Demonstrate that you picked the "true" church from among all the other "true" churches that say you can’t rightly understand the Bible and church history without their help, such as the Eastern Orthodox church, the Watchtower Society, Mormonism, and every other cult that exists (remember, you can’t use private judgment for this since you are fallible).
"Another false premise, since the only "true" church does not say you cannot rightly understand the Bible and church history without their help. They merely say they can help you understand these things by pointing out that any understanding that contradicticts [sic] their own, is wrong. I can tell which Church is true by noting that Christ established only one Church, and that Church was unified under the Roman pope for a thousand years. Today only one church has that characteristic and can therefore be identified as the true church. Since that judgement does not contradict that of the true Church it is allowable whether fallible or not." (Tony Russo)
Here is a classic case of begging the question. The contestant tells us that I have engaged in a "false" premise in my challenge question, only to demonstrate that my premise is in fact true after all. What a relief it is to hear that Rome allows us to think for ourselves--so long as we come to the same conclusions at which she has arrived, that is! Notice that the contestant then proceeds to list all the typical "Roman" criteria of how to identify the "true" church—(1) Christ established one church, and (2) Rome held primacy over it—without it ever once occurring to the contestant that unless one first accepts that criteria as legitimate, one would never come to the conclusion he does! The Mormon church, who shares the contestant’s view that the "true" church can "point out that any understanding that contradicts their own, is wrong" has come to a very different conclusion regarding what the "true" church is. Nor does it occur to the contestant that only Rome believes that Rome held primacy for "a thousand years." The Eastern Orthodox church—as well as every reputable historian— would certainly contest that claim as unhistorical drivel. And note well, the Eastern Orthodox church also believes that "they can help you understand these things by pointing out that any understanding that contradicts their own, is wrong." For all the smoke and mirrors about a supposed "false premise" in my challenge, the contestant has unwittingly demonstrated the veracity of the very premise which he thinks is false—and, consequently, has not been able to answer the challenge. But read on for some more Roman Catholic answers:
"Easy. The true Church was instituted by Jesus Christ, while all other Christian traditions are off-shoots of her. The Eastern Orthodox broke communion in 1054 AD. The Watchtower Society was founded by Charles Russel (former Congregationalist/Adventist) in 1879; Mormonism was begun by Joseph Smith (former Methodist) in 1830, and "every other cult" which claims to be Christian is an off-shoot of an off-shoot ad infinitum." (Paul Ross).
The contestant wants to have his cake and eat it too. When the question is one of unity, he wants to compare the unity within Rome over against the unity among the "20,000" Protestant denominations. His point for doing this is to attempt to demonstrate (albeit fallaciously) that Protestantism is invalid because it creates faction upon faction upon faction. That is to say, although Protestantism started with just one "denomination," it quickly multiplied into several thousand denominations. But if that’s the case, then these "offshoots" are offshoots of Protestantism, not Rome. Yet now our contestant is calling them offshoots of Rome. But if that’s the case, then the previous charge leveled earlier against Protestants (that they are disunified) must in reality be leveled against Rome, since (in this scenario) it is really Rome that is divided, and Protestants are just one small part of that division. The contestant must choose which point he wants to argue here because they are mutually exclusive points. Second, let’s assume that the contestant really does want to argue the point he has made above; namely, that all of these sects are in reality offshoots of Rome. Christianity was an "offshoot" of Judaism. If the contestant’s point is valid, then we must disregard Christianity as invalid since it is nothing more than an "offshoot" of Judaism (Jesus, in that case, is no more a "prophet" than is Joseph Smith). Aside from all this, the EOC would vehemently disagree with the contestant that it was the EOC who broke communion with Rome. They would argue instead that it was Rome who broke communion. The contestant first simply assumes the Roman position on this split and then argues for Roman authenticity based on his prior assumption. That is, of course, arguing in a circle—something that violates the express instructions of the challenge. Third, the Mormon and the Jehovah’s Witness (and every other cultist for that matter) argue that there was a great apostasy that took place after the first century, and that the true gospel was lost until God revealed it again to their respective founders. The contestant cannot appeal to biblical texts such as Matthew 16 ("the gates of hell shall not prevail against it") to show that the church would always exist since that would be engaging in private interpretation. The contestant could never be sure that he is not just misunderstanding these texts (as the cultists would be quick to point out); he would just have to trust that the cult’s "apparent" contradiction with the Bible is of no more consequence than Rome’s "apparent" contradiction with the Bible on many issues (such as the Bible’s teaching that there is only "one" mediator between God and man, and that Jesus had biological brothers and sisters).
"Firstly, .... Why can't I use private judgment? :-) I just showed you above that what you call "private judgment" is encouraged in the Catholic intellectual and pastoral tradition. So, I would really appreciate it if you stopped mischaracterizing our position." (MARK BONOCORE, A CATHOLIC APOLOGIST FOR BOB SUNGENIS’ CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS INTERNATIONAL).
The contestant is incorrect: Rome does not encourage private judgment, only a cartoon of it. In other words, Rome allows private judgment to choose an ecclesial system ONLY if the ecclesial system you have chosen is Rome! That’s like saying, You are encouraged to exercise free will ONLY so long as you choose what I want you to choose! It’s just amazing that Roman Catholics just can’t seem to get this point. So, I am afraid that it is not I who has mischaracterized the Roman position—ironically, it is the contestant himself. But let us continue with the contestant's "answer" . . .
" . . . Secondly, ... I take great offense at your insinuation that the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are equivalent to cults such as the Watchtower Society or the Mormons. If we Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are a cult, then you must concede that your Protestant ancestors were all active members of this cult, since all of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation were either ordained Catholic priests (like Martin Luther) or ordained Catholic deacons (like John Calvin). :-) So, can "orthodox Christianity" originate from a cult???? :-)" (MARK BONOCORE, A CATHOLIC APOLOGIST FOR BOB SUNGENIS’ CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS INTERNATIONAL).
The contestant has unwittingly done the same thing here as the last contestant; namely, he has admitted that it is really Rome that has "25,000" denominations (of which Protestantism comprises only one part). As for the contestant’s final question: Can orthodox Christianity originate from a cult? One may as well ask, Can truth be resurrected in the midst of error? Well of course, otherwise all those Reformers that show up in the OT record who steer Israel back to the conditions of the covenant as originally given were all false prophets. We would also have to conclude the same about Jesus himself, who resurrected truth out of the error of the Pharisees’ Traditions. But let's continue with this contestant's answer . . .
" . . . Now, with that said, I would be most happy to present some objective evidence for the Catholic Church's role as the one true Church of Jesus Christ. For starters, there is the issue of history. The Watchtower Society was founded in 1872 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania by Charles Taze Russell and asserts numerous doctrines that are completely alien to the early Church. Similarly, the Mormons were founded by Joseph Smith in 1830 in Palmyra, New York and also assert doctrines which are completely alien to the early Church. (MARK BONOCORE, A CATHOLIC APOLOGIST FOR BOB SUNGENIS’ CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS INTERNATIONAL).
Notice that our contestant has done the very thing that the challenge instructed him not to do; namely, he has trusted his own fallible understanding of church history. Remember, we can’t use private judgment to determine which ecclesial system is correct on its understanding of church history, because each one claims that you cannot understand church history without its help. It is circular reasoning to start with Rome’s understanding and then to judge all the other ecclesial systems by that standard (which is what the contestant has done). As such the contestant has already disqualified himself from continuing—but let’s see where he goes with it : ) . . .
" . . . Yet, who founded the Catholic Church? When did it orginate [sic]? :-) And how do you explain the fact that early Christianity held all the basic tenets of modern Catholicism (i.e., an episcopal heirarchy [sic], a belief in the Eucharist as Real Presence and Christ’s one Sacrifice made present in our midst, Baptismal regeneration and infant Baptism, devotion to Mary, etc.)?" (MARK BONOCORE, A CATHOLIC APOLOGIST FOR BOB SUNGENIS’ CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS INTERNATIONAL).
This is just too easy, folks. "Who founded the Catholic church?" One may as well ask, Who founded the Pharisees? " When did it originate?" One may as well as, "When did the Pharisees originate? "How do we explain the fact that early Christianity held all the basic tenets of modern Catholicism (i.e., an episcopal hierarchy, a belief in the Eucharist as Real Presence and Christ’s one Sacrifice made present in our midst, Baptismal regeneration and infant Baptism, devotion to Mary, etc.?" One may as well ask, How do you explain the fact that early Judaism held all the basic tenets of the modern Pharisees (i.e., an episcopal hierarchy, a belief in the Torah, adherence to the Traditions, and a pedigree from Abraham)? Did any of this vindicate the Pharisees when Jesus came on the scene? Of course not. Nor—even if the contestant’s observations were accurate (which, I assure you, they are not)—would it indicate that Rome was the true church. But (and more importantly for our purposes) the contestant once again simply assumes Rome’s understanding of history and then judges all the other systems through Rome-colored glasses. In other words, he again begs the question by assuming what he sets out to prove. That, I submit, is the only way Roman Catholics can argue; and you have seen it demonstrated time and again by their inability to answer this one simple challenge. Since the contestant engages in this same circular argumentation for the rest of the challenge question, we can safely forego the remainder of his comments. So, let’s look at a different Roman Catholic response:
"Jesus chose me for His Church - I didn't pick the Church, it picked me. I prefer Jesus' help in gaining understanding to yours. For demonstration, I give you the entire expanse of recorded history, from the creation of man through to the present day." (Steven Kellmeyer).
I’m not quite certain just what the contestant means by his final statement, but I certainly do agree with his first (aside from the statement "the church picked me"). But that’s just the problem, isn’t it? Jesus chose me and led me away from Rome. The contestant thinks Jesus chose him and led him to Rome. The Mormon thinks God chose him and led him to Mormonism. How can the contestant be certain that it was God who was leading him without relying on private judgment? Let’s try another contestant:
"The answer to this one is similar to my answer to number (1). I was born and raised a Catholic, been one my whole life. So I did not have to pick and choose among the different religions who offer similar claims. And I have never really doubted the truth of the Catholic faith. Later I did learn how to defend my faith (with the help of Catholic Answers and others), and learned the differences among the many Protestant churches, the Eastern Orthodox, and the pseudo-Christian groups, but I have never had to "pick" among the churches and religions that claim to offer Christian truth since I was born and raised Catholic. Again, a convert to the Catholic faith might be in a better position to answer this one. Yes, I am indeed fallible but my knowledge and recognition that the Catholic Church is infallible is as certain as my knowledge and recognition that God and Christ is infallible. If you are saying I have to be infallible to know the Catholic Church is infallible, then likewise you would have to be infallible to know that God is infallible. That the Catholic Church is the true Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ is as certain and clear on historical grounds as the bodily Resurrection of Christ. When you convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, then we can discuss the minor differences between the Orthodox and Catholics." (Phil Porvaznik).
Well, folks, we are almost out of contestants and this challenge has not yet been answered. Notice that, once again, the contestant neatly skirts the epistemological dilemma, opting instead to trust his private "hunch" that the religion of his forefathers is the "true" one. If that’s the way we determine this issue, then the Mormon can claim just as must "certainty" as can our contestant that he must be in the right religion because he’s learned how to defend it. But note well, our contestant thinks it is sufficient to be able to sort through these issues (biblical and historical evidence) as a fallible human being, using private judgment. Yet, that same contestant in a different context will argue that that very same evidence cannot be properly understood apart from relying on Rome to give us the meaning. He may object that we don’t need to rely on Rome to gain an accurate understanding of these issues. But the instant we point out the contradictions between Rome’s teachings and the biblical and historical evidence in question, we are then told that we cannot understand this evidence apart from Rome’s help. Yet, that is the very thing the Mormon church claims. Our decision on which one to choose must finally be our private judgment without recourse to any purported authority. Let's look at another Roman Catholic answer to this challenge:
"My questioner is correct, I cannot use Private Judgement/Interpretation. As a reminder, Private Interpretation occurs when a believer who is *not* a Godly Authority moves to reform doctrine against the proclamation of the standing Godly Authority . . . " (Brent Arias).
At last! A contestant who actually understands the question—and who is honest enough to admit the obvious; that if a Roman Catholic cannot use private judgment for the smaller task (i.e., arriving at a reasonable understanding of the meaning of the Bible and history without the aid of an "infallible interpreter") then he certainly cannot use it for the larger task (i.e., using that same understanding for sorting out which religious system is the "true" one). Unfortunately the contestant is still confused on the issue of Godly Authority, and the comments made on this in challenge question #1 apply here as well. But let’s see where he is headed anyway . . .
" . . . Worded differently, my questioner has devised a question that asks: "how did you choose the "true" Godly Authority from amongst competing, alleged Godly Authorities (GAs)?" Well, when GAs denounce each other I am forced to use my Obligation to Choose, or the Ephesian Principle, to determine which to accept. Since I must now execute my Obligation to Choose, my hands are untied to use anything at all God puts in my heart as the discriminating factor between competing GAs. It is ONLY at this point that my approach becomes essentially identical to Protestants.
And so, folks, there you have it. As we have already seen (point #1 above), the "Obligation to Choose" principle mentioned by the contestant is nothing more than a "spun" version of Private Judgment (or, as I’ve labeled it above using my own "spin," Private Choice of Authority), and his Ephesian principle is based on a poor interpretation and application of Eph 2:20 (which, by the way, he necessarily arrived at through Private Interpretation, again demonstrating that no one ultimately escapes having to interpret the Scriptures for himself prior to deciding on which "infallible interpreter" he will choose). The contestant says it is only at this point that his approach is identical to the Protestant approach, but that only point is fatal to the contestant’s position. If he is using Private Judgment to decide on the greater issue (which ecclesial system is the "true" one) then he cannot suddenly label it invalid when using it to decide on the plain reading and meaning of the Bible (the lesser issue). But read on for a different Roman Catholic response:
"I didn't pick it. God picked me. 'You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you'..." (Ian Smith).
Agreed; very well then, if we don’t need an infallible interpreter to tell us which ecclesial system to choose, then we also do not need one to tell us the meaning and message of the Bible. Just as God sovereignly chooses his elect, so also he ensures that they arrive at an essential understanding of his word (1 John 2:20-27). And, for our final contestant:
"This is essentially the same question as question 1. Thus my answer is essentially the same. I belong to the Roman Catholic Church not because of personal infallibility, but out of submission to Her Authority. Do you only stop at "true" red lights?" (Jacob W Dell).
Since, as the contestant thinks, this is essentially the same question as the first challenge question, then my answer to his response there should suffice for this one as well. In fact, it is not the same question at all. The first challenge question asks the contestant to define a principle for inquiring that Rome is the true church that does not engage in the very principle that Rome says is illegitimate; namely, private judgment. The present challenge question asks the contestant to define a method for choosing among all the existing ecclesial systems that claim an infallible interpreter. Rome seems to be a "red light" for the contestant, but for what reason? Why isn't Mormonism that "red light" instead? The contestant simply hasn't answered the question.This challenge question concludes our inquiry into the epistemology of the contestants. Epistemology essentially asks the question, "How do you know what you claim to know?" Roman Catholics typically argue that we must submit our fallible opinions to an infallible Roman Catholic church. But none of them explains how he knows that Rome is indeed infallible without relying on his own fallible opinion that Rome is infallible. What is worse, it doesn't even seem to occur to them that this underlying question completely undermines their previous claim that Rome is infallible. Even after they have concluded (on the "illegitimate" principle of private judgment/interpretation) that there needs to be an infallible interpreter, there is yet a need to use that same "illegitimate," fallible private judgment/interpretation to decide that it is Rome who fills that bill rather than the the EOC, Mormonism, the Watchtower Society, or any of the tens of thousands of other competing ecclesial systems whose "infallible interpreter" demands their allegiance.