Prepared to Answer Gordon Ferguson Pt. 7
Chapter five begins differently than the other chapters. Whereas the other chapters has a paragraph or two slowly working into Catholic doctrine, this chapter begins with a bang, with no introductory remarks whatsoever. It goes straight into Confirmation. And so to Confirmation we go. (This is 13 pages, so, brace yourselves)
According to Ferguson, there are two problems with Confirmation. The first is that the laying on of hands by the Bishops is for miraculous gifts only, and not the Holy Spirit, and that the Spirit is ordinarily given at Baptism, not, contra Catholicism, at Confirmation. When you read his first argument, you can’t really help but scratch your head. While we don’t know exactly when Jesus instituted this sacrament, we do clearly see it in Acts 8:14-19. But Ferguson, for some reason, thinks this proves no such thing. He writes, “…the laying on of the apostle’s hands…imparted the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit.” But where in this passage does he get this from? Nowhere in this passage you do read anything about such preternatural gifts. While it is true that you can receive those gifts, you need the Holy Spirit for that. In this passage, we read they are simply receiving the Holy Spirit. In verse 15-17, we read, “When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” How much clearer can you get? They did not have the Holy Spirit. They were Baptized. They laid their hands, and they received the Holy Spirit. This is exactly what the Church teaches about Confirmation. How in the world does Ferguson conclude this is not about the Holy Spirit but about gifts instead?
As for the second problem, I will sympathize with Ferguson on this issue. In my conversion to the Catholic Church, the receiving of the Holy Spirit at Confirmation instead of Baptism was a problem for me. But when I read the Scriptures, I saw that there was no explicit connection. I assumed, like many in the ICOC, that you receive the Holy Spirit at Baptism, and citing Acts 2:38 is a fine example of such thinking. But when you read Acts 8:14, you see that there is more to the picture. So, how then do you reconcile the two verses? The way that the Catholic Church does. The Catholic Church teaches that Confirmation is the completion of Baptism. While the two are very closely intertwined, they are still distinct. Ferguson cites Galatians 4:6 and Ephesians 1:13-14, but again, there is nothing there, especially in Ephesians, even when you try to look for it. And even if you could find something, there is still the question as to whether it will really contradict what the Catholic Church teaches about the relationship between Baptism and Confirmation.
Penance is the next subject. Ferguson claims that the Biblical basis for this Sacrament is Matthew 16:19 and 18:18. But that’s not entirely true. While I suppose you could try to justify Penance through these verses, I haven’t seen it attempted nor was this what I was taught (though it is referred to in related topics in the CCC). So, I strongly suspect another straw-man here. Rather, the one verse I do see cited over and over for Penance is John 20:22, where it reads, “And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.’”
There is a bit of a tangent on excommunication, and it’s a difficult to see how exactly this fits into the discussion at hand. What concerns me is his statement that in the wording of binding and loosing, God obeys man. This is just a misunderstanding of authority, and in fact, all authority. To say that because a person has some authority to conclude that therefore he has authority over God is simply a non-sequitur. All authority that we have is given to us by God, and so naturally we don’t have veto power over God. While Ferguson directs this attack on Catholics, it really applies to any type of ecclesial authority anywhere, including the ICOC.
He goes on another small tangent about James 5:14-16, but this is unnecessary because the same verse is talked about in the next section concerning the same topic, Extreme Unction. Maybe in a third edition, Ferguson could delete this as it is a bit repetitive.
It seems as though Ferguson’s only argument against Indulgences is that it was abused. But how does that show that such a doctrine is false? I don’t know. I don’t know how it does because it really doesn’t. Further, Ferguson simply misunderstands Catholic teaching when he writes, “The whole issue of indulgences exposes the salvation by works orientation discussed earlier and reveals a long-standing failure to understand the grace of God and the means of salvation which he freely offers us.” What Ferguson clearly doesn’t realize is that you cannot even receive an indulgence unless you are already in a state of sanctifying grace. He even quotes Gibbons naming and distinguishing between eternal and temporal punishment. Why has this not hit him? It is only at the end of the section does he finally recognize the distinction, but dismisses as unbiblical, yet doesn’t giving any biblical reason!
If one reads 1st John 5:17, however, you will see that there is a sin that is not fatal. There is a sin that does not lead to death. In fact, in verse 16, you learn that your prayers for this sin can be sanctifying, contrary to what Ferguson believes, at the top of page 60, “The Bible knows nothing of one person’s prayers securing forgiveness for another persons who is not himself seeking God according to God’s will.” So there is your biblical distinction which Ferguson, whom probably did not even try to understand Catholicism, missed. Some sin kills, and some sins wounds, though both are despicable to God. Ferguson does not explain what the distinction and its effects are, so allow me to do so here.
Mortal sin, or eternal sin, is sin that will send us to Hell. This is sin as we regularly know it. Jesus died so that we do not go to Hell and so that we can go to Heaven. However, venial sin is sin to a lesser degree. It is not fatal, and will not send us to Hell. The punishment for venial sin is temporal punishment. But if God cannot tolerate any impurity whatsoever, and He is in Heaven, yet we do not merit Hell, where then do we go? You don’t need to be Catholic to see where this reasoning leads.
Now, indulgences is that which forgives temporal punishment. You can be forgiven for your eternal punishment, yet still have your temporal punishment remain. For example, if Johnny throws a brick through his neighbors window, he stands in danger of his neighbor’s wrath. If Johnny is sorry, he will no longer be in danger of his neighbor’s wrath. However, something still needs to be done about the window. What is to be done? His neighbor can tell little Johnny, “Now Johnny, I forgive you about the window, and so I’m no longer mad at you, you can still come over for ice cream, but my window needs fixing. You’re going to have to pay for it. I’m not mad, but you still have to pay.” Does this not sound reasonable?
Let me take a moment to say that my experience in the ICOC was disastrous without this. I have been wronged so many times, and I wanted these wrongs fixed, yet there was an insistence that mere forgiveness, a mental state, was enough. For example, if a friend wronged me, and we were no longer friends, she would say she was sorry, and I accepted the apology, but she would go on ignoring me, treating me like a leper. I find this immoral. Yet, leadership said that so long as I forgave her, there was nothing else to be expected. I was forced to accept a dead friendship, without reconciliation.
Another example, a friend of mine, while parking his car next to another friend, scratched his car against hers, causing paint damage. Of course, she was furious, but he asked for forgiveness and she gave it to him. However, she still demanded that he pay for the damage. This was reasonable. But for some reason, when it came to intangible things, like friendship, love, reconciliation, no such thing was required in the ICOC. What an ugly façade of “spirituality.” Without the doctrine of purgatory, indulgences, venial sins, I was abused repeatedly in the ICOC. In this applicable way, the Catholic Church is pastorally superior to any other church, including the ICOC.
Just recently, I had a friend who wanted nothing to do with me recently confess that she was in sin in doing so. She apologized. Of course, I forgave her. But I told her, that wasn’t the end of the story. I’m still out a friendship. She owed me a friendship. She was longer in my wrath, but I still was owed a friendship, and it needed repairing. While her eternal standing was now secure, there was still temporal repair necessary. And now we’re on our way to repairing our friendship, and hopefully it will be better than ever. Through the Catholic Church and her teachings, our friendship now has life! In the ICOC, this could not have happened. Ferguson says to look forward to Purgatory is at best a miserable experience. It’s miserable if you don’t want to repent (which is, you know, a synonym for penance. In fact, older translations of the Bible uses the word “penance” where we find “repentance” in newer translations) and it’s miserable if you want cheap grace. There is cheap grace in Protestantism in general, an in the ICOC in particular, as evidenced by my abusive experience. Thank God for purgatory!
To briefly review, mortal sin has eternal and sometimes temporal punishment. Venial sin is just temporal. Temporal punishment doesn’t qualify us for hell but doesn’t qualify us for heaven either because God cannot stand sin. God forgives both sins, but the temporal punishment can still remain, and would not prevent us to ultimately getting to heaven. Any temporal punishment not satisfied will be purged in purgatory and everyone in purgatory will go to heaven. Now, it seems like Ferguson assumes that there is no biblical reference to purgatory. He doesn’t make any mention of the Bible verses Catholics usually point to for Biblical support of purgatory.
Ferguson is correct in saying that death does seal our fate, but does he think that because of the doctrine of Purgatory, our fate is not sealed at death? Does he think Purgatory is a second chance? Like I said, everyone in purgatory knows their fate, and they’re going to heaven, but they must “have paid the last penny” (Matthew 5:26) and “he should pay back all he owed” (Matthew 18:34). So he’s in agreement with Catholic doctrine so far, though he might deny it.
Purgatory can be inferred in 1st Peter 3:18-20, particularly verse 19. Who are those that Jesus preached to in prison? Those who died long ago during Noah’s day. Are they in Hell? If so, preaching to them is futile. Are they in Heaven? If so, preaching to them is futile. So, what was the point? There was no point if you have only heaven and hell. But in Catholicism, you have Purgatory. And those in Purgatory do go to heaven, and that’s what those in the prisons did, they went to heaven. We know this because in verse 18, it talks about Christ dying for the unrighteous and bringing them to God.
In 1st Corinthians 3:10-15, we read about the Day, which is judgment. In that day of judgment, the quality of our life will be judged and rewarded accordingly. There will be some with gold, and they will not be harmed by the fire, which is God since our God is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29). However, the quality of some people’s lives will not be found without being purged. Some people will have hay and straw, which burns faster than wood. As verse fifteen declares, “If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as through the flames.” A man will be saved, and will suffer, and will suffer fire. This is what the doctrine of Purgatory is.
Matthew 12:32 speaks of a sin that will not be forgiven in this world, nor in the age to come. But this assumes that there at least some sins that can be forgiven in the next world, if not here. If that next world is Hell, then it leads to the absurd conclusion that forgiveness is possible in Hell. If it is Heaven, then the passage is incoherent because those in Heaven have already been forgiven. But if it is neither, then Purgatory fits the missing piece of the puzzle perfectly.
There is a passage in 2nd Maccabees 12:46 that talks about praying for the dead to be released for their sins. This is a knock down argument. However, it may not be that easy. 2nd Maccabees is not accepted in the Protestant Old Testament. You find it in Catholic Bibles. Now, this brings up another interesting question about the Canon. How does one decide which books belong in the Bible? I have already argued in previous posts that you cannot hope to do this without the authority of the Catholic Church. In those posts, I was referring specifically to the New Testament, but the same argument applies to the Old Testament.
Now, having said all that about the apocrypha, let me to return to my original point, 2nd Maccabees has some important things to say about praying for the dead and releasing them of their sins. But, even if we do not accept 2nd Maccabees as canonical (and after having typed that, I’m thinking, ‘Was going through the appendix even necessary?’ LOL!) what follows? That the Jews did not believe in praying for the dead? No, in fact, you can reject its canonicity and still find the grains of truth here and there. This would be one such truth, as confirmed by the practices of Orthodox Jews who pray for the dead. That should indicate that such a practice was commonly believed to be orthodox. Far from being man-made, we have evidence that it was around and practiced. This belief is something the first Christians would have inherited.
There isn’t much to say about Extreme Unction here. Ferguson seems to think that praying for them will not secure their forgiveness, even though James 5:15 says, “If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.” Why won’t Ferguson deal with the issue?
The next section is perhaps the most important part in the entire book. It deals with the Holy Eucharist. This is the primary reason I became a Catholic. It is the centerpiece of Catholics worldwide. It is the high point of every Mass, unlike concerts-I mean, “worship” services in non-Catholic churches, where the high point of their “service” is a thirty minute monologue from some Tony Robbins wannabe, mixed with a Bible verse here and there (maybe this is why the ICOC is personality driven, where someone like me is disciplined harshly by calling someone a “fairy”, yet the present campus minister of my old ministry can express desires to beat people up who leave the church, and threaten to punch other members of his ministry in the neck, thereby murdering them, all without a slightest hint of discipline, so long as he has a strong personality. How true, then, is Scripture when it declares, “…the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force.”). No, you have none of that in the Catholic Mass. The Eucharist is Jesus, and Jesus is the climax of our Mass.
Ferguson writes, “The Catholic idea of the sacrifice of the Mass maintains a view of the cross which is unbiblical and depressing.” If this is what Ferguson thinks, then I submit that he does not grasp what the Eucharist is. Ferguson’s comments reminds me of a story I heard about a Christian and a Muslim. The Muslim, seeing a crucifix on the Christians neck, asks the Christian why he would carry such a gruesome symbol around. You wouldn’t carry an electric chair on your neck if your brother died. To this, the Christian rightly responded that he would carry around a symbol of the electric chair if through it came redemption, salvation, life, hope, etc. This demonstrates the lack of comprehension behind the cross on the Muslim’s part. In the same way, Ferguson’s view demonstrates a lack of comprehension of the Eucharist. For the Catholic, the Eucharist is life!
Hebrews 7:27 is cited in contrast to the Catholic view (which is no contrast at all) but it should be noted that the Catholic view of communion has not, at this point, been defined. Ferguson is shadow boxing here. Surely, we all agree that Hebrews 7:27 is true, and so it say that this defeats Catholicism without actually setting up Catholicism to begin with (it’s not even a straw-man. It’s an air-man! LOL!) is to puff himself up. Let my pointing this out be his deflation.
Ferguson makes a comment in passing, basically arguing that since Catholics believe that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus, it must be bloody, which is in tension with the Catholic teaching that communion is not bloody. But again, this is to egregiously misunderstand Catholic teaching. I don’t even think serious Protestants make this error. If Ferguson read the Council of Trent, and understood the Aristotelian-Thomistic categories employed in defining Transubstantiation, he would see there is no problem at all. The substance of the bread and wine change, yet, their properties do not. That is why it is called Tran-change substantiation-substance. The substance changes. Not the properties.
To some readers, the differences between these two words are not apparent, so allow me to take a moment to explain some basic metaphysics. A substance is a unity of properties, parts and capacities. Properties are simply those descriptive things about a substance. For example, an apple is a substance. The color red belonging to the apple is a property. The apple (substance) has redness (property). The apple also has a scent, hardness, taste, etc. The apple holds all these things together. Now, even if the properties change, it would still be the same apple. Consider the apple turns from bright red to dark red. The property of its color changed, but this did not affect the substance of the apple. This is, by the way, why people can constantly change, yet sill remain the same person. Our mind is a substance. It has properties like thoughts and feelings. Though our thoughts and feelings change, we remain the same person. This is the distinction between substance and properties.
With that in mind we can now better comprehend the doctrine of Transubstantiation. We have bread and wine. The substance changes. Changes to what? The body and blood of Jesus. So why isn’t the bread meaty and the wine thick like blood? With our knowledge of metaphysics, we now understand that the fleshiness and thickness are merely properties. But Catholics don’t teach Transpropertism (I made that word up), the changing of the properties. We teach Transubstantiation, the changing of the substances.
I’m going to do a very weird thing right now. I’m going to defend Protestantism. When Ferguson makes a Catholic defend Protestantism, you know something he went terribly wrong somewhere (I kid, of course). He writes, “In any case, this doctrinal focus explains why church services were changed from the family reunion atmosphere described in the NT to a funeral atmosphere! And since Protestantism grew out of Catholicism, the deadness of most groups in that movement is likewise explained!” What a silly statement. Is Ferguson not aware that one of the major divides between Protestantism and Catholicism was the nature of communion? In fact, one of the goals of Trent was to define Transubstantiation and reject its competing forms, like Consubstantiation. Since Protestantism rejected Transubstantiation, how could it inherit its alleged deadness?
Finally, we get to the Scriptures. Ferguson says that the passage in question is John 6:53-60, but that’s not entirely true. The more obvious context is from John 6:25-69 as it continually carries the theme about Jesus being the bread of life, and one could argue that it really begins at 6:1, since it makes sense of the miracle Jesus did. How is it that Jesus’ flesh can be eaten though he is a finite material thing? He multiplies it, as he did the bread and fish. So, we have this in context. By being very narrow, Ferguson is in danger of taking the passage he selected out of context.
I suggest the reader to read all of John 6 on your own (so I don’t have to type it all here lol), and take the following into consideration. In verse 11, as Jesus was performing the miracle of multiplying the fish and bread, he “gave thanks”, and the Greek word there is where the word “Eucharist” comes from. Ferguson recognizes the meaning of the word, though he didn’t mention where in scripture it is located, which important to the discussion (and he seems to miss the huge importance of this miracle as it is the only miracle Jesus did that is recorded in all four Gospels!). It is located here in verse 11 and then again in verse 23 (and then at the end of Luke‘s Gospel, which is how the disciples recognized the risen Jesus, and is how Catholics recognize the risen Jesus as well!). By the time we get to verse 23, the feeding was over with, and people were looking for Jesus. So, by referring to Eucharist again in verse 23, John is reminding us of that miracle and is setting up the scene.
In challenging Jesus to prove himself as legit, they ask him for a sign. They said Moses gave them bread, or manna, in the desert (v. 30-31). Then Jesus says that the Father will give them bread coming down from heaven (v.32-33), and he identifies himself with that bread (v. 35).
Verse 35 is furthest back Ferguson goes in reading the passage. But the conversation had already started, and a challenge already given, and Jesus was accepting and explaining his meeting of that challenge. Does Ferguson think that this is not important to the discussion? It is. These people following Jesus had eaten fish and bread, wanted something akin to manna, and now Jesus was going to give it to them. This pattern in carried on into the passage Ferguson narrows in on, so it is important to the context.
After explaining the effect he will have as the bread of life, he was challenged. In verse 41, the doubted his origin, which was heaven. Then, in verses 48-51, he becomes clear and emphasizes his nature. He is the bread, and though people ate manna, they died. But, he who eats the bread, which is Jesus, won’t die. That bread, it is his flesh. That flesh, he is going to give for the life of the world. This is a reference to his death, and so we know that this bread is his real flesh.
But, still, people doubted. In verse 52, they asked how this could even be possible. Eat his flesh? What on Earth does he mean? Like, figuratively? Nope. Jesus speaks in no uncertain terms. And this is the passage that Ferguson begins to quote. “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”
After having quoted this passage, Ferguson writes, “The Catholic view invites several challenges. One, this teaching preceded the establishment of the Lord’s Supper by a long time. How could they have even connected it with what was latter to be called communion?” Let’s say they didn’t connect it. What follows? Nothing follows. Having heard that, what they would have known was that they had to eat Jesus. How exactly was this to be done? Who knew? What was clear was that it did have to be done, and there was no doubt Jesus would clarify and establish such a ritual, as he eventually did (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:17). So, lack of knowledge on the part of the listeners does not give us warrant to have the same ignorance. Besides, there are many places in the Bible where they don’t seem to understand Jesus words, especially concerning his death, yet they went along with things, and only later were things made clear to them, and even clearer to us, the readers. One such example is John 3. Here, we all agree that Jesus was talking about baptism. But applying Ferguson’s objection, we cannot know that this is about baptism since Jesus hadn’t died yet, and Ferguson isn’t going to bite that bullet. Further, to the reader, there is a clear parallel to the Last Supper. In each account of the Supper, it begins with mentioning it was Passover, and then concludes by noting that Satan entered Judas. Here too, we note that it was during Passover, and that Satan had entered Judas. So, I don’t get the force of this “challenge.”
“Two, the Jews were very open to rituals. Their religion was full of it. Why would they have struggled with eating a piece of bread once a week, if that were what Jesus was referring to in this passage?” I had to reread this over a few times to really convince myself that Ferguson really did write this, and it wasn’t some typo. I mean, honestly, this is the death knell for Ferguson. I don’t know how he could have made such a massive mistake. Why would the Jews have such a hard time eating bread? Hmmm…I don’t know Mr. Ferguson! That’s an excellent question! Why don’t you tell me, since it is YOU AND NOT CATHOLICS who believe all you’re doing is eating a piece of bread?! How incredible is this statement from Ferguson as it is probably the most popular counter-argument from Catholics against the interpretation of those like Ferguson’s! There was no way Jews were going to be mad at eating bread! So, if that’s what’s really going on, how do you make sense of that?! You can’t, which is why it’s such a good objection! But Ferguson doesn’t realize this is an objection against HIS view, not the Catholics. Catholics don’t believe it’s just bread. We believe, as Jesus emphasized, it is his flesh! We are not eating bread, we’re eating flesh! THAT’S something that could make some Jews angry! Cannibalism. Eating man’s flesh and drinking man’s blood. Now THAT’S a hard teaching. Honestly, Ferguson just gave us Catholics the topic on a silver platter. He really shot himself in the foot here. I mean, do I even need to go any further?
Yes. I do. LOL.
“Three, what challenged the Jews was accepting Jesus as the Messiah and answering his call to discipleship-that is what this chapter is all about!” This is laughable. John 6:30 indicates that they were open to Jesus being the messiah, and the passage in question is explained by the question preceding it in verse 52, “How can this man gives us flesh to eat?” Ferguson looks like he is trying to support this by explaining what each verse means, starting with verse 53, then 54, 56, 57, and 58. But did you catch that? He skipped verse 55. What does verse 55 say? It reads, “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” Oh, how convenient! The most explicit verse which directly identifies his flesh and blood as food and drink, he just skips over. I’m telling you man, it’s that cognitive dissonance. Now, to be fair, there is a call to discipleship. Peter says that Jesus has the words of eternal life. But what were those words? “Eat my flesh, drink my blood.” Simple enough. Is that too hard to accept? Yeah, Judas thought so too (v. 64).
Ferguson’s other objection to this understanding of John 6 is that here, the term “flesh” is used, while at the institution at the Last Supper, Jesus uses the word “body”. Apparently, there is a difference. Ferguson doesn’t explain what that difference is. “No passage which is clearly speaking of the Lord’s Supper uses the term ‘flesh‘-it is always ‘body.’” And there is good reason for that. Responding to Ferguson’s first challenge to this passage a few paragraphs above this one, I cited the tree times the Lord’s Supper was instituted in the Gospels. You’ll notice that it isn’t recorded in John. And John is different. John is not part of the synoptic gospels. You only see “body” in the synoptic gospels, but you’ll read “flesh” in John. So the difference is not surprising as John uses a very different literary style. Besides, there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word for body, so it is very likely that Jesus used the term “flesh”. Further, in Luke, we know that the blood was present, and so we can infer that it is also his flesh, despite the linguistic difference concerning “flesh” and “body”.
Then, Ferguson gets silly. “In John 10:7, he called himself a ‘gate’ and in John 15:1, a ‘vine.’ By what rule of Biblical interpretation should we accept one as literal and not the others?” Of course that’s a rhetorical question, but that sword cuts both ways. That exact same question can be posed right back at him. By what rule of Biblical interpretation should we accept one as literal and not the others, eh? Are you suggesting that unless we can demonstrate that this is literal, we must assume that it is figurative because some of what Jesus said was not literal? It therefore follows that we must assume everything Jesus said was not literal, which is ridiculous. Further, most metaphors and analogies are easy to spot because of their function. A gate has a function, and that function is also applied to Jesus.
A vine has a function, and that function is applied to Jesus. We still use these metaphors today. But when in the world was “eat my body, drink my blood” ever used as a metaphor? And if it is a metaphor, the burden lies upon Ferguson to pinpoint the function and further argue that function is applied to Jesus. Catholics do have answer, however. Jesus was the lamb of God. The Passover Lamb functioned as a sacrifice and a meal. Jesus death is applied in the same way, as both a sacrifice and, as Jesus said, “real food and real drink.” Further, John is not fond of being not literal. There are no parables in John, and when he does employ metaphors, he clarifies what he literally means. Ferguson cites John 10:7, but that is actually the explanation to his metaphor in John 10:1-5, where he does not identify any correlation, and so he explains, “When I just now said ‘gate’, I meant me. I’m that gate. That’s what I meant. Got it?” So contrary what Ferguson would like you to think here, Jesus was already done using metaphors in John 10:17. Ferguson also quotes John 15:1 as metaphor, but then that metaphor is immediately clarified starting in verse 5. Further examples of John’s dislike of metaphor and ambiguity is in 1:42 and 21:19. So, because John is always clarifying himself, and giving qualifiers, to the point where he doesn’t even record parables, and there is no qualification for “drink my blood and eat my flesh”, we can take those sayings at face value, and infer no such metaphor is attached.
Ferguson’s last objection is that his flesh and blood could not have been present at the Lord’s Supper because Jesus was there. Ferguson writes, “He was standing right there before his apostles. How could bread and wine have somehow become literal? This teaching is an example of the mysticism which is a pervasive part of the Catholic religion.” Yes, the Catholic RELIGION, because we’re just SOOO different, we’re another type of religion altogether, like the Mormons. This is yet again another example of the ungracious attitude which is a pervasive part of Ferguson’s book. Anywho, Ferguson is right. This is mysticism. But so what? Is Ferguson an atheist now? Is mysticism suddenly ruled out? Are miracles no longer possible? If so, then I’ll stick with Catholicism, and Ferguson can keep his religion without the supernatural acts of God and without miracles (like parting the Red Sea, or you know, like, dead people rising from the dead). So, while it is a mystical act, it is not an unexpected act. Again, this is foreshadowed by the multiplying of the fish and bread at the beginning of John 6, or is Ferguson going to ask, “The fish were sitting right there before his apostles. How could there be more fish and more bread? This teaching is an example of the mysticism which is a pervasive part of Jesus’ ministry.”
Finally, asceticism concludes this long chapter. Unfortunately, as is usually the case with Ferguson, terms are not defined. Asceticism can be anything from radical to mild. We usually think of the more radical forms like those Buddhists who starve themselves, and the more mild forms such as a Christian who decides to fast for whatever reason, like looking for a job. All asceticism really does is just deny the self something. But how is that not Christ-like, to deny oneself a thing?
Ferguson writes says that these tendencies originated in Gnosticism. While the Gnostics did have their own brand of asceticism, it is in no way the same as Christians understood it. We even have Biblical examples, like fasting, which I already mentioned and the denial of pleasure by the welcoming of suffering. John the Baptist would be considered an ascetic, yet where is his condemnation?
Monasticism is characterized as believing that material things were inherently evil, which is just another misunderstanding of monasticism. Every faithful Catholic will deny Gnosticism and their view that material things are inherently evil. Why does Ferguson insist that Catholics don’t understand this? It’s really frustrating because it leads to such uncharitable and false views of Catholicism. Monasticism is not the view that one detaches one’s life from the world because it is inherently evil. It is the choice of men and women, who are usually monks and nuns, to devote themselves to contemplation, prayer, peace and solitude. They would never say the world is inherently evil. They tend gardens, brew beer, make wine, run businesses, maintain churches, they write books (think of St. Thomas Aquinas for goodness sake!) and so much more. They just opt to live quite and peaceful lives with an enormous emphasis on meditating on God. Has Ferguson even talked to a monk!? Where is he getting this information? If he just experienced a monastery and talked to some of the people, he would see empirical evidence contradicting what he writes.
“Monasteries were established, and the truly “spiritual” avoided the very world they were supposed to influence.” And here is a view that I absolutely despised in the ICOC. This view leads to much abuse, and low self-esteem, and a cult of personality. Basically, if you aren’t an evangelist, you are nothing. If you are not in leadership, you are nothing. You serve no purpose. Those in “leadership”, which isn’t truly leadership but just evangelists in training, though you would hope “leadership” consists of more than that, are truly spiritual. Those not in leadership, have no guarantee of being “spiritual”. They’re looked down upon, their opinion holds no weight, and all they can hope for is to someday be a “leader.” Then you’re a rock star. Then you can preach. Then you can date. Then your opinion matters. Now you’re popular. Now, you finally matter. Vanity of all vanities!
Oh, and not only that, but being a handsome athlete is a bonus. While “evangelizing”, you’re told to look out for athletes because they’re “leadership material”. Talk about judging by mere appearances! No, you don’t have to work as hard, read as much, be kind as much, think as much, be wise as much, or even be righteous enough (I had a friend tell me she left that church because she had sexual relations with a guy in “leadership”, and according to her, he could not leave because he was in “leadership” and that wasn’t an “option” for him. It is protocol for him to go before the church and confess his sin. He hasn’t. Only a week later he went to a conference in Vegas for the church interns). My point here is not that sin occurs in the ICOC. That’s true of every church, including the Catholic church. Sin is universal and it is tragic that we know it will happen. My point is, certain people get a free pass on sin due to their personality. A strong personality is what drives the ICOC. Not necessarily righteousness. They look down on living quiet and peaceful lives. You have to influence the world, and if you’re not, you’re nothing. This was what was driven into me and is being driven into everyone else.
However, in the Catholic Church, no such sin is encouraged. You have heroes of the faith who were shy and humble, what we might call today a “socially awkward” person. But we know of them in the Catholic Church because of their courage for Christ. Many of them were martyrs. They weren’t athletic, they weren’t personable, they weren’t handsome, they weren’t good public speakers, they were introverts, not extroverts. But when it came to carrying their cross, an instrument of death not of burden, they died like men. They died with grace. That’s something no amount of charisma or public speaking skills will ever accomplish. That requires something truly Godly, and it isn’t limited to what the ICOC perceives as “leaders”. Influence the world? Please. Not everyone is called to be an evangelist (Ephesians 4:11). Some are called to live quiet and peaceful lives (1st Timothy 2:2).
Now, don’t be like Ferguson and try to demonize me if you’re in the ICOC. Just because there are some criticisms applicable to the ICOC doesn’t mean I’m full of venom. There is much I love about the ICOC and am indebted to them for. There is much to be defended, and I am still willing to defend, but only what is defensible. This mentality expressed in Ferguson’s sentence is not defensible. The abuses that go in the ICOC are not defensible. The abuses I experienced are not defensible. Their view of baptism is defensible. Their emphasis on reading and knowing Holy Scripture is defensible. Their emphasis on evangelism is defensible. Their over-emphasis on evangelism is not. And I’ve explained why.
But back to ascetics. He quotes Colossians 2:20-23 as some kind of proof-text against asceticism, but of course, there are heretical kinds of asceticism, and the kind described here is one of them. Asceticism as a rule is heretical (you have the Gnostics, Flagellants, Montanists, Manicheans, Waldensens, Carthi and various kinds of Puritans and even Methodists) but asceticism as a choice is generally not (although, the Ten Commandments are ascetic), and I’ve already listed a couple of ascetic practices that I’m sure Ferguson would agree is beneficial.
1st Timothy 4:4-5 is also cited, and Ferguson recognizes Gibbons’ explanation, but then attacks a straw man. In the 1st Timothy passage, such things were restricted because they were seen as bad, and Paul reminds us that everything God made is good, including marriage. These come from false teachers, and so is false doctrine. But if there is a false asceticism, then we can infer that there is a good kind. This is more or less Gibbons’ response, and Ferguson replies, “However, they do teach [marriage is sinful] as it relates to the priesthood! No amount of verbiage can change that one.” So, basically, Ferguson is saying that he will not listen to whatever Catholics have to say about this point. Hmm. How ungracious and close-minded.
First, the Catholic Church has never taught marriage is sinful in any way. Even same-sex “marriage”, a good candidate for such a teaching, is not considered sinful, it is just not a real marriage, and so does not apply to that category. Secondly, even a Priest does not consider marriage sinful. I mean, he administers marriage, for crying out loud! Thirdly, contrary to what Ferguson would have you believe, Priests actually can and do get married. It is just not customary for him to do so in the Latin Rite. However, in the Eastern Rite, priests can totally get married. In the Western or Latin rite, you do have to go through a process, because you’re going back on your personal promise to remain chaste, but marriages are given to priests in the Latin Rite nonetheless. Even widowed husbands can become priests, and they would not say their marriage was sinful. So much for forbidding it and viewing it as sinful! Fourthly, celibacy is something to be encouraged! Did Ferguson not know this? If not, why not? He should know this. So no, Catholics do not teach that even as it relates to the priesthood.
Further, Paul was celibate, and he recommended others to also be celibate. He prescribed this to those whom were willing to take it up so that they could devote themselves to God in a special way, but then he did not recommend it if it lead to such carnal temptations. Was Paul being unbiblical in recommending this asceticism? It is okay to abstain from certain things as long as you didn’t condemn them as evil, which is what he is talking about in the Timothy passage, with Gnostics and Manicheans in mind. And though Ferguson says there is no such model for such asceticism, clearly, the abstaining from marriage can be found not only in Paul, but in Jesus! Is Jesus not being Biblical?
1st Timothy 3:2 is cited and in my research, I’ve encountered something funny. The NIV is the translation that Ferguson normatively quotes from. Their translation for this passage reads, “Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach…” Now, the thrust of this is that since Bishops have to be faithful to their wives, it assumes they must be married. And since Catholic discipline dictates that Bishops remain unmarried, they remain in tension with this passage. However, as far as I can see, only the NIV translates this passage in such a way. However, every other popular translation I found translates this passage as being married only once or be the husband of only one wife. This is simply a limit on number, not a requirement of one. The Catholic Church teaches now, as it did then when it wrote 1st Timothy, you cannot be a Bishop and have been married more than once. I’ve already explained how a priest or a Bishop could have both marriage and ordination. But he cannot have more than one wife or be married more than once. Even non-Catholic commentators on this passage agree. This same language is employed in Titus 1:6, which the NIV actually translates the same way, unfortunately.
Talk about Peter comes up, and really there is no tension with Peter being married and Peter being Pope, and Ferguson erroneously says, “The Catholic claim is that those who were married when they came into the church later became part of the clergy and then quit living with their mates at that point.” But where does the Catholic Church teach that? The Church, as far as I know, doesn’t make a declaration on this point, and Ferguson takes Gibbons position on non-essentials where we are given freedom to interpret to our best ability, as Catholic dogma. Straw men. Straw men everywhere, yo.
Finally, Ferguson makes a very careless and very hurtful statement. “Sadly, one has only to look at the sexual irregularities among the priesthood which are coming to light in increasing measure to understand the seriousness of the problem in the practical realm.” Yes, the Catholic has failed by its sexual abuses, and yes, the Catholic Church has gotten very bad publicity about this. The sin is exposed, should be exposed, and repented of. And it is. And because it is, the degree to which Ferguson assumes is not rooted in reality. An article from Psychology Today reports that Catholic clergy are not more likely to abuse children. The best available data suggest that 4% of clergy have sexually abused children, which is lower than teachers and men in general. About 35% of the American population has been sexually abused, and so there is little correlation there. Because Catholic clergy are less likely to sexually abuse children then the general male population, then it follows that celibacy cannot be blamed. Most sexual abusers in the general population are married, so the reason for abuses in the Catholic clergy must be different. And most of the cases we hear from are from decades ago. That’s not to say they’re not important, but that they aren’t something you can simply look at today, as Ferguson says to do. Most of the cases coming to light are from the 60’s and 70’s, almost never past 80’s. And of all these cases, only 1.8% are found guilty. What irregularities is Ferguson talking about? This is simply another attempt to demonize the Catholic Church.
I could go through the Catholic Claim vs. Bible Truth section, but this is already 13 pages, and no.
Comments
Post a Comment