Ask The Pastor

Thursday, June 5, 2003

> Hello again, Pastor Martin :) I do appreciate your response, and
> thank you for respecting my decision as my own.

Kirsten,

No one can tell you how to live for the Lord. It is too personal.

> I've become defensive in trying to see the Protestant side, because
> any time I have tried, the person has overtly tried to convert me.

Sorry about that. There really is no Protestant side. Nor is there a Roman Catholic side. The issue is much deeper. (I'll explain further
down.)

> I'm really not interested in leaving the Church, because as I said,
> I feel like God has called me into it.

Then you must remain where you are. Who knows what the Lord is doing. This is why Paul tells us not to judge anything before them time. He said that the Lord Himself would reveal the secrets of men's hearts. (He meant this in a good way.)

> But, I am sincerely interested in the Protestant view. I want to
> learn it, not because I want to accept it.

Kirsten, I will be unable to speak to you of a Protestant view. But I can share my heart and my understanding of the Scriptures.

> But, I know there are tons of Bible scholars out there, both
> Catholic and Protestant. Neither side of the issues has idiots of
> blind faith, so I know there must be good arguments for both sides.

This is true. Many of the arguments will be about institutionalized religion, and issues of theology. But that is not what the Lord came to give us. In fact the Lord did not come to give us another religion at all. He came to give us a personal relationship with Him. It is only when this area is taken care of that we can be placed (by Him) in the flock of His choosing.

> I also, don't want to enter into a debate, because, as I said, I am
> no Catholic apologist. I am new as a Christian, and even newer as a
> Catholic.

Thank you again. I can perceive that you have a love for the Lord. I'll do what I can to share things that you may be able to relate to.

> I've read a lot, but I'm no expert by any means. Personally, I
> accept the authority of the Catholic Church over my own scripture
> interpretations, so learning the other side of the issues is not
> threatening to my Catholic faith, because I will uphold the
> doctrines I feel have Christ's authority rather than what I'd like
> for it to be saying.

You certainly have the right to what you believe. It is not for me to tell you differently.

> So, all that said, I know there are logical arguments for the
> Protestant churches, and I'm curious to know them.

Christianity has three primary divisions, and within these three divisions are a multiple of groupings. You have Greek Orthodox (with its children), Roman Catholicism (with its children), and Protestant (with its children.) The term Protestant is sort of a generic term. It would be too tedious to deal with 'arguments' for Protestant churches. If you have a question(s) in particular, you can ask them.

> You're right that my history of the Church is slightly biased, but
> remember too that I went into my search assuming that Protestants
> were right, merely because the Catholic Church seemed too foreboding
> (sp?) and weird.

Your search was very broad. But I'm of the opinion that the Lord places us where we need to be.

> Protestantism seemed much more comfortable on the outside
> because of how conformed it is to today's culture.

Depends on the group. Christian Challenge is nondenominational. We don't conform to today's culture. (Not quite sure what you mean by this.)

> However, in my search this past year, I finally and firmly made my
> decision and planted my loyalties.

I see.

> Now, I don't understand how so many highly intellegent people have
> made their decision the other way.

Kirsten, it isn't merely a matter of intelligence. The struggle you are concerned with is not really a Biblical struggle. You are concerned about which religion is right. There is no right religion. There is only a right relationship with Jesus. If your heart is right with Him, this alone is what gives you righteousness.

Jesus attempted to explain this to the lady at the well. In His discourse with her, she finally brought it around to which religion was right. She said, "Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship." The Lord responded by disannulling 'places' as being the right place to worship.

He said, "Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. ... But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers." (John 4)

The Lord's point is that God will not be found in buildings, in mountains, in denominations, in religious institutions, in orders, not in anything that can be seen with the naked eye. God is Spirit. He is to be found in the hearts of those who truly love Him, and have come to Him through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Jesus said much the same to Pilate; "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." Did you know that more Christian blood has been shed by other so-called Christians than by any other source. (This is why I wanted you to read Foxe's Book of Martyrs.)

It is institutionalized religion that causes bloodshed. Each group wishes to proclaim that they are the way. The truth is that only Jesus is the way. When we walk with Jesus we are walking with the Truth. Truth is not a religion. Truth is a Person.

> I know about the geniuses in Catholicism; and, I've got open access
> to Catholic theology from my Church! and my priest and so many
> others in my church. So, I am just curious to see the arguments that
> have pulled equally intellectual people the other way.

I understand.

> So, if you still don't want to answer, or if you don't have time,
> that's ok.

I have a little extra time today. Leaving for Washington D.C. in the morning and will be gone a week. You caught me at just the right time.

> But I'm glad to see that at least you seem like you will be
> respectful of my faith.

I would never disrespect your faith. You are too important to God for me to treat you otherwise.

> And, I would love to get responses, since the others I've asked
> haven't been too helpful. I figure too, that you know your stuff
> since you're an apologist ;-)

Thanks.

I'm not so much an apologist as simply a country preacher who believes that the gospel can take care of itself. : )

> So, if you have the time and the volition.. here are my questions:
> 1) You said that the Catholic Church was not what the apostles
> founded. I've heard and read early letters of Church Fathers clearly
> upholding Catholic beliefs such as the Real Presence in the
> Eucharist and honoring Mary. So, what evidence makes you say that it
> wasn't Catholic?

Kirsten, when you read the word 'catholic' in the early Christian writings, they are not talking about the Roman system. The term catholic comes out of the Latin. It simply means universal. There was no Roman Catholic system as you know it for over 400 years after Christ.

The other things you mention, that is eucharist and Mary, the view differed pretty much. But I don't need to go there. I don't go beyond what the Scriptures teach. The Bible says that if we add to God's Words, we will be proved to be a liar. (Cf. Proverbs 30:6)

> And do you think there was a Christian church in between the
> apostolic age and the Protestant Reformation which was true to
> Christ's Church?

There have always been Christians. The problem was in the institutionalization of Christianity, where freedom of conscience was tampered with. This began to be a real problem with the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Creedal religion has always been a blight on the Christian faith.

> Or, if you don't, how does that coincide with Christ's promise to
> lead His Church into all Truth by the power of the Holy Spirit, and
> that it would always prevail against the gates of Hell?

First understand what the word Church means. It is the Greek word ekklesia. Ekklesia does not speak of an earthly institution. It speaks of those who have been called to Jesus Christ and have received Him as their Lord and Savior. The Lord's Church is not something you can see with the natural eye. The true Church will be found among all Christian groups, but no single Christian group has the right to say that they alone are the church.

> 2) What is the defense for sola scriptura. The only defense I've
> been quoted is the line in Timothy (2 Timothy 3:16) that says that
> all scripture is inerrant and useful for teaching.

There is much more than 2 Timothy 3:16. You may want to consider Proverbs 30:6; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Revelation 22:18,19; Isaiah 8:20.

Let me share something of a personal note. When I was in the Navy (1959-63), my heart became stirred towards the Lord. I went to a Catholic priest on my ship. I felt that perhaps he could help me. The priest was kind. He gave me a book entitled, 'Father Smith Instructs Jackson.' The book was designed to help a Protestant who wished to convert to Catholicism. The problem was I already knew too much Scripture. As I read the book, it became apparent that the Catholic faith did not accord with the Scriptures. That ended my appeal to the Catholics. (I keep the book in my library.)

I didn't share that to put you down. Its just that as a person who had been in Sunday School in my younger days, I had more knowledge of the Bible than I realized. It came forth as I read the book. But the stirring in my heart wasn't really about religion at all. The Lord was calling me to Himself. The call worked. I fell in love with Jesus and have served Him for a great many years.

> I can't see that being the only defense of sola scriptura since it
> doesn't mention that scriputre "alone" is worthy for teaching.
> Because, as I said last time, the Catholic Church also fervently
> declares the "inspiration and inerrancy of scripture."

The Catholics place the Scriptures as one among other authorities.

> We too, use it to teach. We value scripture so much that we have
> three readings at every Sunday Mass, and at least 2 at any daily
> Mass.

You need to read your Bible for yourself.

> So, that quotation alone, I don't think would carry the arguement.
> Which leads me to believe that there are other supports, but I
> haven't heard them.

I see.

> Again, the Catholic Church says that sola scriptura is a "tradition
> of men" that was invented with Luther.

The apostles taught us not to exceed the Scriptures.

> And, we would point to the many scriptures of St. Paul and St.
> Timothy which uphold oral tradition:

Would you be so kind as to share these many Scriptures? By the way Timothy himself did not write any Scriptures.

> that i! s affirming churches for keeping true to both what they
> wrote and said. So, what are the arguments for sola scriptura
> besides that one verse and how do you respond to the verses about
> oral Traditions?

You haven't given me any verses to respond to.

Kirsten, it seems to me that you are not entirely convinced about what you believe. I don't mean this in a disparaging way. I do know that you need to become more familiar with the Scriptures and what they relate to. Christianity was not born in a void. It is the response to Moses and the prophets. But I have to leave that off for now.

> Is it said somewhere in the Bible that it is the only source for
> valid teaching?

Yes --- We are never to exceed 'what is written.' When Paul said that, he was speaking of the Scriptures.

> Even if it did, though, the qu'ran (sp?) and the Book of Mormon also
> claim to be inspired and inerrant, so what are the further arguments
> without having the authority of one, holy, universal, "true" Church
> from the apostles saying that the Bible is true?

You must figure this out for yourself. I can't do all your homework for you.

> Those are my two main questions at this point. I'm sure I'll come
> across others.. but would you be willing to have an e-mail dialogue
> about the issues?

Kristen, I am leaving for Washington in the morning. As for an email dialogue, I probably won't have time for that. It will depend on where this seems to be going. If you are convinced that you are right, then anything I say isn't going to be of value. And I don't care much for sharing things that will be of little benefit.

> I'm really excited that in your on-line ministry, I seem to have
> found a place for well-informed Protestant answers without having my
> faith in jeopardy.

Your faith is not in jeopardy from me. I recommend that you look at our Hebraic-Foundations studies. They may be of some help.

> So, if you're willing, I would really appreciate it! If not, that's
> okay too, I'll keep looking. Thanks for your quick and nice
> response! again, Yours in Christ!

Can't speak to that right now. I'll be gone for a week. If I can help you process some things, I will try to do that. But I really don't have time to get into extended dialogue with anyone. My duties do not leave me the time for that.

Blessings,

Buddy

Bro. Buddy Martin - Ask the Pastor

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Lawrence "Buddy" Martin
email: Bro.Buddy@ChristianChallenge.org
Web: http://www.ChristianChallenge.org

Back to the Christian Challenge International home page!