Category: Apologetics
The Bibles of the Reformation and KJV-Onlyism
Mithras
Call No Man “Father”?
In a recent online exchange, I was talking to a non-Catholic called Salvador who made some claims about the Early Church which were demonstrably false, so I asked him if he had read any of the Early Church Fathers.
He was now stuck in an awkward position, he didn’t want lie but he also didn’t want to admit that he hadn’t actually read any of the primary sources from the Early Church and had been speaking from a position of ignorance.
No Fathers?
He therefore decided to avoid the question and instead attack the use of the word “father”:
I’m not going to do the catholic thing, THERE IS ONLY ONE FATHER , peace
Salvador
In response to this, I pointed out that Paul refers to himself as a father:
For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
1 Corinthians 4:15
Only for those who first preached to you the Gospel?
Salvador conceded that he was wrong “in a way”. He then claimed that I was taking this passage out-of-context. He said that:
1 Cor 15 is talking about THE IMMEDIATE PERSON who presented the gospel to the newly converted.
Salvador
St. Paul says the same thing of Timothy, but St. Paul wasn’t the first person to preach to Timothy, he was already a disciple by the time he met Paul:
And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Ico′nium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Acts 16:1-3
However, even this aside, Salvador didn’t even attempt to justify his claim using Scripture, which is what you’d expect a Sola Scriptura Christian to do. After all, Matthew 23:9 says “call no man your father upon the earth”. If we’re going to interpret this passage literalistically, no exceptions are given for those who first preach the Gospel to someone.
All the evidence
There’s no getting out of it, St. Paul calls individuals, as well as congregations, his children and describes himself as their father:
I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children.
1 Corinthians 4:14
My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!
Galatians 4:19
…for you know how, like a father with his children, we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you
1 Thessalonians 2:11
To Timothy, my true child in the faith…
1 Timothy 1:2
To Titus, my true child in a common faith…
1 Titus 1:4
Not just Paul…
Apparently St. Paul wasn’t the only one who apparently didn’t know what Jesus said about calling earthly men “father”, because Peter and Stephen make the same mistake!
Peter refers to their ancient Patriarchs as fathers and King David as their father:
“The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, …”
Acts 3:13
“…by the mouth of our father David, thy servant, didst say by the Holy Spirit…”
Acts 4:25
Stephen also refers to their ancestors, specifically Abraham, as well as to members of the Jewish Council in front of him:
“Now there came a famine throughout all Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction, and our fathers could find no food.”
Acts 7:11
“Brethren and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, …”
Acts 7:2
What does that leave?
I don’t think Salvador actually interprets this passage as literally as he suggests. I’m sure he calls his biological father “Dad” and that there is a similar dynamic with any children. Also, if someone really interpreted the Bible this literally, he would not be able to call someone “Reverend”, “Pastor”, “Doctor”, “Rabbi”, “Instructor”, or even “Mister” as these would fall under similar condemnations.
What about the Early Church Fathers?
In case you were wondering, I never got Salvador to return to the question of what he had read from the Early Church, despite bringing it back up in every response. He couldn’t bring himself to lie, which is a good thing, but he also couldn’t bring himself to admit that he knew nothing of the Early Church, which was a shame since then he might have started reading the Early Church Fathers and discovered that the Early Church was Catholic.
Soul Sleep and Parables
I recently had a conversation with someone who believed in Soul Sleep. Naturally, I pointed to various passages in the Book of Revelation of Saints awake and busy in Heaven, as well as asking questions about other New Testament passages:
- When a man dies, does he go straight to judgement , or straight to sleep ? (Hebrews 9:27)
- When we are away from the body and with the Lord, are we asleep with the Lord? (2 Corinthians 5:6–8)
- At the Transfiguration, were Moses and Elijah briefly woken up and brought up to speed with Jesus’ mission (Luke 9:31) and then sent back to sleep?
- In Hebrews we’re told that we’re surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, alluding to a stadium in which former winners are cheering on those currently running the race. However, is this great crowd all asleep ? (Hebrews 12:1)
However, I spent most of my time pointing to the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man:
“There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Laz′arus, full of sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz′arus in his bosom. And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz′arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.’
But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Laz′arus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’
And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.’”
Luke 16:19-31
Jesus speaks about two men dying. Do they go to sleep? No – they go to Hades, where one receives blessing and the other receives torment. If Soul Sleep were true, Jesus should describe them both going to sleep until the Final Judgement and then each being conscious of their eternal fate – it would be an easy re-write. However, Jesus doesn’t do this – not only are they both fully conscious, the Rich Man is concerned for those back on earth.
This can’t just be dismissed because it’s a parable – in every other parable of Jesus he describes a real reality this one is no different. In reality, sons leave their fathers, coins lost, and seed falls on different kinds of soil. If such an afterlife made no sense to His hearers, it wouldn’t have been a very good parable. It would have been like Jesus telling a story about reincarnation to make the same point, that we should care for our neighbours, and particularly the poor.
Who are the Samaritans?
Frank Turek – Charitable but still uninformed about Catholicism
The very fact that the video’s title talks about “last rights” rather than “last rites” doesn’t instill great confidence…
I love Frank’s ministry, but he really should never speak about Catholicism. Every video and podcast I’ve seen and heard of him talking about Catholicism is littered with inaccuracies.
Saying “I was brought up in the Catholic Church” is no guarantee you understand what the Catholic Church teaches. The biggest example of it in this video is where he and the lady in the audience assert that Catholics believe they’re sacrificing Jesus again.
I hope Franks mum will see this video and read to him the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit”.
Catechism of the Catholic Church (Paragraph #1366)
This paragraph goes on to quote the Council of Trent:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.=
Council of Trent (1562): DS 1740; cf. 1 Cor 11:23; Heb 7:24, 27.