because you never know...

I was recently visiting a hardward store with my dad looking for parts to a faucets. Following my "manly" inclinations I went to look at the knife section where an older gentleman who I recognized from a communication class I had taken almost six years ago. He asked me, "may I help you?" to which I simply responded, "No, thanks. I'm just looking." "Come on, let me help you!" he quickly replied. This actually caught me off guard and then he asked for my name.

After telling him, he quickly recalled who I was and re-introduced himself. The reason why he remembered me no doubt, was because he and I shared Christian convictions in our communications class against a Wiccan young lady who spoke regarding her religion. Also, while I was still a member of the Methodist campus ministry, I was able to invite him to a luncheon where I spoke on the Beatitudes.

We meet people all the time. Sometimes we meet them and stay friends with them. Sometimes, as in this case with this man John, we met, shared faiths and never crossed paths for almost six years. Reluctantly, he remembered all that I had said in that study on the Beautitudes. This was so encouraging. As a methodist who was Reformed in theological persuasion, I was not well recieved by many there. Constant bickering against me and arguing against me made that period of my life very difficult to bear. But now, looking back, God has made it clear that even in the midst of my personal troubles and persecution for my faith, God was able to use me to deliver His word to this one man.

Many who know me know my email address as PRCHDAWORD. I derived that from II Timothy 4:2 which says to "Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching." This shows that God always honors His word regardless of our personal circumstances. His Word goes forth and does not return void but accomplishes all that He desires it too (cf Isaiah 55:11). This is what I did by the grace of God alone.

For any who think that their labors in the Lord are in vain, I say to you, reconsider! Just because you don't see immediate fruits or people coming up to you and telling you how much your ministry means to them, that doesn't mean that it is meaningless. While we would like to have those things, we must put our trust in God and not in men or results in ministry to determine effectiveness. We are not called to be "effective" by God. We are called to preach and to leave the "effectiveness" to the Holy Spirit of God. I pray that God would work that into our hearts and the conviction to "preach the word" no matter what circumstances because God is sovereign.

A new pope

well I'm sure those of you who read this have been awaiting my comments on the election of the new pope. Well here they are...

First of all, I think Joseph Ratzinger (from here Pope Benedict XVI) was probably the best choice for Rome according to her historical standards. Before becoming the Pontiff, Benedict XVI served as the late Pope John Paul II's theological advisor. I have only read a few of his writings personally, but I can say that he is consistent with Rome's positions that have been infallibly and dogmatically defined at Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II. As such, he seems to be the man to lead the Roman Catholic Church according to her "never changing faith" and against the advancements of Modernism in the Church.

All that aside, what does he mean to Protestants? I have heard that he has criticized all non-Roman Catholic denominations -whether Christian or not - as "deficient" for salvation. This is true to Catholic dogma. I only wonder what this is going to mean for Protestants as far as how strict he will be in regards to how he presents Roman Catholicism to over one billion Catholics world-wide. I don't think I expect this Pope to reach out ecumenically but rather to advance what he believes to be the true faith of God found in Roman Catholicism alone. Because he is a theologian, I think he will have strong reasons for asserting Roman Catholic dogma over all else.

I wonder if we can expect any Ex Cathedra statements from Benedict XVI regarding Mary. As it was, John Paul II was under pressure by over one million catholics to infalliby define Mary as the "Co-Redeemer" with Christ. Although, he was devout Marian and believed that his life was saved from assassination through her intercession, he never went that far for probably ecumenical reasons. Benedict XVI seems to be one, however, because of his theological background and training, to disregard ecumenical concerns for upholding what he believes to the the truth faith and Tradition of the church.

At 78, I think we can expect his reign to be short. But because it is short, it must be significant. I would keep my doctrinal ears open in regards to what Benedict XVI may do. I'm sure that American Catholics, because the liberal strain that exists within American Catholicism, will not be pleased with his doctrinal policies. I believe it was Benedict XVI, while still a cardinal, who criticized American priests and Catholic in the 2004 election for administering the eucharist to John Kerry and any who would vote for him because he believed in the legality of abortion, which is considered to be a mortal sin in the Catholic Church.

Interestingly enough, I find it interesting that the Papal Bull, Unam Santum, which infallibly defined the universal submission to the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) is practically failing. You would think that if part of being Catholic means being submitted to the Pope or else risking the loss of salvation, that people - for fear of their eternal state - would submit to his rule being that they believe that to Peter alone and his successors were given the "keys" and given the promise of "the gift of infallibility." Also, the coverage about who was going to be the next Pope has really shown how divided Roman Catholicism is. Its funny how they criticize Protestant denominations as invalid because of their splintering, yet they are just as divided as Protestants!

Well those are my thoughts....nothing to significant, I think. I guess I'm still anxious to see what this Pope will do doctrinally for the Church. I expect him to do something but only because of His theological training. And now as Pope, he is able to make "infallible" pronounement Ex Cathedra if he so wishes. Who knows....

Apologetic ethics

As usual, I was on an AOL chatroom discussing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura with a few Roman Catholic fellows. Before I could even present the doctrine that I was going to defend, they jumped all over me and told me that the doctrine was not Biblical and totally false.

After a while of talking and justifying the doctrine from Scripture, one fellow was able to finally listen to me as I was telling him that what he thought the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was is really not the Protestant doctrine at all but the caricature of the doctrine given by the Council of Trent and the following generations. He was finally able to settle down and listen to my arguments. I bring this up because I think apologetic work has some ethical standards that should be upheld.

First, one should not presume to know the other persons doctrinal stances intricately or generally UNLESS they have learned it from authorative sources on the subject. Unfortuneately, in discussing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura with many Roman Catholics, they have been taught that Sola Scriptura means that "all knowledge of religion is contained in the Bible". From here, they quickly ask questions that regard information that is not found in the Bible. Now, good Roman Catholic apologists will argue that since certain knowledge that is true is not found in the Bible, then the Catholic doctrine of dual source of revelation (Tradition and Scripture) is, therefore, true. However, what makes this so disturbing is that they want to argue against Sola Scriptura without first understanding the doctrine. I find this to be unethical. Not only is the misunderstood doctrine a caricature, but it is disrespectful to the person and to Christ I believe to not be fair to the other person and their beliefs. I am not saying that one necessarily agrees with the other persons beliefs. But if one is going to rightly do apologetics, one must understand what doctrines and thoughts he or she is seeking to tear down. If one is not arguing against the proper understanding of the doctrine, then they are not arguing against the doctrine at all. Instead they are "beating the air"...arguing against a straw man. I think Paul and Christ each understood those that they debated (eg. the Pharisees, philosophers, heathen beliefs, etc...) and their ministry was that much more pleasing to God since they were fair to their audiences and could proclaim the way of truth more pointedly to counter their specific beliefs.

Why we should be fair also has a psychological effect. If we are unfair in representing the other persons beliefs, they are less likely to "harden their heart" toward you and the message you want to bring to them. I believe that the Holy Spirit sovereignly changes the hearts of people as the doctrine of Effectual CAlling explicitly states. I also believe that it is in accordance with the ministry of the Spirit of God to be Christlike when discussing beliefs and engaging in apologetics. Very often people who are misunderstood in their beliefs harden themselves in their beliefs since they will sometimes believe that "their truth" is hard to accept because it is the truth.

As far as knowing sources of your opponent. This helps so much because you can both be on the same page in regards to understanding doctrinal matters in question. What doesn't help, however, is if they don't know their own sources. That is always a problem because you could have an "odd ball." As much as possible, stick to their authorative documents of their faith. If they disagree with those, then you can, obviously point out other problems like not being consistent with their professed faith. Also, knowing sources shows that you have put time and effort into really knowing their beliefs and, hence, where they are coming from.

Another point is to be nice. I don't want to merely sound like the movie Road House here and bouncer ethics, but this is so important. Apologetics is prime ground for emotions to get loose. When this happens and argumentation begins to sound like this: "I can see now that Christ is not in you..." or "you need to repent for your sins now" or "you are so warped in your thinking..." These are not conducive to apologetics MINISTRY. All they serve to do is attack the person who probably has just revealed that he or she does not have the ability to argue against your argument so they would just attack you. Do not fall into this trap. From here, "apologetics" turn into a matters of whits and who is able to use the condemnatory langauge of the Bible to sound better.

Finally, don't say what you don't know. Don't guess and don't assume. It is not a sin to admit ignorance of certain matters. Rather, it is wisdom to recognize ones own intellectual boundaries and not exceed them. It is ok to admit that you will research the matter more in depth and get back to the person if you can. Then, when you are informed you can resume conversation. This also creates the need for preparation on the part of the apologist. If you want to avoid putting off conversations for later times, then "study to show thyself approved". Study, study, study. One cannot overemphasize how important this is. Apologetics is WORK.

These apologetic ethics are not meant to be exhaustive in any means. They are simply good principles that I have learned and live by as I have gained experience talking to other faiths about their beliefs and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I hope they can help you out in your apologetic encounters as they have mine. Apologetics to the glory of God.

eavesdropping on Papal conversations...

The recent death of the Pope has stirred up quite a number of catholics to make pilgrimages to Rome to view the late John Paul II. Certainly, he was a towering figure in world history during his reign and will probably be remembered as one of the greatest Popes. All that aside, I was besided myself to hear Catholics, upon his death, declare with utmost certainty that Pope John Paul II was in heaven with Christ.

The reason why I was shocked to hear this is because it is doctrinally inconsistent with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church to assert with certainty that that anybody has been blessed with the gift of perseverance or that one has even recieved the grace of God! The Council of Trent makes these assertions clear in several passges. For instances, Session 6, chapter 9 declares:

“But though it is necessary to believe that sins neither are remitted nor ever have been remitted except gratuitously by divine mercy for Christ’s sake, yet it must not be said that sins are forgiven or have been forgiven to anyone who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the remission of his sins…since no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God"

Chapter 12 of the same session declares: “No one, moreover, so long as he lives this mortal life, ought to regard to the sacred mystery of divine predestination, so far presume as to state with absolute certainty that he is among the number of the predestined…For except by special revelation, it cannot be known whom God has chosen to Himself"

Canon 16 of Session 6 likewise declares: “if anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by special revelation, let him be anathema"

These INFALLIBLE dogmatic statements by Rome and are what the Pope represents! Personally, I think this is an example of how Catholics are willing to jettison their doctrines at the whim of emotions. After all, lets face it: Catholics, even Cardinals will make statements that are not in accord with official Roman Catholic dogmas in order to offer psychological comfort to their faithful. Makes you wonder how important dogma and infallible councils really are...