Answering a Catholic

[cih1355]

I have been debating a Catholic on another discussion board. I have been discussing the fact that God is sovereign and that He can elect anyone He wants to be saved and pass by anyone He wants. I have talked about the fact that man has no goodness at all and that everyone deserves to go to hell and that God does not have the obligation to save anyone. I have talked about how Christ was punished for the sins of the elect and that Christ's sacrifice satisfied God's justice. I have said things like, "God is holy. He cannot tolerate any sin. God's justice demands that there is punishment for sin. Everyone deserves to be punished in hell. If a person goes to hell, he is getting what he deserves. How is God unjust if someone goes to hell?".

The following is what he said:

"Well, that Jesus recieved their punishment is doubtful theology to begin
with; God does not require blood sacrifice; he is not a pagan idol. But you
cannot remove the arbitrary (and therefore the unjust) from your
description. Mostly, you limit the power of God, and remake him in your own human image. God died for all men, as the Bible tells us. If the judge
condemns some and rewards others for the same crime, then the judge is
unjust. But God is not unjust, or at least mine isn't. Your god seems to be
a different matter. That is why I prefer Christianity to fundamentalism.

Yes, but you say he did something other than what he did: select a few
people (mainly modern Americans) to be saved and damned all the rest, just for the hell of it. You say he created people who *must* sin, who must have his aid in order to be saved, and yet denies that aid to the vast majority of them, condemning the vast majority to never-ending torment on a mere whim. That's some "god" you worship. The devil must be having a good laugh at such theology. In his worst moments, he couldn't say such bad things about God as you do in your best moments. "

I never called myself a "fundamentalist". He thinks that Protestant is just another word for fundamentalist. I never said that God chooses mainly modern Americans to be saved. I never said that God created people who must sin. I talked about the total depravity of man and that man, by nature, cannot choose God or please God.

 

[cupotea]

One of the biggest problems I see with would-be Catholic e-pologists is that they read all the junk emanating from "This Rock" and "Envoy" magazines and they read Keating's "Catholicism and Fundementalism" and think this somehow qualifies them to become licensed messageboard flamers.

The guy you're dealing with here is, obviously, tilting at windmills. He has either run accross some actual fundies who hold bizarre ideas or he has somehow digested the mistake that all conservative Protestants are Fundies and that his canned 'apologetic' will answer them. Evidence of this is that he is arguing against charges not actually made in your discussion.

This can be very difficult to deal with. You probably shouldn't take his bait but if you choose to do so here is some ammo. I would urge you, rather, to continue with the points you have actually made and if he persists in not actually interacting with them , preferring to live in apologetic la la land, throwing up red herrings and debating someone who isn't actually present then at some point you'll need to walk away...

I'd be more than willing to join you in this discussion if you'd like...just give me the url, I have rather a lot of experience arguing with Catholics.

Here's what came to mind...

[quote:58deae88c8]"Well, that Jesus recieved their punishment is doubtful theology to begin with; God does not require blood sacrifice; he is not a pagan idol. [/quote:58deae88c8]

The following quotations are from the English Standard Version of the Holy Bible.

[i:58deae88c8]Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. [b:58deae88c8]Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.[/b:58deae88c8] For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you." And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and [b:58deae88c8]without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins[/b:58deae88c8].[/i:58deae88c8]- Hebrews 9:15-22

[i:58deae88c8]and (we) are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [b:58deae88c8]whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood[/b:58deae88c8], to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.[/i:58deae88c8] -Romans 3:24-26

[i:58deae88c8]Since, therefore, [b:58deae88c8]we have now been justified by his blood[/b:58deae88c8], much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.[/i:58deae88c8] -Romans 5:9

[i:58deae88c8][b:58deae88c8]In him we have redemption through his blood[/b:58deae88c8], the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,[/i:58deae88c8] -Eph 1:7

[i:58deae88c8]For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, [b:58deae88c8]making peace by the blood of his cross[/b:58deae88c8].[/i:58deae88c8] -Col. 1:19-20

[i:58deae88c8][b:58deae88c8]He himself bore our sins in his body [/b:58deae88c8]on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed[/i:58deae88c8]. 1Pe 2:23


Etc. etc. etc.

[quote:58deae88c8]But you cannot remove the arbitrary (and therefore the unjust) from your description. Mostly, you limit the power of God, and remake him in your own human image.[/quote:58deae88c8]

This is probably calumny and representative of a poor apprehension of what the actual Reformed stance is. It's hard to make someone see that their understanding ias wrong when that understanding is the warp and woof of his own faith.

It is not we who have a god requiring judgment of those already acquitted.

[quote:58deae88c8]God died for all men, as the Bible tells us. [/quote:58deae88c8]

Challenge him to show you where.

[quote:58deae88c8]If the judge condemns some and rewards others for the same crime, then the judge is unjust. But God is not unjust, or at least mine isn't. Your god seems to be a different matter.[/quote:58deae88c8]

This is a complete misapprehension of Reformed Soteriology. It is not that God condemns some and rewards others for the same crime. Such an idea would indeed be unjust and preposterous. The Reformed view is that all men are sinful, deserving only of death, judgment and Hell but that God, in His mercy has seen fit to show mercy to some of them, saving them by Grace alone.

The last sentence is another ad hom jibe...we do indeed have different gods but it is not ours Who departs from His own clear testimony in Revelation.

[quote:58deae88c8]That is why I prefer Christianity to fundamentalism.[/quote:58deae88c8]

This is a jibe, it amounts to an ad hominem since the implication is that you are a "fundementalist". I would challenge him to define the word and also to define the word "Evangelical". See if he thinks they are synonymous.

[quote:58deae88c8]Yes, but you say he did something other than what he did: select a few people (mainly modern Americans) to be saved and damned all the rest, just for the hell of it.[/quote:58deae88c8]

I have no idea what the reference to "modern Americans" comes from since I haven't seen the whole context of the discussion. But Reformed soteriology makes no reference to anyone's nationality.

[quote:58deae88c8]You say he created people who *must* sin, who must have his aid in order to be saved, and yet denies that aid to the vast majority of them, condemning the vast majority to never-ending torment on a mere whim. [/quote:58deae88c8]

No, He created Adam, holy and just and free. Adam sinned and ALL men ever afterward are sinners in nature as well as in deed. This is only what the Bible teaches confirmed by any experience of life in the world. We don't just need His 'aid' in order to be saved, we need Him to change our hearts, to remake our very natures. This He does by giving the gift of faith in the finished work of His Son, Jesus Christ to the elect.

No specific reference is made to a 'vast majority' on either side at least not in any of the confessional documents. Reformed confessional theology is silent as to how many people will be saved or what proportion their numbers will bear to those who die and go to hell.

[quote:58deae88c8]That's some "god" you worship.[/quote:58deae88c8]

lovely...He worships a god who can't save him without his help and he'll throw stones at us?

[quote:58deae88c8]The devil must be having a good laugh at such theology. In his worst moments, he couldn't say such bad things about God as you do in your best moments. " [/quote:58deae88c8]

Nice parting jab.

 

[JohnV]

Curt:

[quote:10b7fc199c]This is probably calumny and representative of a poor apprehension of what the actual Reformed stance is. It's hard to make someone see that their understanding ias wrong when that understanding is the warp and woof of his own faith. [/quote:10b7fc199c]
Here are my thoughts on the above situation:

Michael is right, I think. Good call. You have to watch for that in discussions with differing theologies or philosophies. They like to "group" you with those that they can easliy refute, and that "group" is really just a caricature of the real thing; but they do not refute you yourself, or what you are trying to defend. Usually they will take the high position then, as if they hold the "orthodox card" , as if the burden of proof is on you for the entire position, and not just for certain arguments. The jabs are intended to try to make you take up the whole position at once, so that they can maintain their pigeon-holing tactics. Michael is right in observing that this is an ad hominem; it comes in many ways, oftimes underhandedly, like in the quotation above.

Don't let it get in the way of the issue at hand. When you see it, you know that it is he that is in a corner, and not you. If he had truth on his side, why not appeal to that? What can it hurt to do that? Keep calling him out, but do it gently, with care for him. Don't just destroy his argument, but minister to him. After all, absolutely nothing is lost if you lose the argument, for the truth goes on just as before. All that has happened is that he did not heed the witness of the Spirit, and it served to show you where you need to work on your own abilities and/or knowledge, but the Bible is still the Bible, still with no dent in it. We know that the Word is the truth, and that we abide in the Word. The only one who stands to lose is the Catholic, and it will not be a loss if he loses; but a great gain if he heeds the truth. Nor is it a loss if you lose, for it is a benefit to know where you need to work and improve on things.

So try to get the winning/losing thing out of your mind. It is the Spirit's work to change hearts, so comply with the Spirit in the work. It is really He that is slapped by unbelief, and we feel that because of our love for Him. A slight against God is the sin; but a slight against us is a crown for us. If you see him hacking at you personally then you know that you are hitting something. Let that have its full effect; then all you have to do pray for him. Don't try to redeem yourself in his eyes; Christ already did that for you.

I'm afraid I did not help too much with the actual argument. I think Michael already did that. This is more along the lines of approach and self-assurance in taking up the challenge.

 

[Craig]

I won't give any "advice"...but I found these things strange in his argument:
[quote:94665f5db8]Well, that Jesus recieved their punishment is doubtful theology to begin
with; God does not require blood sacrifice; he is not a pagan idol...[/quote:94665f5db8]
Later on he says this:
[quote:94665f5db8]God died for all men, as the Bible tells us[/quote:94665f5db8]
So, God doesn't require blood or punishment for sins....yet, God [b:94665f5db8]died[/b:94665f5db8] for all men? Who was the death for? Obviously to save men, right? What's the diff between having Christ die in order to save men and Christ dying to appease God's wrath? He still hasn't escaped a bloody, ugly death being central to redemption.

It's just a poor attempt at an argument altogether. Maybe point out the above, then quote Scriptures that Michael posted. He won't swallow the whole thing at once, but if you show him his weakness, point out the Scripture, then he can only accept what you've said or change the subject.