Prepared to Answer Gordon Ferguson Pt. 1

    In my journey and exploration with the Catholic faith, I have become convinced of much of their doctrines and dogmas. I do so without any shame, though many have tried to shame me. My obedience is to truth, and nothing else. In attempts to have me drop some of my Catholic beliefs (and by Catholic beliefs I mean those doctrines and dogmas typically unique to the Catholic church, and perhaps the Orthodox church as well, that I have individually adopted, not beliefs I hold because I have or intend to join the Catholic church) some disciples have loaned me Gordon Ferguson’s book “Prepared to Answer”. The following is a response to his section on Catholicism.

    Chapter One is difficult to understand in the context of Catholic theology. There is hardly any mention of Catholicism in this first chapter, and so whatever the relevance is becomes difficult to flesh out. But because this is the first chapter of the entire book and it deals with denominations versus non-denominations, I can see its place in the context of the entire book, which deals with other forms of religion altogether beginning with the biggest chunk of Christendom, Roman Catholicism.

    The title of the first chapter was also troublesome. One has to read the entire chapter to understand what he means exactly by a “falling away”. Maybe to others it is obvious as ones reads, but it was not to me. As I read, I consciously kept my guard up on a “falling away” that Mormons claim has happened. This is the proposition that Jesus established his church which was carried on by the apostles, but after the death of the apostles, the entire church ceased to exist, and 40,000 knock-off church emerged since then, and has not existed until the re-establishment sometime in the relatively near past. But this is not the falling away that Ferguson is talking about. I am relieved that this is so. The kind of falling away that Ferguson is talking about is the uncontroversial claim that there are going to be individuals that were a part of the one true church but have since deviated from the original teachings. This is nothing new. However, the connection to Catholicism, and it is very briefly mentioned, is that these old ideas known as Gnosticism were adopted into the Catholic church. This is not substantiated in the first chapter.

    The interesting part of this chapter is Ferguson’s argument for the superiority of non-denominationalism. By non-denominational Ferguson does not mean interdenominational, but rather the church ought not have any such specification because it would simply BE the only one true church that Jesus established. BEING that church would be a form of identification itself, and would not need the distinguishing factors to set it apart from all the other phony churches in existence such as Lutheran or Methodist. I don’t think such an approach would work, practically.

 Lets say that the one true church that does claim non-denominationalism calls themselves the “Church of Christ”. In this church, baptism is practiced. However, a split is created, and this particular variation does not practice baptism. This second group also believes that they are the one true church established by Jesus and continues to call themselves the “Church of Christ”. Now, should a stranger walk down the street with these two churches right next to each other, he wonders, “What is the difference? They both have the same name, so why are there two separate congregations?” Keeping the same name is hardly practical. So, to distinguish themselves, the baptizing congregations calls themselves the “Baptist Church of Christ” and the other group calls themselves the “Non-Baptist Church of Christ”. Now, obviously one of them is right, but the name of the congregation should not qualify or disqualify one from being the one true church, as Ferguson wants us to believe. So long as there are competing denominations or congregations, a name and a way to distinguish themselves is necessary. Even the name “non-denominational” seems a bit self-refuting because that would be an easy way to identify such a congregation from others. The same thing applies with creeds, which Ferguson takes a shot at. Saying “We have no creed” is itself a sort of creed, for a creed is a statement of beliefs. That too is self-refuting. Creeds are necessary. When Ferguson writes, “Therefore, if all of them left their denominational creeds and simply followed the Bible, then unity would be possible and everyone could worship and work together.” However, the belief, “We must leave creeds” is itself a creed and is hence self-refuting. The notion of a non-creedal church is incoherent.

    These problems stem from a particular thought experiment that Ferguson gives, concerning 300 men on an island. I want to give particular detailed attention to this because any informed Catholic will say that this is an argument FOR Catholicism and against Ferguson’s general thesis. The thought experiment is basically this: 300 men get stranded on an island. On this island they find a Bible and become Christians. They return to the mainland to find many different kinds of churches, like the “Baptist Church of Christ” and the “Non-Baptist Church of Christ”, though Ferguson’s specific examples are Lutheran and Methodist. 100 join the Lutherans and another 100 join the Methodists, and the rest just stick together and would say, “We are already Christians. Why should we join another group? We’ll just find a place to meet and carry on like we did on the island.” There are two problems with this.

    First, why cant the other 200 disciples who became Lutheran or Methodist say to the 100, “But we ARE carrying like we did on the island. We were always believed Lutheran beliefs on the island, and we have found likeminded believers.” Unless some of those unaffiliated 100 give in, to say otherwise would therefore put them into a category, and hence, a denomination. Again, denominations are necessary. Secondly, let us say that a particular denomination is correct in all their beliefs. Wouldn’t it follow that a refusal to be with the correct church would therefore be a rebellion that God so warned against, warnings that Ferguson lists in the first chapter? This becomes obviously true when you redo the island experiment.

After the first group leaves the island, another group of 300 men becomes stranded. They too find a Bible and become Christians. Then, they too return to the mainland and discover the many different churches. What would the reaction be of these 300 men if the 100 non-denominational men who were saved earlier came up to them and said, “Hey, we follow the Bible too! We’re your brothers and sisters in Christ. Come join us!” According to Ferguson’s thought experiment, they ought to say, like the first group did, “We are already Christians Why should we join another group? We’ll just find a place to meet and carry on like we did on the island.” What ends up happening then is that brothers and sisters in Christ would never know each other. This is a huge epistemic problem! This is a kind of ecclesiastical solipsism. But such a conclusion is absurd, and so should be rejected. Denominations are necessary, and non-denominationalism is incoherent. We will return to this thought experiment when we talk about the justification of Sola Scriptura.