The Contradictory Catholic: Joe Biden on Abortion

Human life either begins at conception or it does not. If it does, then abortion takes the life of an innocent human being and we have prima facie evidence that abortion is morally wrong. One way to formulate the argument is as follows:

1. It is morally wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification.
2. Elective abortion takes the life of an innocent human being without proper justification.
3. Therefore, elective abortion is morally wrong.

Toward the end of the vice presidential debate Thursday night, Vice President Biden and Congressman Ryan were asked to explain their view on abortion as Catholics. Here I want to look at Biden’s response line by line:

Is the Apocrypha Scripture?

Roman Catholics and Protestants agree on many central doctrines of the Christian faith, including the Trinity, deity of Christ, and bodily resurrection of Jesus. But one important issue which separates Roman Catholics and Protestants is the extent of canonized Scripture. While both groups have the same 27 books in the New Testament, Roman Catholics have an additional seven books in their Old Testament (along with four additions to other OT books). These extra books and writings are referred to as the "Apocrypha" or "deuterocanonical" (second canon) books. They are as follows:

An Evolutionary Explanation for Morality

It seems as though college students want to be lectured more about morality these days. At least that's the impression we get at one community college in south Orange County. In addition to the February 26th McDowell-Corbett debate (organized by Apologetic Junkie) on the question “Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values?” there was another moral-themed academic event on the Saddleback College campus on the same night, on the same topic, and in the same room that we used for the overflow crowd just a few hours later. World renowned evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala was a guest lecturer in a lecture series sponsored by the biology and chemistry departments in a talk entitled “Biological Foundations of Morality”.

Ayala’s argument is that morality comes from both biological and cultural evolution which he develops through two main contentions: 1) The human propensity for a “capacity for ethics” (ability to perceive moral actions as good or evil) is a result of biological evolution, and 2) the development of “moral norms” (socially acceptable conduct) comes about through cultural evolution.

Holy Ground: Walking with Jesus as a Former Catholic

I had the opportunity last night to hear Chris Castaldo speak at Biola University on his new book Holy Ground: Walking with Jesus as a Former Catholic. Here is a quick summary from his website:

Drawing from his Roman Catholic background and personal interviews with other former Catholics, Chris Castaldo takes you on a dynamic exploration of the challenges and opportunities encountered by those who become Evangelical. More than historical perspective, theological reflection, and practical lessons, Holy Ground casts a vision for emulating Jesus in relationship to Catholic loved-ones and friends.

Chris spoke for about 45 minutes followed by a 45 minute question and answer session. While the audience contained mostly Protestants there were a number of Catholics present as well. Chris began by emphasizing the need for both grace and truth (John 1:14) as Evangelicals converse with Catholics about agreements and differences. If your conversations with Catholic friends and loved-ones look something like the following, you should probably read this book:

Calvinism and Purgatory Debates

James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries was involved in two separate debates this past week, both of which you can listen to for free.

The first was on the topic of Calvinism. James White appeared on Dr. Michael Brown's show Line of Fire to discuss this issue. You can listen or download this debate here.

The second was on the topic of 1 Corinthians 3 and the doctrine of purgatory. Tim Staples of Catholic Answers appeared on James White's show The Dividing Line. You can listen or download this debate here.

Visit Alpha and Omega Ministries for more resources and debates.

Enjoy.

Who Has the Burden of Proof?

Probably one of the most important ideas to grasp concerning argumentation and debate is the issue of burden of proof. In his book Tactics, Greg Koukl dedicates an entire chapter to this topic (see chapter 4). What do we mean by "burden of proof"? Greg Koukl defines it this way:

The burden of proof is the responsibility someone has to defend or give evidence for his view. Generally, the rule can be summed up this way: Whoever makes the claim bears the burden. The key here is not to allow yourself to be thrust into a defensive position when the other person is making the claim. It's not your duty to prove him wrong. It's his duty to prove his view.(1)

It doesn't matter whether you are discussing theology, philosophy, politics or ethics, the burden of proof rule is a crucial one to remember. It prevents you from being unjustly placed in a defensive position and forces the individual making the claim to carry his own load.

EXAMPLE #1: THERE IS NO GOD!

Perhaps you have been in a conversation or overheard one that goes something like this:

Skeptic: There is no God.

Christian: Really? How do you know that?

Skeptic: Well, how do you know there is a God?

Notice what has happened here. The skeptic started out the conversation by making a truth claim. In this case, he is making the claim "there is no God." The Christian rightly asks the question "How do you know that?" in order for the skeptic to provide justification for his position, as he should. After all, the skeptic is the one making the claim. Therefore, the skeptic bears the burden of proof in this case. But the skeptic doesn't accept it! Instead, he tactfully (and wrongly) attempts to shift the burden of proof to the Christian!

So how should the Christian respond? Should he answer the question? Should he accept the burden of proof? Should he give a three hour lecture on the kalam cosmological argument? No! Why not? Because he is not the one who made the claim. Instead, the Christian should point out to the skeptic that since it is the skeptic who made the claim it is his job to support it. The conversation might continue like this:

Skeptic: Well, how do you know there is a God?

Christian: Wait, hold on a minute. You started out this conversation by making the claim that there is no God. Since you made the original claim, the burden of proof is on you to provide some reasons or evidences as to why you think you are right. I am not going to accept any burden of proof at this point because I have not made any claims. So again, how do you know there is no God?

EXAMPLE #2: THE BURNING BUSH

Here is another scenario. Recently I was speaking with a friend of mine who is Roman Catholic. We began discussing the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (a five dollar word for sure, this is the idea that the bread and wine during communion actually become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ when the priest consecrates it.) As a Protestant, I disagree with the doctrine of transubstantiation and do not believe this is what the Bible teaches regarding the nature of communion. On the other hand, my Roman Catholic friend beliefs it wholeheartedly.

During our conversation, my friend attempted to defend the idea that God could take on the form of material objects by pointing to Exodus 3 where he claimed that God actually took on the form of the burning bush when He spoke with Moses. If God can become a bush, why can't he become the bread and wine in communion? That was his line of reasoning. Our conversation went something like this:

Roman Catholic: In Exodus it says that God took on the form of a burning bush and spoke to Moses. If he could do that, why couldn't he become the bread and wine?

Me: Actually, Exodus 3 does not say that God literally became the burning bush. Verse 2 says, "The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of the bush." There is nothing in the text that says God became the bush. It wasn't necessary for God to do so in order to make His presence known "from the midst of the bush" and speak to Moses.

Roman Catholic: Well it doesn't say He didn't become the burning bush either! Where does it say that He didn't become the bush?

***Notice he has shifted the burden of proof.

Me: Wait a second. You are the one who brought this text up in support of your position. You are the one who made the original claim. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this text is saying what you are claiming it says.

Roman Catholic: But you are making a claim too! You are claiming God didn't become the bush! Show me where it says that!

***This conversation (can I call it ridiculous?) carried on for about half an hour.

Me: But as I mentioned, the burden of proof is on you since you made the claim. Whoever makes the claim bears the burden of proof. My only claim is that you have not made your case. You can't base your argument or evidence on what the text doesn't say. That is an argument from silence. Besides this, even if I grant that you are right on this point, it doesn't follow from this that transubstantiation is true.

Again, notice what happened here. First, my friend started out by making a truth claim, i.e. that God actually became the burning bush. I pointed out to him that there is no evidence or reason from the text to believe this.

Second, my friend attempted to shift the burden of proof to me by implying that it was not his duty to prove himself right but rather my job to prove him wrong!

In response to all of this, I pointed out three problems with his reasoning:

First, I rightly pointed out that, despite what he may think, the burden of proof rests with him. I tried to explain this to him as clearly as I could but in the end I don't think the information stuck.

Second, I pointed out that he was committing a logical fallacy: an argument from silence. Notice his statement above. During our conversation he implied that because the text does not say God didn't become the bush that this is somehow evidence that God did become the bush! The obvious problem with this fallacious reasoning is that you cannot base your argument or evidence on what the text doesn't say! That commits a logical fallacy, an argument from silence.

Third, I pointed out that even if he was correct in assuming God actually became the burning bush, it wouldn't follow from this that transubstantiation is true! Why not focus on more important passages in the New Testament that Roman Catholic apologists use to defend their views? Ultimately this was a silly conversation that got us nowhere.

CONVERSATIONAL TIPS:

First, never accept the burden of proof if it isn't yours to bear. Explain the rule "whoever makes the claim bears the burden." Of course, if you do make claims, be prepared to give reasons or arguments as to why you think you're right.

Second, don't get frustrated (as I did after a half hour of meaningless debate) when speaking with someone who seemingly is not willing to follow the basic rules of argumentation and logic. In cases such as this it is unlikely the conversation will ever be productive, or even get off the ground.

Third, explain yourself as best as possible. Stop, think for a moment, and pick your words carefully so you are able to speak as clearly and persuasively as possible.

Fourth, don't waste your time discussing issues that are distracting from the main topic. These are red herrings. Instead, focus in on the question under discussion and try to redirect the conversation toward more foundational and relevant matters.

Fifth, in the end, you may just have to "agree to disagree." If your interlocutor is refusing to be reasonable or abide by certain conversational rules it may be best to simply end the discussion on a friendly note and try again next time (if you dare).
______________________________________________

(1) Greg Koukl, Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, 59.

Forbidding Marriage

(Aomin.org) written by TurretinFan

There is a very old error that derogates marriage and attempts to forbid marriage. In its extreme form, it forbids marriage of all Christians. In a less extreme form, it forbids marriage of office holders. It is that form that we see in the Roman Catholic church today.

Introduction

1 Timothy 4:1-3

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Nuns, Monks, Priests, and Bishops are forbidden in Roman Catholicism (for the most part, though there are a few married priests in some of the other rites besides the Latin rite) from being married. This is an error and a point at which, while it has a lengthy tradition, the Roman Catholic Church stands against Scripture.

I know the usual objections, and they each have been answered.

Objection: No one is forced to be a priest.

Answer: Agreed. And yet, if one wants to be a priest, one is forced to sacrifice marriage. Furthermore, if God is calling a person to the ministry, one is not free to disregard that call.

Objection: It's not a requirement.

Answer: Yes, it is a requirement. It's a condition precedent to obtaining office.

Objection: No one has a right to be a priest.

Answer: If God has called a man to the ministry, then the man does not simply have a right but the duty to answer God's call.

Objection: It's not against Scripture for the church to ordain only those men who are celibate.

Answer: Yes, it is against Scripture. It's clear from the Scriptural requirements given for the offices of deacon and elder/presbyter/bishop that such men are anticipated ordinarily to be married men who have children (1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; | Tit 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. ). To eliminate all married men from consideration is to render Scripture void through one's tradition.

Objection: So, you're saying that celibacy is evil.

Answer: No. Not at all. In fact, celibacy (if a gift given by God) can be a great help to ministers and especially to missionaries.

Objection: So, you're saying that renouncing marriage is wrong.

Answer: Not exactly. It is, of course, wrong to make an unconditional oath of celibacy, because God does not promise the gift of celibacy to every man who asks it. Furthermore, Scripture plainly teaches that it is better to marry than to burn. (1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.) Therefore, an unconditional renunciation of marriage is a sinful oath, and one that ought to be violated (through marriage, not fornication) to honor God, if one later discerns the absence of the gift of celibacy.

Objection: Celibacy of bishops/priests/monks/nuns is just a discipline, not a dogma.

Answer: There is errant doctrine that informs the errant discipline of celibacy. If the Roman Catholic Church followed the doctrine of Scripture, especially as taught in 1 Timothy 4:1-3, then it would not have this particular discipline.

Objection: The Early Church Fathers did it!

Answer: Agreed. The practice seems to have crept in rather early. It was wrong of them to do it, and it is wrong for folks now to follow them in doing it. Our moral authority is not ancient practice but Holy Scripture. Yet, if it were ancient practice, we'd be guided not by the Early Church Fathers, but by the Apostles who (for the most part) married:

1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

That was the apostolic practice and Paul affirms that it is an elder's right to marry. It is his "power."

Conclusion

The practice of requiring those who wish to have office in the church to be celibate is wrong. It is contrary 1 Timothy 4:1-3, it is contrary 1 Timothy 3:2, it is contrary to Titus 1:6, it is contrary to 1 Corinthians 7:9, and it is contrary to 1 Corinthians 9:5. It was wrong when Rome used to require deacons to be celibate (an error that has been corrected, without - of course - admission that is was an error) and it will be good when Rome ceases to make that same requirement of priests (though we cannot say how soon that will happen, there are significant pressures pushing Rome in that direction). Rome is wrong to require such celibacy, Rome is wrong to forbid men and women from marrying, and Rome is wrong to teach that unconditional vows of celibacy are good. On this matter, Rome stands against Scripture. Perhaps this area is an area where Rome can heed the correction of Scripture without admitting its mistake (as it has with respect to deacons). Nevertheless, it should serve to demonstrate to the reader that Rome is not an infallible interpreter of Scripture.

Who Wrote Hebrews According To An Infallible Magesterium?

(Aomin.org) written by James Swan

Recently, I came across a web page of a convert who appears to have been smitten by the popular Roman Catholic claim to canon certainty. How does one know who wrote particular books of the Bible without infallible Tradition? The answer must be: one couldn't know without an infallible church! Well, if the Roman Catholic Church has the power to declare biblical authorship, when they have sort of said who wrote what, I wonder if anyone takes such a declaration seriously. For instance, the Council of Trent stated,

"Of the New Testament: fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews."

Notice that last book and who they say wrote it? Eric Svendsen points out:

"Until the latter half of the fourth century the Western church almost unanimously resisted ascribing Pauline authorship to Hebrews [Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and the Muratorian Fragment all insist that Paul is not the author]. However, both Jerome and Augustine appealed to the Eastern Church's view that Paul wrote the epistle, and their view was eventually adopted at the Sixth Synod of Carthage in 419 A.D., and then reaffirmed at the Council of Trent. Yet, the number of New Testament scholars that would defend Pauline authorship today is practically nil." [Eric Svendsen, Evangelical Answers: A Critique of Current Roman Catholic Apologists (New York: Reformation Press, 1999), p.11].

I haven't found many Roman Catholics willing to defend the Pauline authorship of Hebrews. Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong distinguishes the author of Hebrews from Peter and Paul: "The author of Hebrews, like Peter and Paul...", and "St. Paul and the author of Hebrews." Similarly, a web search over on Catholic Answers will produce a myriad of hits referring to the "author of Hebrews," not Paul. Catholic Answers via This Rock states,

"Internal examination of [Hebrews] does show that it is in many ways different from the rest of Paul's writings. For example, it is more elegant, more eloquent, it does not carry the usual greeting and introduction, and it does not quote Scripture in the way Paul does. Its doctrine is Pauline but the way it is expounded makes it difficult to attribute its direct authorship to Paul."

When I've mentioned Trent's determination of Pauline authorship in the past, it was counter argued that such a statement from Trent is only infallible in the area of faith and morals. Well, who determines which is and which is not an element of faith or morals? Some Roman Catholics use canon arguments to prove the necessity of the Roman Church for any sort of certainty, hence they use it to argue for infallibility. So, the authorship of Hebrews would indeed then be a matter of faith and morals. This Rock answers the dilemma differently: "The letter's canonicity is not in doubt; it was included in the canon by the Council of Trent (8 April 1546) among the other writings of Paul, although the Council chose not to state categorically that it was written by Paul." What? When Trent says, "Of the New Testament: fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle" according to This Rock, this doesn't categorically state Paul wrote Hebrews. Once again, we see that infallible statements are open to interpretation. So much for the clarity of the Roman magisterium.

Is Calvin Still Relevant After 500 Years? It All Depends

(Monergism.com) Michael Horton

According to many Protestants-including some evangelical leaders-the Reformation may be over. In an age of rampant secularism, the threat of militant Islam, and moral relativism, surely the issues that unite us are greater than our differences. It seems that a lot of today's heirs of the Reformation are weary of fighting age-old battles and most people in the pews cannot even identify the flash points. Something about the pope, and Mary and the saints, or something.

For that matter, surveys reveal that most evangelicals hold views about salvation that are, if anything, worse than the official position of the Roman Catholic Church. While it's undeniable that Calvin had a major impact on Western history, it is not clear at all whether his driving concerns are still regarded widely as relevant in contemporary Christianity.

I have to admit that I've been a little uneasy with this whole "Calvin 500" celebration. And I'm not sure that a rigorously God-centered minister like Calvin-who demanded to be buried in an unmarked grave, within a plain pine casket-would appreciate all the attention. I am even a little more confident that he would not approve of all the attempts to turn him into an important person for all the wrong reasons. This is where Calvin is brought out by some as the tyrant of Geneva and by others as the pioneer of modern liberties and all sorts of other concerns that were, at best, tangential to the Reformer's interests.

What was central to Calvin's interest also happens to make him more relevant than whatever he may have incidentally and inadvertently done to improve Western culture. Calvin's obsession, the nearest I can tell, was the tender mercy of the Father, shown toward sinners in the Son and through the Spirit. I agree with B. B. Warfield's assessment that Calvin was even more interested in God's fatherhood than his sovereignty. Calvin's robust doctrine of the Holy Spirit leaves its mark on every theological topic. And as for the "in Christ" part of it all, this is the nearest thing to a "central dogma" that I can think of for Calvin.
Is the Reformation Over?

...Click here to continue reading...

Do Roman Catholics and Muslims Worship and Believe In the Same God?

Section 841 of the official Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following:

The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

In dialoguing with my Roman Catholic friends I have often asked them what they make of this section. Do Roman Catholics really believe that Muslims worship and believe in the same God? One of my friends responded by saying that the word "same" is not used in the section above, though I think the context clearly indicates this. Nevertheless, I felt this topic was something I needed to look at closer.

A short while after I happened to stumble across this post by TurretinFan of Alpha and Omega Ministries. It contains several quotes directly relating to this matter from the two most recent popes, John Paul II (JP2) and Benedict XVI (Ben16). These quotes show that both popes have clearly indicated that Muslims do in fact worship and believe in the same God:

"As I have often said in other meetings with Muslims, your God and ours is one and the same, and we are brothers and sisters in the faith of Abraham."

JP2 1985 (source")
"I thank you for your visit, all representatives, leaders, of the Muslim community here in Uganda. Archbishop Wamala said that you are cooperating and that in doing so, you are also accomplishing the will of God, our Creator, our Father. God has created all of us, men and women, the whole human race, to cooperate–to cooperate in order to improve the world. He, our God, committed us, the world, to being inhabited, to being used, not abused, not abused, used, and to serving the human being, human existence. It is necessary to cooperate all together, for the riches of the world are sometimes in danger and the human community is many times is in danger. It requires the cooperation of all of us who believe in the same God, the one God of Abraham, the Father who gave us his son Jesus Christ. Thank you very much for your visit."

JP2 1993 (source")

"We Christians joyfully recognize the religious values we have in common with Islam. Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: “We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection” (Insegnamenti, VIII/2, [1985], p. 497)."

JP2 1999 (source")
"This year is also the 40th anniversary of the conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, which has ushered in a new season of dialogue and spiritual solidarity between Jews and Christians, as well as esteem for the other great religious traditions. Islam occupies a special place among them. Its followers worship the same God and willingly refer to the Patriarch Abraham."

Ben16 2005 (source")

Personal Reflection: It should be clear to anyone who has compared the teachings of Islam with the teachings of orthodox Christianity that the two do not worship or believe in the same God. How could they? Islam and Christianity hold to contradictory, mutually exclusive beliefs about God. One example should suffice: the Trinity. One of the great doctrines Muslims hold to is that of tawhid, or God's oneness (Sura 112). To ascribe partners to God, as Muslims claim Christians do with the concept of the Trinity, is to commit shirk, the greatest sin imaginable for the Muslim. On the other hand, the doctrine of the Trinity is an essential Christian doctrine! Never mind any similarities there may be between Allah and the Christian God, it is the differences that matter.

Either God exists as a Trinity or He does not. If He does, the Trinitarians are right and the non-Trinitarians are wrong. If He does not, the non-Trinitarians are right and the Trinitarians are wrong. But under no circumstances can they both be right. To say that Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians worship or believe in the same God is to violate the fundamental laws of logic. And it is not enough to say that Muslims merely claim to worship the God of Abraham or "profess to hold the faith of Abraham." The above mentioned quotes show both popes were willing to go much further in saying that Muslims do not merely profess but do in fact worship and believe in the same God. But other groups, such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, would also claim to worship and believe in the God of Abraham. Are we now obligated to adopt religious pluralism? Though these groups may claim to worship and believe in the one true God, it should be obvious that not everyone can be right since their views of God are radically different. To reconcile these inherently contradictory views would be an impossible feat, yet this is seemingly what the Catechism, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI attempt to do in claiming Muslims worship and believe in the same God as Roman Catholics.

As I have pointed out to my Roman Catholic friends, I believe this obviously false teaching greatly undermines the authority of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). The teachings contained within the Catechism are supposed to be without doctrinal error. The teaching of the "infallibility of the church" places a tremendous burden of proof on Roman Catholics. If one teaching or doctrine of Roman Catholicism can be shown to be false, the entire system of infallibility collapses. In other words, if the Catechism is wrong in one area, where else is it mistaken? This is why one of the great "solas" of the Protestant Reformation was sola scriptura. The Bible alone is God-breathed (theopneustos, 2 Tim. 3:16) and is therefore the only adequate and infallible rule of faith for the church. (As a side note, Protestants do face a similar problem when they reject biblical inerrancy, i.e. if the Bible is wrong in one area, where else is it mistaken?)

To be sure, I do not believe Roman Catholics worship a false god. Historically, orthodox Roman Catholics and Protestants have held to the same beliefs concerning the nature and character of God. At the same time, I am quite certain that Muslims do not worship the God of the Bible. That is why a teaching such as this, contained within the Roman Catholic Catechism and taught by the two most recent popes, leaves me absolutely bewildered and disturbed as to why anyone, pope or no pope, would ever try to equate Allah with the God of the Christian faith.