As an Evangelical apologist who writes on Roman Catholic issues, I get my share of attacks from the Roman Catholic side. These attacks can usually be found on Roman Catholic websites, both in the form of articles and in the form of discussion boards. I don't usually spend a lot of time responding to these attacks since responses usually only engender more misrepresentations of my views--and consume far too much of my time. However, there are certain Roman Catholic e-pologists who have reached such an all-time low in their attacks of my views that some response seems almost required. One such e-pologist is the subject of this article. Indeed, the text of the present article was originally written over six months ago in response to some other nonsense that this same Roman apologist engaged in. I sent the article to the e-pologist to warn him against misrepresentations of my views, and against using ad hominem arguments. I decided against publishing the article at that time because he publicly apologized for his bad behavior. I assumed that was that. I was wrong. What follows is the original text of the article along with an update on the current tactics of this e-pologist.
One of the current debates in the NBA (National Basketball Association, for you non-fans) is the problem of players being recruited right out of high school, bypassing the college requirement that most of the veterans had to endure. Players such as the Laker’s Kobe Bryant have a lot of raw talent, and will no doubt one day begin to round out their game. But the fact that they sidestepped college basketball, and attempted to jump right into the big league, entails that they necessarily missed the foundations of that "rounding." This same problem is now plaguing Roman apologetics. The new Roman Catholic defenders are now being recruited right out of high school. You heard it right; and one of the recruits who has taken it upon himself to "set us anti-Catholics straight" is a young man named Mario Derksen. Young Mario is a self-styled, self-proclaimed Roman Catholic apologist who thinks he represents the Roman Catholic position—and why not? He has been embraced by some of Rome’s major defenders, including Patrick Madrid (who allows young Mario to submit articles for his Envoy magazine), and Bob Sungenis, who, in a personal email to me, called young Mario his "colleague."
Got a question about Rome’s teaching? This post-teen wonder has a pat answer just for you! He has already solved all the debates that have plagued Roman Catholic scholars for centuries! Barely out of his teens, young Mario makes it his mission in life to engage in (mostly) ad hominem arguments against sincere-minded Evangelicals who present sound biblical evidence against the Roman Catholic position. These Evangelicals are always, of course, "adamant anti-Catholics," and are never sincere scholars who have earnest differences of opinion with Rome based on sound biblical exegesis. Young Mario has created quite a reputation for himself in the (necessarily) short amount of time he has been "apologizing"—not as a sound thinker who presents scholarly arguments, but rather as a "Jack Chick"-style Roman Catholic apologist, who ramrods his opponents with vicious and personally insulting epithets, while characterizing their work in the true gospel as "garbage" meant for "the trash can." One wonders how someone just out of his teens—with absolutely no knowledge of (or experience in) the original biblical languages of Greek and Hebrew, with absolutely no knowledge of (or experience in) the nuances of NT scholarship in this area, and with absolutely no knowledge of (or experience in) hermeneutics and exegesis—could possibly think himself qualified to write on these issues at all, let alone critique those of us who do have this knowledge and experience. That is a very unfortunate short-sightedness on young Mario’s part, however, since, in doing so, he has practically guaranteed that none of us who is embroiled in this debate on the Evangelical side will ever treat him with the seriousness that he so desires, or give him a public forum with us to debate these issues in a scholarly way. If young Mario doubts this, he should perhaps take careful note of other "wannabe" Roman Catholic apologists who desperately want to be recognized by Evangelical apologists, but who have (by their vociferous approach marked by a lack of theological training) disqualified themselves from this arena (Art Sippo and Vin Lewis come to mind).
I first encountered young Mario some time ago while I was on the Internet. I was doing research and minding my own business, when suddenly I was sent an Instant Message from someone asking me a barrage of questions regarding my beliefs as an Evangelical. I recognized the Internet address as that of a young Roman Catholic seminarian who, from time to time, wrote me with questions regarding Evangelical beliefs. But the questions seemed different this time. All the other messages I had received from this seminarian were in cryptic form, usually in broken English (I believe the seminarian is Cuban). This one, however, was written in complete sentences. The questioner made some typical Roman Catholic points regarding doctrine (I don’t remember what they were exactly), and then asked me about debating various Roman Catholic apologists. Since I was still busy doing my research I resolved not to be led into an online debate with the inquisitor; but, not wanting to be rude, I did quickly type in a few responses. I told the inquisitor that I had just finished a debate with Gerry Matatics, and that I had issued debate challenges to Karl Keating and Patrick Madrid, both of whom declined to debate me. The inquisitor then challenged me to debate him. Once again I was pulled away from my research to answer his challenge. I explained to him that I have no desire to debate someone who is not a major spokesman for Roman beliefs, nor someone who is not fully trained in theology, biblical languages, and other disciplines necessary for this task. In short, I told him, I was interested in debating only the most effective representatives of Rome. He wrote back and said that I should be willing to debate him since I would easily win. I responded that I was not interested in "winning," but only in each side being represented by the best spokesman. The inquisitor then asked me why I haven’t debated Bob Sungenis. I responded again in cryptic fashion, being much more focused on my research than on the question. Actually, I think I was responding only to every third or fourth question—the questions were coming at a feverish pace, and being busy with other things, and not being very interested in corresponding with this inquisitor, I gave a very short answer—I had offered to debate Sungenis on two occasions and both were declined. After I clicked the Send button and returned to my research, it occurred to me that the statement I just sent might be misinterpreted. The statement itself was true, but not complete. It was true that I had offered to debate Sungenis in the Fall of ’98 in Fresno, but Sungenis and his coordinator had decided on someone else. It was also true that I had offered to debate Sungenis in the Spring of ‘99, but again I was not chosen as the opponent. But before I had an opportunity to clarify the meaning, I was sent one final message from the inquisitor letting me know of his plans to inform Bob Sungenis that I said he was afraid to debate me. No sooner had I received the message, the inquisitor signed off. With a sigh of relief that I was now to be left alone, I happily went back to my research.
Within a day or two I received email from Bob Sungenis referencing an email he received from someone named Mario Derksen regarding the aforementioned IM exchange. In his email Bob chastised me for failing to clarify what "decline" meant. The full text of this correspondence is best saved for another article since it has more to do with Bob Sungenis and his organization (Catholic Apologetics International) than it does with young Mario. What the IM exchange demonstrated to me was that young Mario was just another hothead Roman Catholic with a keyboard and a huge chip on his shoulder.
The next time I encountered young Mario was when he wrote me to challenge me on some of the arguments in my book, Evangelical Answers, regarding such issues as Mary as "mother of God" (among other things). Out of courtesy, I wrote him back to clarify the issue—a huge mistake on my part, since he interpreted that action as an invitation to debate me online, something as a matter of personal policy I do not do anymore. The reason I don’t debate online is because of the time that is necessarily involved in such an activity. Clarifications of misunderstandings sometimes take weeks to establish in such a forum; whereas the same misunderstanding can be cleared up in a moment in a face-to-face or phone conversation. In that spirit, I did something I normally do not do—I gave young Mario my phone number and asked him to call me if he had questions of clarification. Young Mario opted not to take me up on my offer.
The issue regarding "mother of God" is that it is based on faulty reasoning. Mary in no way gave birth to Jesus' divine nature, and hence, cannot legitimately be called "mother of God." Properly speaking, God is not a person, but a being that subsists in three persons. God is a Trinity; yet it cannot be said that since Jesus is God then Jesus must be a Trinity! Catholic apologists have not made the necessary distinction between person, nature, and being. Young Mario has argued for an exception in the case of Jesus, asserting that Jesus is a "divine person" who took on a human nature. It is in this way that Mary must be called the mother of God. Such an argument, however, encounters innumerable difficulties. First, the instant one uses the phrase "divine person," one has already violated the distinction above: "Divine person" is just another way of saying "person with a divine nature." Yet, the instant the incarnation occurred, the "person" in question was something more—namely, he was a "person with a divine nature and a human nature"; and it was to this person Mary gave birth. Moreover, if one insists that we must regard Mary as the mother of God based on the fact that Mary gave birth to a "divine person," we then must ask some probing questions: Jesus "grew in wisdom" (Luke 2:52); since Jesus is God, are we then to conclude that God grew in wisdom? Jesus did not know the precise day and hour of end-time events (Matt 24:36). Since Jesus is God, are we to conclude that God did not know this information? Jesus was "tempted in every way just as we are" (Heb 4:15); since Jesus is God, are we to conclude that God was tempted? Jesus died on the cross; since Jesus is God, are we to conclude that God died? The biblical view, of course, is that God has always possessed all wisdom, that God knows all things, including the timeframe for end-time events (Matt 24:36), that God cannot be tempted with evil (Jas 1:13), and that God cannot die since dying is a corporeal condition, affecting humans (1 Cor 15:22; "in Adam, all die") but not God (Ps 82:6-7; "I said ‘you are gods.’ . . . but you will die like mere men"), nor even angels (Luke 20:36; "they can no longer die; for they are like the angels"). How is it then that Jesus grew in wisdom, was limited in knowledge, was tempted, died—and, yes, was born? Quite simply, only by virtue of his human nature, and not by virtue of his divinity. God cannot be conceived and born anymore than he can die. Mary cannot, therefore, be said to have given birth to God (and hence, be designated the "mother of God") anymore than the Jews can be said to have killed God (and hence, be designated the "killers of God"). Jesus in his humanity had a mother; Jesus in his divinity was "without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life" (Heb 7:3).
A short time later, with more time on my hands than usual, I decided to do a quick web search of my name (you never know who’s talking about you when you’re in an arena such as this one). To my surprise, I came across several web sites that mentioned me in one context or another. However, I was particularly intrigued by a certain web site that listed several hits containing my name. When I visited the site, I found that the site was a virtual anti-shrine to yours truly! The site owner turned out to be none other than the young Mario. I was the topic of discussion past, discussion present, and discussion future. One of the discussions included—you guessed it—the text of the (what I thought had been) private email exchange I had had with young Mario. Here is the letter I wrote him in response:
*******************
Dear Mr. Derksen,
I had to chuckle when recently I conducted a web search on my name, which oddly
enough produced several hits from one web site in particular. Out of curiosity I
clicked on one of the hyperlinks and was surprised to see my name mentioned so
many times by one person. I'm in your past articles, I'm the topic of current
discussion, and I even made it to your "Coming Soon" section! It seems
you've made it your mission to walk in my shadow--I'm flattered! : )
I chuckled even more when I read that your were "still waiting" for my
response to a recent exchange we had--which exchange I had thought, after all,
was private mail. Had I written that for a book or posted it in a public forum,
then it would have been fair game for you to respond publicly. As it is, your
unethical posting of private mail betrays the fact that you are not capable of
engaging in a fair exchange of ideas.
Now about the fact that you are "still waiting for a response."
Really, Mr. Derksen, you have attached far too much significance to my lack of
response. Do you have any idea how many email notes I receive daily from
hotheads with a keyboard who want to engage me in debate? If I took the time to
respond to every one of them I can assure you I'd never get any real work done.
I have to pick my battles carefully—obviously you have a good deal more time
on your hands than I. I actually thought I was being charitable to respond to
your post. Then when you wrote back I thought I'd respond one more time, again
out of charity to you. When I received your next email, I could see that you
were under the impression that this was an online debate, and, as I have told
you in the past, I simply do not have the time to engage in such things. It is
very interesting to me, however, that in your triumphalistic "still waiting
for a response" web post, you didn't bother to inform your readers: (1)
that I specifically told you in the past that I don't do online debates, nor (2)
that I sent you my home phone number and invited you to call me if you wanted
clarification of my views, nor (3) that even after inviting you to call me, you
didn't call. That doesn't sound to me like someone interested in the pursuit of
truth.
Moreover, I informed you in my response to an instant message you sent me (which
<sigh> also somehow became a public issue) that I am interested in
debating only the best that Rome has to offer—anything less than that is a
waste of my time. You do not have a degree, you do not know the biblical
languages, you are not steeped in scholarship--and as far as I can tell by your
picture, you were only a few short years ago getting most of your theology from
the Magic School Bus. For all the theological acumen that I'm sure you think you
have, you simply have not been exposed to enough diverse theological opinion to
be a well-rounded voice in this arena. That will come with time, and as you get
older and expose yourself to more aspects of theology—and become theologically
educated—I'm sure you will be a formidable opponent. When you make it to the
big league, give me a call. Until then, I'm afraid any attempt to
"bait" me into a debate will be to no avail. Perhaps if your readers
knew the whole story they would be less likely to conclude that your
triumphalistic tone is justified. And, by the way, unlike my last posts sent to
you, you have my consent to post this one.
Regards,
Eric Svendsen
******************
Since that time, young Mario has continued his personal attacks against me. Anyone reading my web site or my books can plainly see that my sole interest is in debunking Roman Catholic heresy. I have no interest in singling out individuals for personal attacks. When it is necessary to do so I have cited specific Roman Catholic apologists in order to interact with their unique arguments. But I do not thereby devalue the individual. Young Mario, on the other hand, has carved out a less-than-flattering image of himself by devoting his web site, not to cogent arguments against positions, but rather to personal attacks against those who hold those positions. What follows are some examples of just that. It is important to note here that, as a result of my pointing out these errors to young Mario publicly, most of what follows has since been corrected or removed from his site. I include them to show the reader the process that led me to publish this article.
In his article titled, Eric Svendsen set straight again. Comments on his answers to the Roman Catholic Challenge, young Mario had this to say about my General Comments section in the Roman Catholic Challenge: "My worst suspicions have been confirmed. Eric Svendsen knows as much about Roman Catholicism as I do about quantum physics--nothing. The difference is that I don't claim to know anything about quantum physics, whereas he styles himself as a former Catholic who now responds to the Catholic Church."
Actually I don’t "style myself" as a former Catholic, I am a former Catholic. What’s more, I was a Roman Catholic for more years than young Mario has been alive, and I have been an Evangelical for nearly as long. I have been on both sides of the fence for a substantially longer amount of time than young Mario has been cognizant that there is such a fence. The statement by young Mario to the effect that "Eric Svendsen knows nothing about Catholicism" is of course intended to be a personal attack, but one that is, nevertheless, unfounded. My bachelors degree is in Biblical studies, my masters degree is in New Testament studies, and my doctorate is in Theological studies with an emphasis in apologetics. In addition, my Ph.D. (which I just recently finished) is in biblical studies with an emphasis in Mariology in the NT and in Roman Catholicism. I have written a 250-page book on Roman Catholic apologetics, a 500+-page book on Mariology, and have just completed another book on Roman Catholic epistemological fallacies. Roman Catholic apologist Gerry Matatics not only called my debate with him "the most substantial debate [he’s] had with someone who specializes in . . . critiquing the roman catholic position," but also thanked me for "approaching it with the seriousness [the topic] deserves." Another Roman Catholic apologist who opposes my position has privately written to me to tell me that he is a "closet fan" of mine. Even young Mario has admitted on his web site (in his response to my letter above) that my arguments are "better" than those of most other Evangelical apologists. I have to conclude on this basis that young Mario is simply engaging in a bit of posturing—rather than presenting what he believes to be true in actuality—when he writes that "Eric Svendsen knows nothing about Catholicism." The evidence is decidedly to the contrary. Here are more of young Mario’s befuddled statements:
"Besides, it is him [sic] and other Protestants who assert the Bible is the only rule of faith and thus must, eventually, be able to clarify itself. This being he [sic] case, then, all Protestants must finally be in one accord with what the Bible teaches. But they're not. This disproves their doctrine of sola scriptura and private interpretation from a purely practical standpoint. This was the entire point I was making, and this sums up my response to Svendsen's first criterion, that of private interpretation."
The shallowness with which young Mario addresses this issue becomes even more obtrusive when one notes that he wrote this after I had already posted my response to the challenge contestants for Challenge #1, Challenge #2, and Challenge #3. Since his objection has already been answered there, I will refrain from repeating it here. In addition, this is precisely the topic of my most recent book on Roman Catholic Epistemological Fallacies (currently being reviewed for publication by Calvary Press). Here is how young Mario "answers" my comments about his response in the General Comments section of the Roman Catholic Challenge:
"But no one is claiming that [Catholics may not have a legitimate difference of opinion about the meaning of certain teachings from the magisterium]. We are only allowed to speculate on teachings not ruled on by the Magisterium! An example would be the destiny of the soul of an aborted baby. Svendsen is desperately trying to make this analogous to his own Protestant case, namely that of doctrinal anarchy. Is he not allowed to differ with other Protestants on what the Bible teaches if Catholics are allowed to differ with other Catholics on what the Magisterium teaches? No, because Catholics aren't allowed to differ, except on such issues as have not yet been clarified. Svendsen could argue the same for Protestantism, i.e., he could say that the Bible is unclear on several points, and therefore he may have different views from other Protestants. True, in principle, but this fails when we consider that whereas the Magisterium can respond and clarify and make future rulings, the Bible cannot! Besides, it is him [sic] and other Protestants who assert the Bible is the only rule of faith and thus must, eventually, be able to clarify itself. This being he case, then, all Protestants must finally be in one accord with what the Bible teaches. But they're not. This disproves their doctrine of sola scriptura and private interpretation from a purely practical standpoint. This was the entire point I was making, and this sums up my response to Svendsen's first criterion, that of private interpretation."
Young Mario must persist with the false analogy between his one denomination of Rome vs. the many denominations within Protestantism in order to argue his point. That false analogy was answered in the Concluding Thoughts of Challenge #2, and the reader is invited there to see just why young Mario’s argument doesn’t work. Here is how young Mario "answers" the objection that his understanding of Rome’s teaching is just that—his understanding. And he has given us no reason to adopt his understanding as opposed to Fr. Raymond Brown’s understanding of that same teaching. He writes:
"This is utter baloney. We all remember how in 1968, the liberals coined the oxymoronic term "loyal dissent." They didn't pretend to follow Paul VI's encyclical Humane Vitae with just a different interpretation; oh, no. They openly dissented from it, rejected it, protested against it (sound familiar?). We have a similar case with Edward Schillebeeckx, who proposed the heretical notion of "transignification" instead of Transubstantiation (he was castigated for this by Paul VI in his encyclical Mysterium Fidei), as well as John P. Meier, who, in his book Matthew, basically denies the perpetual virginity of Mary (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1990; p. 9), which is, as clearly spelled out in Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, a de fide teaching of the Church (Rockford: TAN, 1974; p. 206), and therefore infallible. If Mr. Svendsen still wishes to maintain that these "Catholic scholars" he quotes throughout his apologetics work merely interpret the clear definitions of the Magisterium differently, I would like him to give me several concrete examples. In fact, since the Magisterium is living, it can be asked. If we believe a teaching to be obscure, opaque, unclear, or whatever, we are entitled to inquire and ask the Magisterium to clarify its teaching. This is usually done by a direct response from the Holy Office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This is how we know whether or not we are indeed misinterpreting a magisterial teaching that is unclear. But most teachings are very clear. Svendsen has desperately tried to make Catholics suffer from the same dilemma he has, but he fails in his attempts, as demonstrated here. It is instances such as these that confirm my suspicion that Eric Svendsen's knowledge of Roman Catholicism is woefully inadequate to present a thesis against it."
It is difficult to know just what young Mario means by the statement "we all remember how in 1968," since young Mario was not even alive in 1968. But what is "utter baloney" is young Mario’s obfuscation of the issue. He asks for "examples" where Roman Catholic scholars disagree as to the meaning of Rome’s teaching; yet the Challenge Questions themselves represent some very real examples, not least of which is the proper interpretation of the Vatican II document Dei Verbum. Since, once again, I have already dealt with this issue in Challenge #4, there is no need to repeat myself here. Young Mario seems confused, however, on one other thing. He boldly states the following:
"If we believe a teaching to be obscure, opaque, unclear, or whatever, we are entitled to inquire and ask the Magisterium to clarify its teaching. This is usually done by a direct response from the Holy Office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This is how we know whether or not we are indeed misinterpreting a magisterial teaching that is unclear."
Oh really? "Entitled" to inquire and ask the magisterium? Just write to them and ask. They’ll clear it up right away. As simple as that! Then perhaps we can ask young Mario to do us a favor: Since no Roman Catholic scholar seems to know about this "special-request" procedure, would young Mario be so kind as to write the magisterium and ask it what it meant by the phrase "for the sake of our salvation" in Dei Verbum—a phrase that is at the heart of the Roman Catholic debate on the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture (see Challenge Question #4 for details)? Indeed, another Challenge Question deals with whether or not Vatican II was an infallible council. Anyone who has visited young Mario's web site knows that he has sponsored a debate on this very issue between two Roman Catholics; Adam Kolasinski and Art Sippo--neither of whom is part of the magisterium, and neither of whom can tell us definitely what Rome's position is. If young Mario really wanted to clear this up, why didn't he just "write to the magisterium" and ask? Why did he feel a need to have a debate on it instead? The utter silliness of such a suggestion as "inquiring" the magisterium, of course, just illustrates the utter naïveté that plagues our young Mario. Ah, but kids say the darnedest things, don’t they? How cute that he thinks he can just write to the magisterium to get clarification on these issues! Okay, young Mario, go ahead and get clarification on this and all the other issues of debate within Rome, and then post the results on your web site so that all the rest of us can see what the Roman Catholic teaching really is on these issues. You can start with the fifteen or so items of disagreement included in my Roman Catholic Challenge. We await your "clarification" with baited breath ; )
Young Mario has also attacked (ad hominem style) some other issues of apostolic teaching that are included on my web site. He has written an article titled "My Pastor Said ‘Atlanta’" in which he both misrepresents what I teach, and (almost as badly) mistakenly concludes that I am from Atlanta, GA (I have lived in a number of states in the U.S., and Georgia is definitely not one of them). Here’s what he says:
"Mr. Eric Svendsen, an evangelical newcomer apologist, has co-founded the so-called New Testament Restoration Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia. Yep, you read that right. It's New Testament Restoration Ministries [sic]. . . . Anyway, as I was touring through Atlanta, I couldn't help but ask myself why someone would actually think the New Testament Church has to be restored, and that, of all people, he is supposed to be the one to do it. It reminds me so much of the Mormons, who claim the New Testament Church got lost, headed into apostasy, until the 1800's when the great "God-chosen" prophet Joseph Smith appeared and--yep--restored it all. We hear similar such fairy tales with the Christian Scientists (Mary Baker Eddy) and the Seventh-Day Adventists (Ellen G. White)."
Here our young Mario betrays his ignorance in two areas: (1) the teachings contained on my web site (he has made it clear from his comments that he has not even read the articles on this issue), and (2) New Testament scholarship. If he were familiar with the former, he would then know what the latter teaches; and if he were familiar with the latter, he would know that my views are directly in line with what the majority of New Testament scholars have concluded about the practice of the New Testament church. The fact that our young Mario concludes without even reading my articles that I must be wrong only illustrates the truthfulness of the proverb: "A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions" (Pr 18:2). Perhaps young Mario is better off simply avoiding addressing these issues altogether since "Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue" (Pr 17:28). Oh well—one can still hope, can’t he? : ) Here’s young Mario’s conclusion to his misunderstanding of my position:
"The Catholic position, of course, is that the New Testament Church still exists today; it is the Catholic Church. It has developed over the years and matured, but it is still the same Church today. There is no need to "restore" anything to its New Testament form because we are still living the New Testament (and "Testament" means Covenant, after all)."
The silliness of such a statement hardly merits a response. But, as I have said before in another context, so shall I say again, what is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied. Is the Roman Catholic church just an extension of the New Testament church? But of course not. It is rather the apostatized version of the "church" in the same way that the Pharisees and Sadducees were the apostatized version of Israel when Jesus came on the scene and rebuked both their Traditions and their understanding of salvation. Let’s go on . . .
"But since Mr. Svendsen and his colleague Steve Atkerson are proponents of the Bible-only theory, called Sola Scriptura, they see things differently and now are trying to re-set Christianity (however they might define that) to New Testament times. What this means to them is described on their beliefs page. One of their characteristics is that they are "evangelical" and believe in "Reformed" Theology. How "reformed" could be a characteristic of the New Testament Church is a mystery to me."
This is one of the reasons why our young Mario is completely unqualified to address these issues—he either does not understand basic theological terms, or he intentionally misrepresents them (it’s easier to throw out a red herring than it is to deal with real issues). But, since this appears to be a "mystery" to our young Mario, then I will explain it to him. By "reformed" we mean that we subscribe to the Biblical doctrine of God’s sovereign predestination of his elect. Now let us continue:
"The NTRM web site mentions that they prefer "meeting in homes rather than in specially designed buildings." This is a main characteristic that distinguishes them from other Protestants (as if we aren't split enough yet)."
Our young Mario is here engaging in a double standard. When the issue is one of the many differences among roman catholic rites and orders (such as one finds between the byzantine rite vs. the latin rite), the catholic apologist, without exception, defends these differences as legitimate diverse expressions of worship. When that same type of difference is found within Protestantism (e.g., a mega-church model vs. a home-church model), suddenly these are "splits" within Protestantism that are caused by that nasty sola scriptura principle. It is just this kind of blind-sightedness and glaring double standard that plagues young Mario’s position and justifies our comments about it. The issues surrounding ecclesiology are, in my opinion, important; but they are certainly nothing over which to divide the body of Christ.
"The NTRM (Atkerson and Svendsen, that is) argue that the Apostles had house churches in mind and the first Christians used their own homes, so this is what we need to return to. This is a perfect example of how personal interpretation and Protestant individualism leads to erroneous conclusions, divisions (which St. Paul condemned throughout the New Testament, of course) and heresy. The earliest Christians, in fact, met in the Jewish synagogue or Temple (unless, of course, they were known to be Christians, then they couldn't because of persecution) for the Scripture readings and the traditional Jewish service; it was only then that they would go into their different homes to offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice, since they couldn't do that in the synagogue or in the Temple."
Here again young Mario demonstrates that he has not read our articles on this issue. For if he had, he would have seen not only the overwhelming biblical evidence for the home-church model, but also that every NT scholar who is an expert in this field has come to the same conclusions we have. Young Mario thinks he has scholarly support when he cites someone named "Robert Cabie":
"Acts 2:46 proves just that: "And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes...." Robert Cabie adds: "What happens 'in their homes' is here being opposed primarily to what happens 'in the temple'; the point may be to highlight the customs specific to Christians who meanwhile continued to attend the temple" (A.G. Martimort, ed., The Church At Prayer, Volume 2: the Eucharist [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1986], p.36)."
I want everyone to be crystal clear about this: No one—and I mean no one—in NT scholarship who deals with the NT model of church has ever interacted with "Robert Cabie." How do I know? Because I have read almost every single volume by a NT scholar dealing with this issue and not one of them gives any evidence that they have even heard of "Robert Cabie." And, if they had heard of him, that is even worse; for then they knew of him but decided that his views were not worthy of consideration. To quote an obviously roman catholic source (Liturgical Press), who is also obviously not a NT scholar (perhaps he is a devotional writer instead—that’s what the title of his book suggests), in order to overturn what the majority of NT scholars say on this issue, just proves what I have been saying all along; namely, that young Mario has a long way to go before he is ready to engage himself in this arena. He shows absolutely no familiarity with NT scholarship, nor the differences between a NT scholar, a theologian, and a pastoral devotional writer, nor even familiarity with the content (and hence, the true positions) of the articles he pretends to address. What he has done is to quote a single popular pastoral work—a work which itself shows no evidence of familiarity with NT scholarship in this area, and which likely was written purely for devotional purposes—and has used that to try to overturn the teaching of both the New Testament and the consensus of NT scholarship. Let’s continue with young Mario’s comments:
"Another reason for their use of homes instead of specially designed churches is that they were persecuted. During the Roman persecution specifically, they had to basically gather in cellars, basements, and catacombs to worship God and offer Mass."
And if young Mario had actually decided to read the specific articles on this—instead of speaking from ignorance—he would have discovered that his understanding of church history is right around a tenth-grade level. The perceived insult (if it is taken that way) is completely unintentional. It is simply a fact that the popular understanding of a "persecuted church" is also popularly misunderstood. A perusal of any college-level church history textbook will quickly reveal that persecution of the early church before A.D. 250 was always sporadic, localized, and (more often than not) the result of mob hostility rather than the decree of a Roman ruler. In fact, those same church history manuals will also reveal that the number of Roman rulers who were favorable toward Christianity outnumbered those who opposed it. In any case, Lukan scholars agree that Luke (in Acts) goes out of his way to show that whenever the issue of Christianity vs. Judaism was brought before a Roman magistrate, that magistrate always judged that the issue (being of a religious nature) was out of his jurisdiction. That is why Acts 2 says that the church "enjoyed the favor of all the people"; and that is why at the end of Acts Paul is preaching the gospel virtually unrestrained even though he is under house arrest. But, again, young Mario would have known all of this if he had just read the articles he thinks he has refuted. But let’s continue with young Mario’s "scholarly" source:
"What is specifically interesting, though, is that the Christians' use of personal homes was in fact their substitute for real churches: "It is clear ... that those attending were in a place other than their own homes [emphasis added], and almost certainly in the home of one of their number who was able to place a room in his house at the disposal of all" (op.cit., p.37). In other words, if the early Christians had truly wanted or practiced a house church spirituality, as Svendsen & Co. would have it, why did they all gather together in one home and not each family stay home for itself?"
First of all, young Mario’s comments introducing the comments of his "scholar" show that he does not understand the source he cites. Well, of course, when a body of believers met at someone else’s home for church that were thereby meeting in a place "other than their own homes." Young Mario italicizes this as though this is some startling revelation, and as though there is some point to be made. The early local church gathered in the home of one of its members. Who has ever claimed differently? Young Mario's opening comment, however—"the Christians' use of personal homes was in fact their substitute for real churches"—is not supported by the quote from his source that follows; in fact, it doesn't even make sense on its own. Just what can it mean that the Christians’ use of personal homes was a "substitute" for "real churches"? One surmises that young Mario must still have in mind his tenth-grade understanding of "church persecution" here, and that he somehow thinks there were specially designed "church buildings" where Christians met when not persecuted. If this is what he means, then young Mario’s understanding of church history is at an even lower level than I had first thought. The first "church buildings" were the basilicas and the pagan shrines taken over by the political church of the fourth century after Constantine's edict of Milan. There is evidence of a refurbished house along the River Euphrates that gives scant third-century evidence of a "specially designed building," but even here it is just a house in which the hosting church member had added a baptismal in its largest room. It is a well-accepted fact of NT scholarship (and one that young Mario would have known if only he had taken the time to read my articles on this) that the average well-to-do house of the first few centuries A.D. could accommodate roughly thirty people comfortably—perhaps as many as forty-five in a pinch. Young Mario asks why anyone would go anywhere if all you had to do is meet in your own home. This, once again, betrays an embarrassingly uninformed NT theology of church. The biological family is an earthly entity; the church is the eschatological family that transcends biological relationships. Obviously, not every "family" was converted to Christianity, even if an individual in that family was (hence, the need for Paul to address believers who had unbelieving spouses in 1 Cor 7). In such a case, that believer still needed to meet with his/her eschatological family. Young Mario seems to have confused the home as a meeting place of the church, with the home as "church." The former is true, and the latter is not. Let us continue with young Mario's comments:
"And if it was okay to gather together in communities for Mass, why is it wrong now to have big Church buildings where everyone comes together?"
Actually, no one in the early centuries of the church met together to celebrate "mass." That is nothing more than the gratuitous roman catholic assumption on young Mario’s part. Let us continue:
"In fact, "at the end of the third century, architects had to provide buildings constructed expressly as places of assembly.... Architects turned therefore to the basilicas" (op.cit., p.39; emphasis added). Now, isn't that interesting?! As the peace of Constantine then began and developed further, the door was opened for real churches, basilicas, cathedrals, etc."
What is interesting is how something that didn’t even exist for the church of the first three centuries could somehow be labeled a "real church" by young Mario. Moreover, if this historical blunder from young Mario’s "scholarly" source is representative of the rest of his book, then no wonder young Mario has been led astray. "At the end of the third century" no one was building church buildings. That period was marked by the reign of Dioclecian (284-305), arguably one of the stauncher persecutors of Christians in the history of Christianity (particularly in his edicts of 303 and 304). Constantine was not emperor until 305, and his edict of Milan (which established tolerance of all religions, including Christianity) was not issued until 313—obviously we are now well into the fourth century, not the third. It was not until after the edict of Milan that the basilicas were commissioned. Historian Henry Sefton puts it this way: "The Emperor [Constantine] himself built a new church in Rome which symbolized the dawn of a new era. This church . . . seems rapidly to have replaced the house-church. . . . Worship in the house-church had been of an intimate kind in which all present had taken an active part. But by the beginning of the fourth century the distinction between clergy and lay people was becoming more prominent. About this time the liturgy changed from being ‘a corporate action of the whole church’ into ‘a service said by the clergy to which the laity listened.’ This may have influenced the choice of the basilica plan for the new churches" (Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, 150-51). But, let us continue with the remainder of young Mario’s comments:
"The approach to a "house church theology" which the NTRM proposes seems to me a little far-fetched and unhistorical."
I suppose this is the conclusion to which one would come who is steeped neither in NT scholarship nor in church history.
"The Apostles didn't have cars either; maybe we should abandon cars now."
This again illustrates the fact that young Mario has not read the articles he thinks he is refuting; for if he had, he would know that his "car" argument falls outside of the strict hermeneutical boundaries that we set for normative church practice.
"Seriously, though, one cannot limit the New Testament Church to a certain period of time. Obviously, that Church of the New Testament developed, and as opportunities arose, the early Christians came out of their houses and began to build and decorate huge and beautiful temples for the glory of the Lord. After all, the biggest and most beautiful edifice in a town should belong to GOD!"
The very same argument could have been used (and likely was used) by Israel to justify meeting at the "high places." Unfortunately, such argumentation ignores not only that meeting at the high places was never intended by God, but also Paul’s principle in 1 Cor 1:26-31 that God has chosen the weak and beggarly things of the world to shame the wise and strong; "He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are." This principle applies as well to the church as it does to individuals within the church. Having said all that, I am well aware that the popular understanding of doing church will not easily be reformed. As Evangelicals, however, no church practice that does not have its roots in the NT should become a sacred cow, least of which are those that were essentially created by the same fourth-century church that held to a lot of other highly dubious beliefs and practices.
"So I don't know why Mr. Svendsen wishes to stay home for prayer services and fellowship meetings, but historically, it doesn't make that much sense. I could much better understand it if his reason for staying home were that in Atlanta, you can't find your way to Church anyway, much less find a parking spot...."
Just for young Mario’s information, (1) historically the church met in homes, not in specially designed buildings; and (2) I currently live in Colorado, and am a transient from Chicago; in any case, I have never lived in Atlanta.
More recently, I received an email from young Mario that comments on my statement to another roman catholic apologist who (believe it or not) took issue with me on my understanding of my own Challenge Question which I wrote. I responded in the Challenge that I think I can operate as the "infallible interpreter" of my own statement. Such a statement is a tongue-in-cheek way of pointing to a strange irony; namely, that the very same catholic apologists who insist that our reasoning faculties are so inadequate as to necessitate an infallible interpreter of Scripture and church history, in the very next breath (when the occasion suits them) think they themselves can understand a statement written by an author better than the author himself! Young Mario, the opportunist that he is, seized upon my reference to an infallible interpreter and wrote the following to me:
"Very well so, Mr. Svendsen. And this is precisely what the Catholic Church says when it comes to interpreting what SHE has written, namely, the Bible."
I wrote back the following:
"When you are able to rise above your confused, tendentious equivocations, and see the issues clearly, then perhaps you will be taken seriously. Until then, your Rome-colored glasses will keep from receiving the consideration you might otherwise have from us."
Obviously, the Roman Catholic church did not write the Bible—the apostles and their first-century colleagues wrote it. The most significant thing that the Roman Catholic church has done with the Bible is to misinterpret it. Shortly after this exchange, young Mario decided to post a public apology to me on his web site. The text of the apology follows:
****************
"Sometimes people are like cars -- they overheat when the engine is running wild. This has happened to me, and I wish to clarify a few things in view of my criticism of Mr. Eric Svendsen and the New Testament Restoration Ministry in which he is involved. In my intense attempt to tone down Eric Svendsen's critique of Catholicism, I have, at times, fallen to the temptation of adorning my actual arguments using ad hominem attacks, that is, attacks on Mr. Svendsen as a person, instead of attacking his arguments as such. I detest and decry such an attitude because it is not only sophomoric but also unnecessary. I must say that often, such attacks were not intended but were more of a reaction triggered by his at times poignant attacks on Catholicism in his book Evangelical Answers. To the extent that I have besmirched Mr. Svendsen's name falsely, misrepresented his beliefs, wrongly called into question his expertise, and/or engaged in ad hominem attacks against his person, I apologize and hope he will forgive me. To show my sincerity, I have adjusted/removed/revised my essays about his beliefs throughout this web site. While I still oppose his Protestant teachings, of course, I resolve to critique them more sophisticatedly and without any unnecessary or uncalled-for attempts to undermine anything that is not relevant to proper factual argumentation. Charity is the greatest theological virtue, and we must never forget that. I thank Mr. Svendsen for pointing out to me that my charity was woefully deficient at times, and in view of that, my essays about his position have been changed respectively. Again, I am sorry for having failed in my duty of charity towards my neighbor." [emphasis his]
**************
Impressed by the fact that Young Mario had publicly apologized for his unwarranted attacks on me, I decided in good will to offer some suggestions as to how he might change the text of his articles. I also felt as though it might be profitable to help him understand the Evangelical position--and the Roman Catholic position--better than he did. To that end I wrote him the following letter (in which young Mario's comments are prefaced by "MD," and are followed by my comments in normal text):
**************
"Dear Mr. Derksen,
In the spirit of your new resolve not to misrepresent arguments, I just thought I would offer a few comments on your essay about my book. These are not exhaustive, but I think they are the most glaring.
Point #1
MD: "Svendsen also argues that the Gospels in their originals always contained titles which included their author, such as "according to Matthew", quoting D.A. Carson (ibid.), supposedly someone with authority concerning the history of the Bible. "
D. A. Carson is cited by almost every Roman Catholic apologist I know in the interpretation of Matt 16:16-18. The word "supposedly" makes it sound as though you doubt his credentials; yet you cite him later as an authority for your view without mentioning his name:
MD: "A famous Protestant Bible commentary notes:
"To sit on X's seat" often means "to succeed X" (Exod. 11:5; 12:29; 1 Kings 1:35, 46; 2:12; 16:11; 2 Kings 15:12; Ps 132:12...). This would imply that the "teachers of the law" are Moses' legal successors, possessing all his authority.... [Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke) (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 471-72. Qtd. in Butler, op cit., 158] "
Point #2
MD: [RE: the title "According to Matthew" included in the Greek Mss.] "After all, anyone could put "written by so-and-so" on a book, and it wouldn't have to be true."
It doesn't work that way. There is no Greek manuscript (over 5,000) that does not include this title. If we call into question the title, we must also call into question every other word single in the NT. Textual criticism has determined, by what it calls "an embarrassment of riches" (in regard to the number of GR. mss. we possess for the NT compared to the number we possess for all other documents of classical antiquity), that we have the original wording of the NT (not the original mss themselves). If we were to call into question the title of the book, and hence the inclusion of every other word in the NT, we would also have to call into question the inclusion of every word in every document of the classical period. I don't know of any historian that is willing to do that.
Point #3
MD: "But how does Mr. Svendsen, an ex-Catholic, know that Matthew wrote Matthew? In order to know, he must appeal to oral Church tradition. "
Obviously, if the title was a part of the original ms., then we do not have to appeal to tradition.
Point #4
MD: "Next Svendsen criticizes Hahn's contention that "if we accept the biblical canon that the early fathers decided upon, then we must subscribe wholesale to all of their beliefs" (Svendsen, 8). I think Hahn's thesis can be better expressed differently: if a Protestant accepts the canon of the early Christians, how come he rejects their other beliefs? Why trust them on the canon? Is it out of convenience's sake? This is what it seems like."
I address this at length when I compare Jesus and the apostles vis-à-vis their opposition to the Jewish leaders who could have made the same point about the books included in their canon (there was no disagreement about the contents of the OT canon; only on their understanding of the meaning of the contents of that canon). The point I make time and again is that to rely on the preservation of the word of God in the form of the canon of Scripture, but openly to question the understanding of Scripture by the religious leaders responsible for that canon, is in fact the precedent that Jesus and the apostles set for us. They agreed with the religious leaders on the canon contents, but disagreed with their understanding of the meaning of Scripture. I don't think you ever interact with this point, which, at the end of the day, is at the heart of my thesis.
Point #5
MD: "Svendsen goes on to say that there is no "formal connection" with the Pharisees and that therefore no "line of succession" could be established. But I do not think that Hahn argued that. Hahn probably used the Old Testament notion of the Seat of Moses and its authority as a type for New Testament ecclesiology and authority. Thus, there is no claim as to a "formal connection" between Pharisees and New Testament bishops, but merely a "type," a foreshadowing. . . . Let us note that Hahn never argued that infallibility was present in the Old Testament's Pharisees. He only tried to make a connection between the authority of the Pharisees and the Chair of Moses, and the fulfillment of this in the concept of infallibility under special circumstances in the New Covenant."
Yes; and so what? If Hahn wants to appeal to the precedent of the NT to show why we should subscribe to an established authority based on the notion of a seat of Moses, then he needs to be consistent with that precedent. The precedent doesn't happen to stop where Hahn would (seemingly arbitrarily) like it to stop. On what basis should he take it only so far and no farther? I don't see how I can be faulted for simply pointing out the obvious ramifications of the "type." The precedent we have is that a "reformed" group (the Pharisees) is the same one whom Jesus is telling his followers to obey. That is an undeniable fact of the text. If that doesn't happen to turn out favorably for the Roman Catholic position, then perhaps Roman Catholic apologists should stop appealing to it.
Point #6
MD: "Let us next recognize that, according to John 11:49-52, Caiaphas prophesied. That is not the same as papal infallibility, and that's why the Catholic position is that Caiaphas is only a protoype of the Pope. Indeed, Jesus, Peter & the Keys notes, "Prophecy and infallibility are both charisms. Prophecy is transitory; it comes and goes as a gift according to God's purpose" (Butler, op cit., 155). This fact flies into Mr. Svendsen's face when he says that Catholics imply Caiaphas and/or the Pharisees were "infallible" (Svendsen, 12-13)."
Then there can be no objection to the notion that that charism "transitioned" from Rome to Protestantism. Obviously the charism can operate without necessarily calling attention to it. Perhaps Protestants have had it all along (manifested in the common beliefs held among Evangelicals) and have just never made an issue of it. The point is, if it transitory, then you could never know just who has it. The fact that Rome happens to claim she has it is meaningless since a mere claim does not make so.
Point #7
MD: "So basically, Jesus himself said that the Pharisees are the successors of Moses. Svendsen notes that the Pharisees did not exist until 2 BC (Svendsen, 13), yet this does not matter. I can be a successor to King So-and-So, even though I may not yet have existed when he reigned; after all, there could be numerous successors in between."
Then there can be no objection to the Reformation. The Pharisees "revolted" against the established leaders of their day, and "reformed" beliefs and practices. Even in Jesus' day, they were not professional clergy, but only lay-leaders. If the Pharisees can do this and be recognized by you as a legitimate authority, how can you argue any differently about Protestants?
Point #8
MD: "Now what does that say? "Observe only what is in line with Moses' Law?" No. Obviously, there was some kind of guarantee that no heresy could ever come from the Chair of Moses."
Then all the time and energy that Paul spends (in Romans, Galatians, and elsewhere) correcting the Jewish misconception of the law, justification, and salvation is inexplicable. If the Jews were not really wrong on these things, why all the fuss?
Point#9
MD: "But let us imagine for a moment that Svendsen is right, and the Jews only had to obey the Pharisees were in line with the Law of Moses. Who is to say authoritatively how the Law should be interpreted? We would have Jewish Protestantism, because we would have this group saying, "This contradicts the Law of Moses" and another group saying, "No, it doesn't. That does!"
Jesus and all of the apostles with him expected the Jews to interpret the Scriptures correctly. There is no hint in Jesus' words that the reason the Jews were so off base is because the Scriptures were somehow unclear. Indeed, he simply assumes that they should no not to "nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition." This statement is meaningless if they could not reasonably know that what they were teaching and doing contradicted the Scriptures. Indeed, even in your own scenario (that it is the Sanhedrin that is authoritative) you end up with conflicting beliefs among authorities. The Pharisees believed in all the OT writings; the Sadducees believed only in the Pentateuch. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead; the Sadducees denied the resurrection. The Pharisees believed in angels and other heavenly host; the Sadducees denied such things. I assure you, Jewish "Protestantism" was already in existence in Jesus' day! Yet, if you believe that the Sanhedrin was legitimate, then there was no first-century equivalent to Rome when Jesus came on the scene and ascribed authority to the Jewish leaders.
Point #10
MD: "When we look at Matt 15 and Mark 7, the picture becomes clearer. Jesus did not condemn the doctrines of the Pharisees, but their evil practices, their corrupt behavior. What they taught was right. But what they practiced did not match their teaching. Since the Pharisees "taught" others to behave like them, albeit just by example, this corrupt behavior can be referred to as "teaching," which is what Jesus condemned in Matthew 16:6-12."
This is certainly convenient, but not what the text says. There is absolutely no exegetical justification for seeing didache in the passage as anything other than the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The context must govern the meaning of any passage, and one cannot just hope it means what his prior loyalties need it to mean.
Point #11
MD: "Indeed, what Svendsen seems to forget is that it was not either the Pharisees or the Sadducees, but rather both who formed the Sanhedrin, the Jewish "council" authority. Jesus never said the Sadducees did not sit in Moses' Seat. He just did not mention the Sadducees because they were not around; he was only talking to the scribes and Pharisees (cf. Matthew 22:34; 23:13). Indeed, Jesus condemned the Sadducees as well (Matthew 16:6)! The point is that both Sadducees and Pharisees sit on Moses' Seat. In the instance of John 11:49-52 it was the High Priest Caiaphas. And he prophesied. End of story."
I'm not the one who makes the claim that only the Pharisees and not the Sadducees sat on the seat of Moses-indeed, I have argued that both groups receive the same recognition by Jesus. It is Hahn who separates the two groups and argues that the Pharisees sat on the seat of Moses to the exclusion of the Sadducees. You might want to listen to his tapes on this. You are now on record disagreeing with him.
Point #12
MD: "Svendsen's conclusion that Jesus only meant to say one should obey the Pharisees' demand of a temple tax is nowhere in the text."
Actually it is. If we are told by Jesus to "beware of the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees" (Matt 16:5-12), and Jesus tells us that the converts of the Pharisees are "twice as much sons of hell," and that their Tradition "nullifies the Word of God," then how are we to obey them? The only concrete examples of obedience to these leaders that I can think of are found in Matt 17:24-27 and Acts 23:5-both of which teach obedience in a governmental context. If Jesus' followers were to obey the Pharisees, then we would all be Jewish today! How is it that if (as you argued above) "there was some kind of guarantee that no heresy could ever come from the Chair of Moses," that the Pharisees ended up teaching the ultimate heresy-that Jesus was not the Messiah!
Point #13
MD: [Re: Luke 22:31-32:] "Not surprisingly, Svendsen does not back up his last claim, namely that "fail" means "fallible" and "faith" means "believe," because no Catholic I know of has ever claimed such a thing. So Svendsen is attacking a straw man actually. The Catholic position in no way requires that "faith" stands for "believe" and "fail" means "fallible." Rather, we believe that the passage merely points out Peter's primacy over the other Apostles. It is Peter for whom Jesus prayed, that his faith may not fail, and that he strengthen his brethren. I have never heard a Catholic argue that this proves the infallibility of the Pope."
The CCC, Art. 552-553, cites Matt 16:16-18 and concludes "Because of the faith he confessed [namely, that Jesus is the Christ] Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers" (an obvious reference to Luke 22:31-32). Vatican I, on papal infallibility, says this: "Knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error according to the divine promise of the Lord our Savior made to the Prince of his disciples: 'I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not" (Lk 22:32). This gift then of true and never-failing faith was conferred by heaven upon Peter and his successors in his chair . . . that the whole flock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous food of error, might with nourished by the pasture of heavenly doctrine. . . . Therefore, . . . we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, . . . is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals."
I don't think I have misrepresented Rome in the least on the interpretation of this passage; do you? I am surprised that you "have never heard a Catholic argue that this proves the infallibility of the Pope," when it is included in the definition on papal infallibility itself. I'm assuming that you consider Vatican I (with its definition of papal infallibility) to be itself infallible. If it is, then isn't the interpretation of the Scriptures used as the basis for papal infallibility itself an "official" interpretation? If so, then your statement above that "the Catholic position in no way requires that 'faith' stands for 'believe' and 'fail' means 'fallible'" seems unjustified.
[NOTE: In his original attack on me, young Mario has clearly shown himself to be completely uninformed about the beliefs of even his own church! I had to correct him on what his own Roman Catholic church officially teaches regarding Luke 22:31-32. This is highly ironic--not to mention embarrassing!--given young Mario's previous braggadocios comments that "Svendsen knows nothing about Catholicism." As we shall see, young Mario repeats this kind of mistake again later.]
Point #14
In regard to your statement that a catholic is not required to interpret "bind" and "loose" in a church discipline context, the words of your CCC indicate differently:
"The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his." CCC, art. 1445.
[NOTE: Again, as I point out from the CCC, young Mario has demonstrated that he knows very little about what his own religion teaches. This will become even more relevant toward the end of this article when we examine young Mario's most recent comments regarding my knowledge in this area.]
Well, as I said, these discrepancies are not exhaustive, but I thought they were the most glaring.
Eric Svendsen
*************
Young Mario wrote me back. The text of his letter is offset in << >> and prefaced with MD. My response is in normal text, and follows each comment:
MD<< Yes, and I think this is the point. I believe you are saying that since the document of Matthew is authentic, we should not doubt the title. But that begs the question. It is precisely in question whether or not Matthew is authoritative, and, by extension, whether the title is true/authentic or not. It is only then that a Protestant could establish its authenticity, correct?>>
No; Matthew is included in every NT manuscript we have that is not a fragment. Why single out Matthew and propose that he may not be authentic? There is absolutely no reason for assuming that he may not be. That would be like someone in the first century arbitrarily choosing Isaiah and going around suggesting that maybe Isaiah really didn't write that book, and that the book might therefore not be Scripture. We don't look to tradition for these things, we look to the manuscripts themselves. Can you cite even one Textual Critic who would argue your point? If not, then your argument cannot hold much weight. That is not intended to be a put-down; it's just that those who are embroiled in these things necessarily have more weight than those who are not.
MD<< We do, since we have no guarantee that Matthew wrote Matthew. My comment might be considered nitpicky, ie., in the spirit of Cartesian doubt, but since we are dealing with the authenticity of the Word of God, it's very serious business, and we want to have absolute certitude about authenticity, not just likelihood. I'm sure you agree. Whether or not something is part of God's Word should be sure, not just "probable.">>
But it is not "probable"--every Textual Critic I know of says the very same thing; that we have the complete NT text, and that we know what the correct reading of that text is in approx. 99.9% of the entire NT. The .1% variance deals with issues such as the difference between the statement "and Jesus said" or "and He said"--clearly nothing to lose sleep over.
MD<< OK, I now understand clearly your point. Let me say this: The religious leaders themselves disagreed about the Canon (Sadducees vs. Pharisees), AS WELL AS some teachings of the Word of God (e.g., bodily resurrection, etc.). This being the case, I don't think that your premise is correct, namely that people agreed on the canon of Scripture but not on what Scripture meant.>>
But this is comparing conservatives to liberals, not a main-stream conservative group with another main-stream conservative group. Jesus confirmed (via his refutation of the Sadducees in Matt 22:23-32) the conservative position on this.
MD <<But is this not the nature of typology? Consider, for instance, Jesus as the Second Adam. Adam sinned, Jesus didn't. We may call that an "arbitrary line" where the type ends, but what would this do? This does not undermine the type of Adam as a foreshadowing of Jesus.>>
Which illustrates the inherent danger of "types." I do not see legitimacy in types unless we have a recognized Scripture writer making the *initial* connection (such as is the case with Adam and Jesus). If, on the other hand, I am allowed arbitrarily to make anything a type, and also decide what the parameters should be, I assure you that I could come up with any number of heretical beliefs. Why, for instance, can I not simply present what I have argued for the Pharisees-Protestant connection (which is the type in its full-feathered form) and say that this is the true type as opposed to Hahn's? By what arbitrary standard does Hahn's "type" hold, but not mine?
MD <<No. I quoted JPK as saying that only PROPHECY is transitory; infallibility is not. Right after what I quoted, JPK says: "Infallibility is a permanent gift of the Vicar of Christ for one who interprets God's truth under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for as long as he occupies the office." (p.155)>>
But as you have just argued (and as you argue later), Israel had this charism of infallibility. If it is non-transitory, how did it leave Israel and go to the church? And couldn't Israel have argued (on the basis of a non-transitory charism of infallibility) that we should be submitting to the Jewish leaders and reject Jesus as the Messiah? I think you might be arguing too much here.
MD<< Maybe we must distinguish between internal reform and external reform. Would you please give me some Bible passages that support your claim that the Pharisees reformed and revolted?>>
This is not something that is in the Bible; it is an historical fact.
MD: [quoting me] "Then all the time and energy that Paul spends (in Romans, Galatians, and elsewhere) correcting the Jewish misconception of the law, justification, and salvation is inexplicable. If the Jews were not really wrong on these things, why all the fuss?
MD<< Let me think about this for a while. I guess that, with the beginning of the Church, the Jewish authority lost its charisms, its inheritance, promise, etc.>>
You might be painting yourself into a corner on this one. If, as you argued above, infallibility is a non-transitory charism (which, by its very nature, I suppose it would have to be), then how did Israel lose it? Indeed, how *could* she lose it? If infallibility is a negative protection against error, wouldn't Israel have been negatively protected against the error of rejecting God's messiah? This is not merely a matter of changing church practices, after all; this is the very center of salvation itself. The very fact that Israel rejected the messiah proves either (1) that the charism of infallibility is transitory (in which case infallibility is meaningless since we could argue that Rome lost it long ago), or (2) there was never any such thing as ecclesial infallibility in the first place. I'd love to know your thoughts on this.
MD: [quoting me] "There is no hint in Jesus' words that the reason the Jews were so off base is because the Scriptures were somehow unclear."
MD<<Are you going to argue that the Bible is always clear in all its points, at least in the OT? What about 2 Peter 3:15-16?>>
No, of course not. Obviously some truths are more difficult to understand than others. No responsible Evangelical would argue any differently. By "perspicuity of the Scriptures" we do not mean that all Scripture is easy to understand. What we mean is that all teaching of Scripture that is *necessary for salvation* is easy to understand. The gospel is not complicated. In fact, it is so simple that Paul holds it out as "foolishness" to the wise. We certainly do not need an infallible interpreter to understand it. As for the 2 Pet 3 passage; this passage itself has been misused by Catholic apologists to overturn the notion that all of us have the ability to understand the clear teachings of Scripture. Peter is not saying that all of Scripture is hard to understand, but only some of it. But even then he does not thereby say that it is impossible to understand, only more difficult. It is also important to note just who has trouble understanding these difficult teachings. Notice he doesn't say that it is the "un-bishops" and the "un-priests" who have trouble with this. Rather, it is the "unlearned" and "unstable" who "twist" the Scriptures. In other words, this problem doesn't plague those of us who are "learned" and "stable." Moreover, the very word "twist" implies that the Scripture is being read in an unnatural way by these people. It is certainly not "twisting the Scriptures" to posit the plain meaning; rather, the "twisting" of Scripture is done by attempting to explain away the plain meaning. So, when Rome comes along and compels us to believe that there is another mediator besides Jesus (one that is qualitatively above believers as mediators in general), and we read in Scripture that there is only one mediator between man and God (just as "there is only one God"), it is not those who are sticking by the plain reading of Scripture that are twisting it; it is rather those who are proffering an unnatural reading of the text. And when Rome tells us that Mary never engaged in sexual relations with her husband and that Jesus never had biological siblings, and we read in Matt 1:25 that Joseph kept Mary a virgin "until" (heos hou--a Greek construction that for the two centuries surrounding the birth of Christ *never* means what the Roman Catholic understanding of this passage needs it to mean) and elsewhere that Jesus had "brothers" (adelphos) and "sisters" (adelphe)--two words that, when used of biological relationships in the NT, ALWAYS means "biological siblings"--we must conclude that it is not those of us who are sticking with the plain reading of the text that are "twisting" the Scriptures, but rather those who are attempting to explain away that plain reading. I could go on and on with every uniquely Roman belief, but I think this well illustrates the point. Moreover, If we were to adopt the Roman Catholic understanding of 2 Pet 3, then fulfillment of Gal 1:8-9 would be utterly impossible. Paul commands us there to compare everyone's gospel to the original deposit to check its validity. Does this exclude the Roman hierarchy? Not if Paul's words are to make any sense. He tells us in no uncertain terms that even if "WE" (i.e., the apostles themselves) or an angel from heaven preaches a different gospel than that which we have received (i.e., the original deposit, found certainly by us only in the NT), let him be accursed. Now if Paul includes the apostles themselves in the category of people to be rejected if they come along preaching a different gospel, how much more would he include some subsequent generation of ecclesial leaders? Moreover, Paul's words make absolutely no sense if we are to adopt the Roman Catholic understanding of 2 Pet 3. Why? Because then all "we" (i.e., apostles) or an "angel from heaven"--or indeed, Rome--would have to do to advance their false gospel is to tell the poor Galatians (and everyone else for that matter) that there really isn't a contradiction between their gospel and the original; it's just that we are incapable of rightly interpreting the Scriptures, and that this is just one of those "difficult" passages about which Peter warns us. Obviously, Paul's underlying assumption that the average believer has the ability to compare the true gospel to a false gospel, coupled with his assumption that that same believer is expected utterly to reject the false gospel under every circumstance is decidedly different from Rome's underlying assumption that if we see a contradiction between the original gospel and Rome's gospel, it is only because we are incapable of rightly interpreting these things.
MD: [quoting me] "he simply assumes that they should know not to "nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition." This statement is meaningless if they could not reasonably know that what they were teaching and doing contradicted the Scriptures.
MD<<That's right, but Jesus is referring to the teachers, the Pharisees, not the average believing Jew.>>
Just because he is currently addressing the Pharisees does not mean that he intends to limit the application of this principle only to them. Again, anyone who is "learned" in the Scriptures is held accountable for this.
MD: [quoting me] "Indeed, even in your own scenario (that it is the Sanhedrin that is authoritative) you end up with conflicting beliefs among authorities. The Pharisees believed in all the OT writings; the Sadducees believed only in the Pentateuch. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead; the Sadducees denied the resurrection. The Pharisees believed in angels and other heavenly host; the Sadducees denied such things. I assure you, Jewish "Protestantism" was already in existence in Jesus' day!
MD<<Not really. You see, these beliefs they fought about had never been clearly revealed or condemned in that authority. Of course they argued about the canon, because it was not closed yet. Neither was it clear what to expect in the afterlife.>>
I think you are operating on some false premises here. When scholars speak of an "open" or "closed" canon, they do not mean that the Prophets and the Writings had not been well accepted along with the Law. There was no question in the mind of the first-century Pharisee that the canon was indeed closed in this regard (cf. Josephus' words to this effect in Against Apion; see my book). What they mean instead is that there is some evidence that a couple of the books may have been disputed (Esther for one). But the evidence for this is scant and is based on the supposed Jamnia council that is fast falling into disrepute by scholars. Indeed, some scholars have outright concluded that no such council ever took place.
MD<<If Jewish Protestantism were alright, then we'd have people like Korah (Numbers 16) opening up his new denomination, some kind of "Independent Israel" or something. We'd have people splitting off from the Kingdom when King David sinned with Bathsheba, we'd have people disagreeing over the appointment of the Judges, we'd have people splitting from Moses as they saw that they were only led into what seemed an empty desert.>>
Actually this is just what happened. After Solomon's death the kingdom did indeed split into the "Northern" and "Southern" kingdoms. Which one of these had the blessing of God? Which one was the "infallible interpreter"? As we read through the narrative we see that God randomly chose kings irrespective of which side they were on. In order for your thesis to stand, God would have to have rejected one of these "kingdoms" as rebellious renegades who rejected God's authority. Significantly, we find no such thing in the OT.
MD: [quoting me] "Yet, if you believe that the Sanhedrin was legitimate, then there was no first-century equivalent to Rome when Jesus came on the scene and ascribed authority to the Jewish leaders."
MD<<There certainly was no equivalent. But I think it was a TYPE.>>
But your "type" is completely arbitrary. Why not instead see the "type" as that no ecclesial body can claim infallibility or sole authority?
MD: [quoting me] "This is certainly convenient, but not what the text says. There is absolutely no exegetical justification for seeing didache in the passage as anything other than the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The context must govern the meaning of any passage, and one cannot just hope it means what his prior loyalties need it to mean.
MD<<If we take your suggested interpretation, we end up with a contradiction to Mt 23:2-3. This is why I propose mine instead. Of course, one could adopt the course of John P. Meier (which I do NOT, but since you mention him in your book, perhaps he appeals to you), and argue that Mt 23 occurred before Mat 16,>>
Completely unnecessary since, as I have already pointed out, there is no contradiction. Matt 23 is referring to governmental authority whereas Matt 16 is referring to doctrine. How do I know that? Let's take a closer look at the "seat of Moses" in Matt 23. Where do we find this in the OT? You'll no doubt argue that it can't be found in the OT; but that is incorrect. Ex 18:13 says this: "The next day Moses took his *seat* to serve as *judge* for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening." He did this to decide between "disputes" among the people (v. 16). At the suggestion of his father-in-law Moses also appointed others to "serve as judges" (v. 26) and thereby to sit in Moses seat to govern the people. This "governing" work is just what the Pharisees were doing.
MD <<then we could make sense out of it by saying that Jesus rejected the Pharisees' teaching in so far as it meant not accepting the Messiah. Since in that, certainly, the Jewish church defected, it makes sense then to say that he transferred the authority to Peter and the other eleven.>>
Ah, but this militates against your argument that the disciples were to obey the Jewish leaders in "everything." Everything includes rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. If they were in error in this--the greatest of all theological teachings--then Jesus could not have meant to obey their "teachings" (i.e., doctrines) in Matt 23. Indeed, as I have pointed out, he tells us to "beware" of those teachings (Matt 16)-and with good reason; they were dead wrong on essential doctrines, including Jesus as Messiah, their Corban "Tradition," and just how one is justified before God (hence, Paul's letters). How in the world can we conclude that Jesus commanded us to obey "everything" in regard to the doctrines of the Pharisees, and at the same time conclude that Jesus commanded us to reject their Corban teaching, their view of the Messiah, and their teaching on justification? You have a much larger contradiction here than anything you may have found in my exegesis of these passages.
MD: [quoting me] "If Jesus' followers were to obey the Pharisees, then we would all be Jewish today! How is it that if (as you argued above) "there was some kind of guarantee that no heresy could ever come from the Chair of Moses," that the Pharisees ended up teaching the ultimate heresy-that Jesus was not the Messiah!
MD<<Good point. This is where I guess we could say that Jesus suggested in Mat 16:1-6 we should reject the Pharisees on this matter and instead listen to Peter and the Apostles. Authority transferred, by God himself. This certainly sounds like a quick-fix solution from me, and at this point it is. I shall ponder it more deeply when I get a chance.>>
I think I have already addressed this point in another email. To summarize, what use is the charism of infallibility if it doesn't keep you infallible in the ultimate doctrine? Put another way, if infallibility (as Roman Catholic apologists claim) is a negative protection against error, then why didn't it protect the Pharisees against the ultimate error? And if Israel was "infallible" and lapsed at this crucial point, then that provides a precedent for us that Rome (assuming she has this same charism of "infallibility") too can lapse at crucial doctrinal points.
[NOTE: As my comment suggests, young Mario has clearly painted himself in a corner on this one. He desperately wants an OT precedent for the modern Roman claim of infallibility. Yet this places him in a dilemma. If he posits that first-century Israel held the "charism of infallibility," but then lost it due to its rejection of the Messiah, then "infallibility" is absolutely meaningless; for infallibility is supposed to be a protection against this kind of error. And if Israel had it and lost it, that opens the door for Rome having it once, and then losing it during the Reformation when she officially rejected the true Gospel. If, on the other hand, Israel was never infallible, yet was able to come up with the correct OT canon of Scripture (which she most certainly did)--and at the same time be dead wrong in her interpretation of that same Scripture on certain issues like justification before God and the proper place of religious tradition (which, again, she most certainly was)--then that sets a precedent for trusting that the early church came up with the correct canon, and at the same time was dead wrong in its understanding of these very issues.]
MD: [quoting me] "In regard to your statement that a catholic is not required to interpret "bind" and "loose" in a church discipline context, the words of your CCC indicate differently: "The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his." CCC, art. 1445.
MD<<Yes, but I don't see how this necessarily relates to Church discipline. I guess it has more to do with doctrine.>>
Doesn't "exclude from your communion" mean to exercise church discipline? Isn't this just what Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 5 where he instructs the Corinthians to "hand this man over to Satan" for his sin of immorality (not false doctrine)? Doesn't "receive anew into your communion" mean that the erring one has been restored? How can this not refer to church discipline?
[NOTE: Both his original statement on this, as well as his attempted response to what I have shown to be the clear official Roman Catholic teaching on this, Young Mario has shown himself to be completely uninformed about what his own church teaches. Is it likely then that he has understood what the Evangelical church teaches? The answer should be obvious by now.]
*************
Young Mario's correspondence ceased after this response from me. I didn't hear from him again until several months later when he sent a response to some (not all) of the points above. I dialogued with him once or twice on it, and then lost interest in discussing the issue. His responses were all circular in nature, and it became exhausting to point it out to him.
Shortly thereafter, I was informed by someone familiar with my work in this area that young Mario had again embarked on a smear campaign against me. When I visited young Mario's website, I discovered that he had again done all the things for which he was forced to apologize just months earlier. I will not take the time to go point by point through all of his neophyte rantings, but will limit our examination to just a few of the ways that young Mario engages in hypocrisy and ad hominem, and mischaracterizes my views. To that end, I will focus attention on only one new article title "The Fact of Catholic Unity."
To illustrate that young Mario hasn't a clue about the beliefs he thinks he is battling, I submit the following statement from his article referenced above:
"Mr. Svendsen believes that baptism does not regenerate the soul. Dr. D. James Kennedy, a Presbyterian local in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., believes it does."
Young Mario is desperately trying to find some essential belief that divides true Christians so that he can demonstrate the failure of Sola Scriptura. But in doing so, all young Mario has accomplished is the airing of his ignorance in the area of Evangelical theology. D. James Kennedy most certainly does not believe that baptism "regenerates the soul." Baptismal regeneration is a heresy condemned by the Gospel of Jesus Christ; and D. James Kennedy, as a five-point Calvinist and PCA pastor, rejects baptismal regeneration on the same basis that I and all Evangelicals do--it is a work. What young Mario probably means is that Kennedy beliefs in infant baptism. Kennedy does indeed believe in infant baptism as a sign of a believer's child entering the New Covenant. He does not, however, believe baptism regenerates a child. I happen to disagree with infant baptism, but that disagreement is not about an essential belief. No Evangelical views baptism as an essential belief of the faith. And so young Mario focuses (as he must) only on non-essential beliefs when he speaks of "doctrinal anarchy" within Evangelicalism. I addressed this very issue when I spoke at a recent conference on Roman Catholicism. The tapes of that conference will be available shortly at www.straitgate.com. They can also be ordered through Alpha and Omega Ministry.
Young Mario has this to say about one of the vast disagreements among Roman Catholics on the meaning of Roman Catholic teaching:
"Svendsen mentions another supposed 'disagreement' among Catholics, which he says is parallel to the Protestant dilemma. He quotes Vatican II's Dei Verbum on the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture: 'We must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confined to the Sacred Scriptures.' Granted, the passage is quite ambiguous, but, as already pointed out, this was a common problem of Vatican II. However, the Church is only protected against error, not against ambiguity. Svendsen zeroes in on the phrase 'for the sake of our salvation.' Catholics disagree as to what this whole passage means and whether it limits inerrancy only to that which is important for our salvation, so Svendsen says. But the disagreement which, admittedly, exists between liberal and orthodox Catholic theologians, is not legitimate and only a pseudo-problem. Let me illustrate:"
Young Mario goes on to cite papal writings that he thinks boosts his understanding of Dei Verbum. He then concludes: "How can I claim that this latter interpretation is the proper one? Quite simply because this is what the Church has always taught, and this is how it has always been understood. . . . Therefore, those priests, religious, and theologians who 'bicker' about this teaching of Vatican II are doing so on an illegitimate basis. The Church is clear on the matter, and the faithful must submit. The magisterium of the Church is not 'disunified' on the matter."
Of course, what young Mario doesn't point out is that that none of the writings he has cited in support of his understanding of the issue are considered to be infallible, and are instead the writings of popes as "private theologians" (how many time have we heard that phrase from Roman Catholic apologists wishing to defend Honorius, Liberius, and a host of other popes who have spouted heresies?). What he also doesn't point out--or perhaps more likely, doesn't know--is that those Roman Catholics who disagree with him on the proper interpretation of Dei Verbum also disagree with him on both the meaning and the significance of the very papal writings he has cited! One of the Roman Catholics who disagrees with young Mario is the late Fr. Raymond Brown. Young Mario attempts to counter Brown's view when he says: "But Brown was a modernist. Especially just that quoted phrase is heresy [sic]. The Church does not teach it, and therefore whether or not Brown agrees or disagrees does not matter to us. As I said in the beginning, theologians must submit to the Church's teaching; but there is no guarantee that they will."
So now we are forced into a situation in which we need to determine just who accurately represents Roman Catholicism in his view on this issue: Young Mario or Raymond Brown. Let's see, Raymond Brown is a scholar of first rank, and is arguable Roman Catholicism's top scholar in the twentieth century. Young Mario does not even have a theological degree. Raymond Brown has served on the Pontifical Biblical Commission twice under two different popes, and so we know unequivocally that Rome has embraced and endorsed him. I think it is fair to say that Rome has never even heard of young Mario. Raymond Brown has written literally dozens of books on Roman Catholic issues, all of which contain the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur. Let's see, young Mario has written . . . oh that's right, he has not yet written any books! So, shall we side with Raymond Brown on his view of Dei Verbum, or shall we side with young Mario? The silliness of such a question barely requires a response. Hence we are forced to conclude that young Mario is simply relying on his own fallible private interpretation of Roman documents--an interpretation that is at odds with that of a man whom we know with absolute certainty has been embraced by Rome.
Not only has young Mario demonstrated a woeful lack of understanding in biblical and theological issues, but also in common conventions of writing style. In particular, in his use of [sic]. The convention [sic] means "thus, so," and is used to show that the wording of a quotation is original when there might be some question in the reader's mind of whether or not it is original. For instance, if I am quoting someone else's work, and I find in it a misspelled word or a grammatically incorrect phrase, I would place the word [sic] after that word or phrase to assure the reader that this is the original reading of the quotation. For instance, in the following excerpts from young Mario's writings, I have used [sic] legitimately:
"Besides, it is him [sic] and other Protestants who assert the Bible is the only rule of faith and thus must, eventually, be able to clarify itself."
"This being he [sic] case, then, all Protestants must finally be in one accord with what the Bible teaches."
"But Brown was a modernist. Especially just that quoted phrase is heresy [sic].
In the first excerpt above, the grammatically correct wording is "it is he," not "it is him." In the second quotation, young Mario has "he" where "the" is needed. In the third quotation, the sentence is awkward, and young Marion may have omitted a word or confused word order. In all the cases above, the assumption is that there must have been a mistake of some sort.
However, young Mario does not use [sic] in this way. Instead, he uses it when he happens to disagree with the point being made (even though the point is stated just as it should be stated), or when he thinks there is an opportunity to embarrass the writer. Several examples follow:
"On what basis does Marshner label centrist and leftist Catholic scholars 'bad apples?'" [sic]
Here young Mario has quoted my book, Evangelical Answers. There appears to be nothing at all wrong with the wording of the quotation, yet young Mario includes [sic] after it. In this case young Mario seems to have included it to embarrass. In any case, it is clear by this example that he really does not know the proper usage of [sic]. Let's look at another example:
"But then he says, 'Their solution is to submit to the Catholic church [sic], and in this way fulfill Jesus' prayer for unity in John 17.'"
Again young Mario quotes my book; and, again we do not know why he has included [sic] in the quotation. Is it because he wanted me to capitalize the word "church"? If so, then he has again used [sic] improperly. The letter case of the word "church" (whether it should be capitalized or not) is a matter of individual style. In any case, it is certainly not a candidate for [sic]. It again appears that young Mario is simply looking for opportunities (legitimate or not) to include [sic] wherever he can simply to call into question the credibility of the writer he is quoting. Here's another example:
"He alleges that there are 'deep rifts between the different sects [sic] within Catholicism'"
Here again, young Mario seems to include [sic] simply because he doesn't happen to like the fact that there are indeed "sects" with Roman Catholicism. Webster defines "sect" as (1) "a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or leader," or (2) "a dissenting or schismatic religious body." Each of these definitions applies to one group or another found within Roman Catholicism, from the various "orders" and "rites" (definition 1) to the ultra-conservative and sedevacantists (definition 2). Hence [sic] is again used improperly by young Mario. Let's look at another example. Young Mario quotes my book:
"For all the subtle secondary [sic] differences in Evangelicalism, it must be insisted that none of these compares to the deep rifts within Christianity for which the Catholic church is responsible."
Young Mario has placed [sic] after the word "secondary." Again, [sic] is to be used when you want to convey to your readers that there seems to be a mistake in the quote and that you weren't responsible for it. Does young Mario really think that his readers would assume that it was he who inserted the word "secondary" here? Here is yet another example of the misuse of this convention:
"Mr. Eric Svendsen, an evangelical newcomer apologist, has co-founded the so-called New Testament Restoration Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia. Yep, you read that right. It's New Testament Restoration Ministries [sic]."
Here young Mario uses [sic] to show his dislike for the name of my ministry. Whether someone happens to like a name or not is certainly no reason to use [sic]. I don't happen to like the names "Catholic Insight" (young Mario's website), "Biblical Foundations, Int'l" (Gerry Matatic's ministry), or "Catholic Answers"; but I don't place [sic] after them every time I want to reference them! Young Mario simply embarrasses himself by betraying his lack of literary acumen when he engages in this practice. Here is yet another example:
"The Catholic apologetics organization St. Joseph Communications points to the profound differences among Catholics on the understanding of the New Order of the Mass defined at Vatican II [sic]"
Young Mario, again quoting my book, has at last found an instance of the proper use of [sic]--but not in the sense he thinks he has. He points out that the New Order of the Mass was not "defined" but "promulgated," and that this happened post-Vatican II, not at Vatican II. Here are his points:
"First of all, the 'New Order of Mass' (the rite introduced by Pope Paul VI in 1969) was not defined at Vatican II. First of all [sic], rites of Mass are not 'defined' but promulgated."
(I have included [sic] in the quote to show another instance of proper usage. This is in fact the second occurrence of "First of all." But I digress). Young Mario has included [sic] in part because he thinks I am unaware of the Roman Catholic understanding of "define," and in part because he thinks I am unaware of when the New Order of the Mass was "promulgated." He comments regarding these two items: "Sigh. One just wishes that Mr. Svendsen would not try to discuss issues of which he has not the faintest idea." In fact I am aware of both. Unlike young Mario, I was actually alive and conscious, both when the Novus Ordo was "promulgated" (1969), and when the liturgical reforms that underlie that "promulgation" were first defined at Vatican II in The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (1963). Indeed, I was serving as an altar boy in a well-known Roman Catholic church and attending a Roman Catholic school during the years separating those two events. And so, unlike young Mario (who was not even a glint in his father's eye until a decade after the 1969 "promulgation"), I actually saw those reforms take place, and was serving at the altar of the Roman Catholic church during those reforms. The comments of a recent teenager (namely, that I have not "the faintest idea" about these events), one who is separated from both events by over a dozen years, is therefore quite humorous. Yes, the New Mass was first "promulgated" in 1969; but, as someone who was actually alive and active in the Roman Catholic church during that time, I can assure our young Mario that the "New Order," in terms of liturgical reform, was indeed "defined" at Vatican II.
This very same point is made in the St. Joseph Communications statement that I quoted when discussing this in my book. When addressing the issue of the Novus Ordo vs. the Latin rite, St. Joseph Communications makes this statement:
"Catholics are having a difficult time figuring out what Vatican II really taught about liturgical reform . . . since the documents are vague and are used by all sides to justify their own agendas."
Incredibly, although young Mario feels obligated to warn me "not try to discuss issues of which [I have] not the faintest idea," it doesn't seem to bother him at all that the Roman Catholic organization, St. Joseph Communications, is (according to young Mario's own criterion) discussing an issue of which they have "not the faintest idea." If I've been imprecise, then so has SJC. Yet young Mario doesn't want to point that out. Consequently, all that young Mario has done here is to betray his glaring double standard, his bias against non-Roman writers, and his irresponsibility in addressing these issues in a fair-minded way. In short, he has an agenda; and that is clearly displayed in his treatment of this issue. The intent of such an exercise is always to distract the reader into thinking some significant point has just been made. Witness again young Mario's melodramatic words to this effect: "Sigh. One just wishes that Mr. Svendsen would not try to discuss issues of which he has not the faintest idea." If young Mario can just convince his readers that "Mr. Svendsen" (the proper title is "Dr. Svendsen," but we'll let that slide) is improperly using the word "define" and is wrong on the date of an event, perhaps that will help to take their minds off the real issue--namely, that there are really deep rifts and doctrinal differences among those in Roman Catholicism.
Yet, if I were to take a fine-toothed comb and scan all of young Mario's writing, I can assure you that I would find many times as many instances of imprecise statements as he thinks he has found in my writings. Such an exercise, however, would obscure the larger points that I would rather deal with--points of substance. If young Mario wants to focus instead on insignificant points of imprecision, and then condescendingly proclaim, "Sigh. One just wishes that Mr. Svendsen would not try to discuss issues of which he has not the faintest idea," then that says much more about the young Mario than it says about the real issues at hand.
In addition to young Mario's condescending and disrespectful statement above, we have at least one other example. In my book, one of the differences among Roman Catholics that I expose is "'whether infallibility extends only to ex cathedra statements and ecumenical councils, or whether synods such as Hippo and Carthage are also infallible." To which young Mario replies: "I'm sorry, but I'd have to say that's a stupid question, and anyone who has studied but a bit of Catholicism should be able to answer it." Well, let's just see how stupid the question really is. Young Mario explains: ". . . Regional councils are not infallible, therefore, Hippo and Carthage, are not infallible either. They did not have the authority to make any infallible pronouncements because they were local/regional, and not ecumenical, councils. This means that there remains the possibility that they erred."
What young Mario doesn't seem to understand is that most Roman Catholics apologists (including young Mario himself elsewhere!) constantly appeal to the synods (not "councils") of Hippo and Carthage as an example of the "infallibility" of the church in regard to the canon of the NT. The Roman Catholic church (it is argued) gave us Protestants our NT canon. Why (we are asked by Roman apologists) do we accept that infallible decision of the early church but not others? When Roman Catholic apologists argue this way, it is clear that they are not referring to Trent's list of books (for the Reformation had already occurred by the time of Trent--of course we did not get our NT from Trent!). Rather, those very same synods (Hippo and Carthage) that young Mario claims cannot be infallible are the very ones to which other Roman apologists point and exclaim "Aha! you really do subscribe to the infallibility of the church; because how else can you be certain of the contents of the NT canon? There is no divine table of contents in the Bible that tells you what those books should be. Therefore, the church must be infallible and must have made an infallible decision regarding the books of the NT canon." If anyone doubts that this is the common line of argument from major Roman Catholic apologists, I would refer you to www.straitgate.com and have you listen to the RealAudio debates between Evangelical apologists and Roman Catholic apologists on this very issue. Now it is true that councils are considered infallible only when they are ecumenical and ratified by a pope. So how do these Roman Catholic apologists justify their belief that the Hippo and Carthage made an infallible decision regarding the canon? By appealing to the "ordinary magisterium," according to which a belief, if believed long enough and by enough of the right people, can also be considered "infallible." The fact that young Mario doesn't happen to believe that the decisions reached at Hippo and Carthage are infallible only illustrates my point that there are in fact differences of opinion on this issue among Roman Catholics. In any case, it certainly was not a "stupid question." But I'm glad to know that young Mario has now excluded himself from arguing the typical Scott Hahn argument; namely, that we must either believe in the infallibility of the decisions reached at Hippo and Carthage, or else jettison our NT canon. I have a feeling, though, that we'll find a bit of inconsistency when we read young Mario's statements about the NT canon in the future ; ).
Another observation to make about young Mario is the consistent way he can be so inconsistent. His ideas are filled with internal contradictions; and it soon becomes clear when reading them that he could not have thought through these ideas very carefully. Just a few examples will suffice to show what I mean:
"Svendsen says: 'The words of Trent [concerning Scriptural sufficiency] lend themselves equally well to either position [the partim-partim view, or the material sufficiency view], and the Catholic is free to choose one belief over the other.' But so what? Does this demonstrate that Catholics have doctrinal anarchy, just as we accuse Protestants of having? Not at all. The simple fact of the matter is that this difference in belief concerning Scriptural sufficiency is legitimate, because the Church has never decided the issue authoritatively, though she could at any time. . . . We simply do not know whether partim-partim is true or material sufficiency, but that's nothing new."
How comforting it is to know that Roman Catholic disunity is "nothing new" (perhaps disunity in belief becomes more legitimate with the passing of time?). By these words, not only has Young Mario contradicted his Roman Catholic apologetic predecessors (such as Patrick Madrid and Gerry Matatics, both of whom have gone on record stating that the "material sufficiency" view is "the Catholic position"), but he has also, using his own earlier criterion, disqualified the Roman Catholic church from being the true church of Jesus Christ. Here are young Mario's lucid words with which he introduces this topic:
"In a moment, I will refute [Svendsen's] charges, yet I wish to point out a very important thing before going on. The Bible clearly condemns doctrinal disunity (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:10; 12:25; Philippians 1:27; Ephesians 4:13-15). Now, even if Svendsen could demonstrate that there is no doctrinal unity in the Catholic Church, this still would not justify doctrinal disunity in Protestantism. In other words, all Svendsen would have proved is that Catholics, too, are unbiblical because there is disunity in Catholicism, too; this observation, even if it were true, however, does not entitle Protestants to make the same mistake. To say otherwise would be to commit the tu quoque fallacy. Thus, 'proving' Catholic disunity would do nothing for Svendsen's case for Protestantism; all it would do is demolish Catholicism, yet it would not make Protestantism right. So Svendsen loses either way, and even a demonstration of Catholic disunity could not justify his own Protestant anarchy." [emphasis mine]
And so, according to young Mario's own words, there cannot be disunity in matters of doctrine since the Bible "clearly condemns doctrinal unity." Young Mario has admitted that the "partim-partim" vs. the "material sufficiency" views are indeed areas of doctrinal disagreement; and so, according to young Mario's own criterion, we must reject Roman Catholicism because it is condemned by the Bible. Now, young Mario has claimed that I cannot engage in the tu quoque ("you too") fallacy. But the fact is, I have not engaged in it. It is not I who believes that variations of belief disqualifies a church from being biblical, it is young Mario himself who argues that line of reasoning. I happen to think that is a bogus argument, and I have gone on record stating such. When I point out all the disagreements within Roman Catholicism, I do not do so to show that Roman Catholicism is illegitimate--I do so to show that the primary Roman Catholic argument against Protestantism (namely, that it is illegitimate by virtue of its disagreements) is illegitimate. And so, while the significance of doctrinal disunity does not apply to my position, it most certainly applies to young Mario's position. He is the one who, in the very same treatise, claims that doctrinal divisions nullify a church's claim to be biblical AND admits that there are doctrinal divisions within Roman Catholicism. Of course, when young Mario addresses my observations about this doctrinal disunity he doesn't deny those observations; instead, he takes a "so what" attitude toward them:
"But so what? Does this demonstrate that Catholics have doctrinal anarchy, just as we accuse Protestants of having? Not at all. The simple fact of the matter is that this difference in belief concerning Scriptural sufficiency is legitimate, because the Church has never decided the issue authoritatively, though she could at any time."
Notice the glaring double standard. Young Mario thinks doctrinal divisions disqualify Protestants from being biblical; but when it comes to Roman doctrinal divisions, well, those are "legitimate." He treats other Roman Catholic differences in the same cavalier way. They are either "legitimate," or they "don't matter." Such beliefs include the literal vs. mythical interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 (a debate that young Mario, by his objection to my observation, clearly does not understand); whether Jonah was really swallowed by a fish (again young Mario demonstrates by his "who cares whether it was a fish or a whale?" statement that he does not understand the issue--the issue is not whether it was a fish or a whale, but whether the "swallowing" really happened, and Karl Keating has gone on record stating that that doesn't matter. Again young Mario "speaks" before he understands); which of the four brands of predestination we should believe (young Mario simply counsels his readers to believe whichever one they want--again admitting the hopelessness of coming to the truth in these Roman doctrinal differences); whether Mary is mediatrix of all graces (another "legitimate" disagreement according to young Mario); whether Vatican II was infallible (young Mario cannot tell us; in fact he again calls it a "legitimate" debate, which translated means that we are again hopelessly without guidance in just what the truth is on this matter); whether we should believe Unam Sanctam or Vatican II, two Roman statements that clearly contradict each other (young Mario claims that they really don't contradict each other on the basis that "In short, there is still no salvation outside the Church, but the concept of 'Church' includes those who, through no fault of their own, are outside the visible Church and obey the dictates of the natural law." Young Mario, however, again shows that he does not understand the differences between these two documents. Vatican II clearly states that Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox are "separated brethren" whose churches are a "means of salvation." But Unam Sanctam just as clearly states that one must be in submission to the "Roman Bishop" to have salvation--not simply, as young Mario thinks, be baptized and subscribe to the concept of "church." Obviously, neither Protestants nor the Eastern Orthodox are in "submission" to the Roman bishop. Again, young Mario betrays his incompetence in dealing with these issues); and on and on and on with every dispute that exists within Roman Catholicism. Indeed, a fair reading of young Mario's article yields the fact that he acknowledges practically every point I have made about Roman Catholic disagreements! To be sure, he attempts to downplay the significance of these doctrinal disputes--but he cannot deny they exist. Young Mario's own opening statements in his article bear repeating here: "The Bible clearly condemns doctrinal disunity. . . .Thus, 'proving' Catholic disunity would do nothing for Svendsen's case for Protestantism; all it would do is demolish Catholicism." Did you get that? According to young Mario's own observations here, combined with his admission that there are indeed doctrinal differences in Roman Catholicism later in his article, Roman Catholicism is, by his own criterion, "demolished." Now keep in mind that I don't accept that criterion--so there are absolutely no such ramifications of "demolition" for Evangelicalism under my view. But under young Mario's view, Roman Catholicism has been demolished. That means that young Mario must do one of two things: either (1) leave Roman Catholicism since, on his view, it must be rejected as unbiblical and "demolished"; or (2) abandon his faulty reasoning that doctrinal differences disqualify a church from being a true church. He really has no other option.
The subtitle of young Mario's article referenced above is: Are Catholics just as doctrinally scattered as Protestants? Young Mario then proceeds to beat the air for the next several pages, dealing with an issue that is not even the real issue. Why do I say this? Quite simply, because our young Mario, in the very title of his article, has made a false comparison--the very same false comparison in which all Roman Catholics engage when addressing this issue. He is comparing the unity found in a single denomination that subscribes to Scripture PLUS an Infallible Interpreter as a rule of faith (viz., Rome) to the unity found in ALL churches that subscribe to Sola Scriptura as a rule of faith (viz., Protestants). I have exposed this error in detail in points 1--3 of my Roman Catholic Challenge, and the reader is referred there for the details of the argument. In short, young Mario needs instead to compare either the unity of one denomination (say, Rome) to the unity of only one other denomination (say, Evangelical Free); or, he needs to compare the unity that exists among all adherents of the one rule of faith (Scripture PLUS an Infallible Interpreter--that would include Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism, the Watch Tower Society, the Way International, and every cult that exists today) to the unity that exists among all adherents of the other rule of faith (Sola Scriptura--that would include only Bible believing denominations; and not as young Mario mistakenly supposes, all Protestants). When a true comparison is made, it is clear that Rome utterly fails the unity test. I have addressed this very issue in a soon-to-be-published book that addresses Roman Catholic epistemological fallacies. Stay tuned on my News and Notes page for availability.
One final error that our young Mario commits is the tired line of reasoning that plagues all Roman Catholic apologetics; namely, that there are 20,000 / 23,000 / 25,000 (take your pick) Protestant denominations; and that that fact alone should be sufficient to prove the insufficiency of the sola Scriptura principle. I have recently completed a manuscript dealing with the epistemological fallacies behind Roman Catholic arguments; which manuscript is currently being reviewed for publication by Calvary Press. In it is a chapter that exposes the falsehoods behind the "25,000 Protestant denomination" argument. I have included that chapter below.
***************************************
Throughout this book we have examined the Roman Catholic apologist’s primary argument against sola Scriptura and Protestantism; namely, that sola Scriptura produces doctrinal anarchy as is witnessed in the 25,000 Protestant denominations extant today. We have all along assumed the soundness of the premise that in fact there are 25,000 Protestant denominations; and we have shown that—even if this figure is correct—the Roman Catholic argument falls to the ground since it compares apples to oranges. We have just one more little detail to address before we can close; namely, the correctness of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denominations figure itself.
When this figure first surfaced among Roman Catholic apologists, it started at 20,000 Protestant denominations, grew to 23,000 Protestant denominations, then to 25,000 Protestant denominations. These days, many Roman Catholic apologists feel content simply to calculate a daily rate of growth (based on their previous adherence to the original benchmark figure of 20,000) that they can then use as a basis for projecting just how many Protestant denominations there were, or will be, in any given year. But just where does this figure come from?
I have posed this question over and over again to many different Roman Catholic apologists, none of whom were able to verify the source with certainty. In most cases, one Roman Catholic apologist would claim he obtained the figure from another Roman Catholic apologist. When I would ask the latter Roman Catholic apologist about the figure, it was not uncommon for that apologist to point to the former apologist as his source for the figure, creating a circle with no actual beginning. I have long suspected that, whatever the source might be, the words "denomination" and "Protestant" were being defined in a way that most of us would reject.
I have only recently been able to locate the source of this figure. I say the source because in fact there is only one source that mentions this figure independently. All other secondary sources (to which Roman Catholics sometimes make appeal) ultimately cite the same original source. That source is David A. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000 (ed. David A. Barrett; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982). This work is both comprehensive and painstakingly detailed; and its contents are quite enlightening. However, the reader who turns to this work for validation of the Roman Catholic 25,000-Protestant-denomination argument will be sadly disappointed. What follows is a synopsis of what Barrett’s work in this area really says.
First, Barrett, writing in 1982, does indeed cite a figure of 20,780 denominations in 1980, and projects that there would be as many as 22,190 denominations by 1985. This represents an increase of approximately 270 new denominations each year (Barrett, 17). What the Roman Catholic who cites this figure does not tell us (most likely because he does not know) is that most of these denominations are non-Protestant.
Barrett identifies seven major ecclesiastical "blocs" under which these 22,190 distinct denominations fall (Barrett, 14-15): (1) Roman Catholicism, which accounts for 223 denominations; (2) Protestant, which accounts for 8,196 denominations; (3) Orthodox, which accounts for 580 denominations; (4) Non-White Indigenous, which accounts for 10,956 denominations; (5) Anglican, which accounts for 240 denominations; (6) Marginal Protestant, which includes Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, New Age groups, and all cults (Barrett, 14), and which accounts for 1,490 denominations; and (7) Catholic (Non-Roman), which accounts for 504 denominations.
According to Barrett’s calculations, there are 8,196 denominations within Protestantism—not 25,000 as Roman Catholic apologists so cavalierly and carelessly claim. Barrett is also quick to point out that one cannot simply assume that this number will continue to grow each year; hence, the typical Roman Catholic projection of an annual increase in this number is simply not a given. Yet even this figure is misleading; for it is clear that Barrett defines "distinct denominations" as any group that might have a slightly different emphasis than another group (such as the difference between a Baptist church that emphasizes hymns, and a another Baptist church that emphasizes praise music).
No doubt the same Roman Catholic apologists who so gleefully cite the erroneous 25,000-denominations figure, and who might with just as much glee cite the revised 8,196-denominations figure, would reel at the notion that there might actually be 223 distinct denominations within Roman Catholicism! Yet that is precisely the number that Barrett cites for Roman Catholicism. Moreover, Barrett indicates in the case of Roman Catholicism that even this number can be broken down further to produce 2,942 separate "denominations"—and that was only in 1970! In that same year there were only 3,294 Protestant denominations; a difference of only 352 denominations. If we were to use the Roman Catholic apologist’s method to "project" a figure for the current day, we could no doubt postulate a number upwards of 8,000 Roman Catholic denominations today! Hence, if Roman Catholic apologists want to argue that Protestantism is splintered into 8,196 "bickering" denominations, then they must just as readily admit that their own ecclesial system is splintered into at least 2,942 bickering denominations (possibly as many as 8,000). If, on the other hand, they would rather claim that among those 2,942+ (perhaps 8,000?) Roman Catholic denominations there is "unity," then they can have no objection to the notion that among the 8,196 Protestant denominations there is also unity.
In reality, Barrett indicates that what he means by "denomination" is any ecclesial body that retains a "jurisdiction" (i.e., semi-autonomy). As an example, Baptist denominations comprise approximately 321 of the total Protestant figure. Yet the lion’s share of Baptist denominations are independent, making them (in Barrett’s calculation) separate denominations. In other words, if there are ten Independent Baptist churches in a given city, even though all of them are identical in belief and practice, each one is counted as a separate denomination due to its autonomy in jurisdiction. This same principle applies to all independent or semi-independent denominations. And even beyond this, all Independent Baptist denominations are counted separately from all other Baptist denominations, even though there might not be a dime’s worth of difference among them. The same principle is operative in Barrett’s count of Roman Catholic denominations. He cites 194 Latin-rite denominations in 1970, by which Barrett means separate jurisdictions (or diocese). Again, a distinction is made on the basis of jurisdiction, rather than differing beliefs and practices.
However Barrett has defined "denomination," it is clear that he does not think of these as major distinctions; for that is something he reserves for another category. In addition to the seven major ecclesiastical "blocs" (mentioned above), Barrett breaks down each of these traditions into smaller units that might have significant differences (what he calls "major ecclesiastical traditions," and what we might normally call a true denomination) (Barrett, 14). Referring again to our seven major ecclesiastical "blocs" (mentioned above, but this time in reverse order): For (1) Catholic (Non-Roman), there are four traditions, including Catholic Apostolic, Reformed Catholic, Old Catholic, and Conservative Catholic; for (2) Marginal Protestants, there are six traditions; for (3) Anglican, there are six traditions; for (4) Non-White Indigenous, which encompasses third-world peoples (among whom can be found traces of Christianity mixed with the major tenets of their indigenous pagan religions), there are twenty traditions, including a branch of Reformed Catholic and a branch of Conservative Catholic; for (5) Orthodox, there are nineteen traditions; for (6) Protestant, there are twenty-one traditions; and for (7) Roman Catholic, there are sixteen traditions, including Latin-rite local, Latin-rite catholic, Latin/Eastern-rite local, Latin/Eastern-rite catholic, Syro-Malabarese, Ukrainian, Romanian, Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean, Ruthenian, Hungarian, plural Oriental rites, Syro-Malankarese, Slovak, and Coptic. It is important to note here that Barrett places these sixteen Roman Catholic traditions (i.e., true denominations) on the very same level as the twenty-one Protestant traditions (i.e., true denominations). In other words, the true count of real denominations within Protestantism is twenty-one, whereas the true count of real denominations within Roman Catholic is sixteen. Combined with the other major ecclesiastical blocs, that puts the total number of actual denominations in the world at ninety-two—obviously nowhere near the 23,000 or 25,000 figure that Roman Catholic apologists constantly assert—and that figure of ninety-two denominations includes the sixteen denominations of Roman Catholicism (Barrett, 15)! Barrett goes on to note that this figure includes all denominations with a membership of over 100,000. There are an additional sixty-four denominations worldwide, distributed among the seven major ecclesiastical blocs.
As we have shown, the larger figures mentioned earlier (8,196 Protestant denominations and perhaps as many as 8,000 Roman Catholic denominations) are based on jurisdiction rather than differing beliefs and practice. Obviously, neither of those figures represents a true denominational distinction. Hence, Barrett’s broader category (which we have labeled true denominations) of twenty-one Protestant denominations and sixteen Roman Catholic denominations represents a much more realistic calculation.
Moreover, Barrett later compares Roman Catholicism to Evangelicalism, which is a considerably smaller subset of Protestantism (so far as the number of denominations is concerned), and which is really the true category for those who hold to sola Scriptura (most Protestant denominations today, being liberal denominations and thereby dismissing the authority of the Bible, do not hold to sola Scriptura, except perhaps as a formality). Any comparison that the Roman Catholic apologist would like to make between sola Scriptura as the guiding principle of authority, and Rome as the guiding principle of authority (which we have demonstrated earlier is a false comparison in any case), needs to compare true sola Scriptura churches (i.e., Evangelicals) to Rome, rather than all Protestant churches to Rome. An Evangelical, as defined by Barrett, is someone who is characterized by (1) a personal conversion experience, (2) a reliance upon the Bible as the sole basis for faith and living, (3) an emphasis on evangelism, and (4) a conservative theology (Barrett, 71). Interestingly, when discussing Evangelicals Barrett provides no breakdown, but rather treats them as one homogeneous group. However, when he addresses Roman Catholics on the very same page, he breaks them down into four major groups: (1) Catholic Pentecostals (Roman Catholics involved in the organized Catholic Charismatic Renewal); (2) Christo-Pagans (Latin American Roman Catholics who combine folk-Catholicism with traditional Amerindian paganism); (3) Evangelical Catholics (Roman Catholics who also regard themselves as Evangelicals); and (4) Spiritist Catholics (Roman Catholics who are active in organized high or low spiritism, including syncretistic spirit-possession cults). And of course, we all know that this list can be supplemented by distinctions between moderate Roman Catholics (represented by almost all Roman Catholic scholars), Conservative Roman Catholics (represented by Scott Hahn and most Roman Catholic apologists), Traditionalist Roman Catholics (represented by apologist Gerry Matatics), and Sedevacantist Roman Catholics (those who believe the chair of Peter is currently vacant).
In any case, once we inquire into the source of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denomination figure one point becomes crystal clear. Whenever and at whatever point Barrett compares true denominations and differences among either Protestants or Evangelicals to those of Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholicism emerges almost as splintered as Protestantism, and even more splintered than Evangelicalism. That levels the playing field significantly. Whatever charge of "doctrinal chaos" Roman Catholic apologists wish to level against Protestantism may be leveled with equal force—and perhaps even greater force—against the doctrinal chaos of Roman Catholicism. Obviously, the Roman Catholic apologist can take little comfort in the fact that he has only sixteen denominations while Protestantism has twenty-one; and he can take even less comfort in the fact that while Evangelicalism has no divisional breakdown, Roman Catholicism has at least four major divisions.
If the Roman Catholic apologist wants instead to cite 8,196 idiosyncrasies within Protestantism, then he must be willing to compare that figure to at least 2,942 (perhaps upwards of 8,000 these days) idiosyncrasies within Roman Catholicism. In any case, he cannot compare the one ecclesial tradition of Roman Catholicism to 25,000, 8,196, or even twenty-one Protestant denominations; for Barrett places Roman Catholicism (as a single ecclesial tradition) on the same level as Protestantism (as a single ecclesial tradition).
In short, Roman Catholic apologists have hurriedly, carelessly—and, as a result, irresponsibly—glanced at Barrett’s work, found a large number (22,189), and arrived at all sorts of absurdities that Barrett never concluded. One can only hope that, upon reading this critique, Roman Catholic apologists will finally put this argument to bed. The more likely scenario, however, is that the death of this argument will come about only when Evangelicals consistently point out this error—and correct it—each time it is raised by a Roman Catholic apologist. Sooner or later they will grow weary of the embarrassment that accompanies citing erroneous figures in a public forum.
***********************************
Well, folks, there you have it. At the end of the day, we can come to no other conclusion than that it is young Mario who has suffered the most in his decision to bypass the normal formal training period that apologists need to experience before they can be seasoned apologists. His lack of knowledge in critical areas (Greek, Hebrew, NT scholarship, and church history), combined with his backwoods, fundamentalist approach, prevents him from being the well-rounded apologist that he aspires to be. Young Mario has attempted to correct me in my understanding of the issues. I have an undergraduate degree in Biblical Studies, a graduate degree in NT Studies, a post-graduate degree in Theological Studies, and have just completed a second post-graduate degree in Biblical Studies with an emphasis on Mariology. I suppose there is a chance that I really don't know what I'm talking about when I write on these issues; but I think any fair-minded person would have to agree that it is only a slim chance. Young Mario, on the other hand, has not even one theological degree--not even on the undergraduate level. He has shown repeatedly not only that he does not understand my view, but that he really does not even understand the Roman Catholic view.
Have I engaged in ad hominem arguments in regard to young Mario? Perhaps; perhaps not. Keep in mind that I approached young Mario privately on several occasions to correct his misrepresentations of me and my views. Keep in mind also that I wrote the majority of this response over six months ago after he had repeatedly slandered me publicly on his website; and I submitted this response to him--again, privately--in order to take the high road and to give young Mario a chance to recant and make things right on his own accord--prompting (to his credit) his public posting of an apology to me. I have bent over backward to avoid posting this article, and I do so now only with reluctance. I am not in the business of pointing out personality defects--only critiquing heretical views. But young Mario is in desperate need of being reminded of his own lucid words when he apologized to me the first time:
MD: "I have, at times, fallen to the temptation of adorning my actual arguments using ad hominem attacks, that is, attacks on Mr. Svendsen as a person, instead of attacking his arguments as such. I detest and decry such an attitude because it is not only sophomoric but also unnecessary."
And so, according to young Mario himself, his most recent attacks on me are "sophomoric" and "unnecessary." What young Mario has written regarding his last attack on me is just as true regarding his most recent attack:
MD: "To the extent that I have besmirched Mr. Svendsen's name falsely, misrepresented his beliefs, wrongly called into question his expertise, and/or engaged in ad hominem attacks against his person, I apologize and hope he will forgive me."
Mario has done these very things a second time. Will he offer a second apology? Or will he be a hypocrite as well as a slanderer?
MD: "To show my sincerity, I have adjusted/removed/revised my essays about his beliefs throughout this web site. While I still oppose his Protestant teachings, of course, I resolve to critique them more sophisticatedly and without any unnecessary or uncalled-for attempts to undermine anything that is not relevant to proper factual argumentation."
One wonders just how "sincere" young Mario really was when he wrote these words. It seems to me that sincerity dictates not only the first promise he makes (revise/remove existing articles), but also the second--namely, his supposed "resolve" to critique my writings in a more sophisticated way, without "attempts to undermine anything that is not relevant to proper factual argumentation." Young Mario has broken his own resolve. He seems to have forgotten that . . .
MD: "Charity is the greatest theological virtue, and we must never forget that. I thank Mr. Svendsen for pointing out to me that my charity was woefully deficient at times, and in view of that, my essays about his position have been changed respectively. Again, I am sorry for having failed in my duty of charity towards my neighbor."
Has young Mario changed his mind about what his "duty of charity" is? If his charity was woefully deficient the first time, doesn't that imply that it is even more deficient this time? Young Mario has seemingly forgotten all the past consideration I have shown him; so, in my opinion, this exposé is fair game. Moreover, pointing out the utter lack of qualifications of someone who writes in a public forum is also, in my opinion, fair play. Not everyone's voice carries the same weight. The Internet has been both a blessing and a curse in this regard. On the one hand, it provides a forum for those of us who have, through grueling years of intense study and research, earned the right to air our views. On the other hand, it has provided that same forum for those who have absolutely no qualifications for airing their views. In the past, this condition was regulated by publishing houses who, after evaluating the qualifications of the author, would decide whose voice should be published and whose should not. The downside of publishing houses is that they tend to become elitist organizations that prevent qualified voices from speaking. The Internet, though it adds a necessary correction to the elitist mentality, tends to obscure the fact that just anyone with a web site and a keyboard can air his views, as though just anyone's views carry the same weight as the views of those of us who are qualified to speak on these issues. The unmitigated arrogance of someone in the former camp publicly stating that someone in the latter camp "knows nothing" about which he speaks, is sadly nothing more than the result of a technology-induced condition that applauds the pooling of ignorance on any given issue (visit any Internet discussion board and you'll see what I mean--which is one of the reasons I tend to avoid such forums).
In response to his new attacks, I wrote young Mario the following letter:
"Well my young friend, it looks as though you just cannot resist the temptation to take the low road rather than the high road. I think you'll have to agree that I have been extremely gracious and patient about your constant misrepresentations and condescending attempts to make me look as though I really don't know what I'm talking about. Did you not learn your lesson the first time you had to issue an apology to me? Do you not remember that during the subsequent dialog we had how I had to correct your understanding of Roman Catholic teaching? I think it is strangely ironic that someone who didn't even know that Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility included a definition of the phrase 'bind and loose'--as well as the support adduced for papal infallibility from such passages as Lk 22:32--could then turn around and condescendingly chastise someone else for not understanding Roman Catholic teaching! Moreover, it is clear that in that dialog you painted yourself into a corner more than once. The sad, embarrassing fact is, you demonstrated very clearly during that dialog that your views are paper thin. Nevertheless, all of this--the full embarrassing story--will become disclosed shortly, and everyone will see three facts emerge very clearly: (1) that I could have engaged in the same ad hominem smear campaign against you long ago, but chose to take the high road and point out your many errors privately instead; (2) that when pressed, you either completely crumble or paint yourself into a theological corner; and (3) that your lack of theological training, experience, tact and overall knowledge in this area renders you completely irresponsible and therefore unqualified to engage in this weighty pursuit. Oh yes, and I will of course be giving you a lesson on the proper use of '[sic],' which you clearly do not know how to use. You're a 'wannabe,' my young friend; and realistically, that's all you'll ever be. That's too bad; I had higher hopes for you. I'm disappointed."
The correction that I have given young Mario here is much needed and long overdue. His overly inflated view of his own importance in this arena stems, no doubt, from the condition I have just described. He will better appreciate what I am saying after he himself becomes qualified to speak and is opposed by someone who isn't. The forum of free speech over the Internet is a precious commodity--so long as it is used responsibly. At this stage in his life, young Mario would be far better off sitting at someone's feet and learning quietly in preparation for later entry into the arena. As it is, he is eating away at his own future prospects; and his so-called Catholic apologist "friends" are not helping him in the least by giving him a forum in which to speak before he has been properly seasoned. Will young Mario graduate someday to become a qualified apologist? Perhaps; perhaps not. Only he can make that decision. Until then, I suspect we will only see more of the same "Magic School Bus" theology to which we have grown accustomed.
Eric Svendsen