the Scriptures,

Let’s take your position about the Roman Catholic church. You argument is mine, not a Roman Catholic one! I (and the Scriptures) claim that anyone who is born again (from above, by faith alone in Christ alone), is born into the church of God in heaven, and is therefore and thereby “saved.”

But that is NOT Roman Catholic doctrine. RC doctrine is that there is no salvation outside of the RC church: that the RC has the keys to the kingdom of heaven, as they claim to have inherited from Peter. In fact, here is Roman Catholic dogma as quoted from a RC source:

The Papal Bull (well named) Unam Sanctum of 1302 has never been revoked or compromised. It reads, in part, “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” That’s pretty clear what the Roman catholic Church’s position is.

Now, in the middle 60’s, the RC made its major push to ecumenicism, and resumed the attempted destruction of Protestantism in Europe that began with Rome’s counter-reformation in the late 1500’s, with America now targeted, too. Continuing in the casuistry of John Henry Newman (Newman!), the 2nd Vatican Council issued forward gobbledy-gook that, in essence, said if you believed in Christ, and did not truly protest Rome’s decadence, sin, and departure, you were – unbeknownst to you even – in some kind of junior relationship with Rome, and therefore salvation came to you, YET STILL BECAUSE of your relationship to the Roman Catholic Church and NOT because of your relationship personally and directly to God through Christ.

If this sounds like circumlocution instead of the plain statements of Scripture – “he that hath the Son hath life, (1st John 5:12)” or, “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life (John 6:47)” – then you have heard the sound of one-hand clapping grasshopper: it is the sound of the mumbo-jumbo of Romanism.

Second, we have the funny way that RC’s look at John 6:47-60 as quoted above from a very bad translation (the Jerusalem Bible, as taken from the corrupt Latin Vulgate “translation.”) Joanna says, “If not in the Eucharist, where does anyone ever eat and drink the body and blood of Christ?” This may be one of the few verses a RC will ever take literally. Of course, it isn’t to be taken literally, and if Joanna had quoted for us the beginning of the section, we would know the CONTEXT is Jesus saying, “I am the bread of life.”

Now, if we are going to take this section literally, we must take it ALL literally.

That means, although Jesus looked just like a human being, He wasn’t. He was a chunk of bread. As such, he could be eaten. In fact, He actually took the form of manna before He became a man.

Those people there should have just started chewing on him right then and there, and they would have, in so doing, had eternal life by Catholic thinking. Because, after all, one must LITERALLY eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus. If the apostle thught this, why wouldn’t they have taken a bite out him in His sleep, or at least tried to? Just sneak up, and chomp down hard enough to draw blood.

Further, if these matters were all literal, when the Lord Jesus took bread and wine at the last supper, when he said “This is my body,” to what was he referring? He was flesh and blood right there. If he meant the bread (not a wafer) was His body, and not a representation thereof, what of his physical body? Did it become something else? Further, when he held up he cup, and called it the New Covenant, is that what the new Covenant is? A cup that has been misplaced?

I do not care to get profane or blasphemous here, but I am using the argumentum ad absurdam to show the paucity of logic in the “Eucharist” question. Let me go one further. In {Acts 15:25-29}, Roman Catholic “transubstantiation” was outlawed as a practice in the then-Gentile churches, because the believers were prohibitied from ingesting “blood,” just as God had enjoined in Noah’s covenant.

Of course, no one objects to RC “transubstantiation” (the word “Eucharist” means “good grace,” = give thanks) on the grounds of devouring blood BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS IT DOESN’T REALLY HAPPEN.

Nearly finally, let me say that despite the Jesuit approach of subterfuge, you cannot have it both ways. You have claimed first that there is salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church, and then you claim that if I am not eating a transubstantiated body and blood of “Jesus” I do not have life. I am pretty sure you would not claim that someone who is not a Roman-Catholic-appointed-priest has the magical skills to perform the “miracle.” Therefore, according to Rome, one who isn’t going to RC Mass and “communion” doesn’t have life in them.

Finally, and as for you, if you have already eaten Jesus body and drunk His blood through the transubstantiated wafer, why is it that every year at “Easter” time you are obliged to do it again? Does it wear off, and if so, when and why?

Comment by Frank Cantu » 18th January, 2010 @ 01:26:18 PM

thank you John because I know I could not have made it more clear than you just did. Coming from a heavily dominated Catholic area, I hear the same argument that Joanna has, and it is now becoming more clear that at least in this area the best argument coming from the priests, is that anyone who does not attend or visits any other church is in danger of hell, and can never return to the Roman Catholic Church, therefore losing any chance of getting to heaven. Jesus is Lord and He said “I am the away the Truth and the Life and no ome comes to the Father but by Me” John 14:6. Joanna would do well to study 1Corinthians 11:23-26, and absolutly v’s 27-30, the call to examine ourself first.

3 Comments » Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

  • There are some errors in your input.