What Is The Relationship Between Doubt And Certainty?

        Certainty entails knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that something is the case or reliable. Doubt is the exact opposite, involving that which is vague or unclear to one's mind. We need to doubt in order to obtain certainty. Discernment is the process of investigating presented options in any given scenario by eliminating all other possible choices to reach a final verdict on that which best corresponds with goodness and truth. If we learn to discern correctly, then we have a foundation on which to build in life. Things will make sense and have purpose.

Science And Underlying Philosophical Presuppositions

"Supporting the paradigm may even require what in other contexts would be called deception. As Niles Eldredge candidly admitted, “We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing it does not.” Eldredge explained that this pattern of misrepresentation occurred because of “the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection operates in nature, but that we know precisely how it works.” This certainty produced a degree of dogmatism that Eldredge says resulted in the relegation of paleontologists to the “lunatic fringe” who reported that “they saw something out of kilter between contemporary evolutionary theory, on the one hand, and patterns of change in the fossil record on the other.” Under the circumstances, prudent paleontologists understandably swallowed their doubts and supported the ruling ideology. To abandon the paradigm would be to abandon the scientific community; to ignore the paradigm and just gather the facts would be to earn the demeaning label of “stamp collector” (i.e., one who does not theorize)."

Phillip E. Johnson, Objections Sustained, p. 25

On The Pursuit Of Self

"You will find very few people who can pursue self-actualization without devaluing other selves. One of the marks of the man who concentrates on himself is a withdrawal of interest in other people and objects. Finally he comes to view outside concerns as interesting only insofar as they serve his own self-realization. They become merely means to an end. Tools. Throw-aways. This kind of attitude, of course, actually tends to subvert one’s chances for actualization. The self does tend to become more interesting as the world becomes less interesting, only more demanding and restless. Before long, the man who started off pursuing self finds it such a burden that he will make any kind of desperate attempt to get rid of it. He turns to drugs or alcohol, or to some other anesthetic."

William Kirk Kilpatrick, Psychological Seduction: The Failure of Modern Psychology, p. 63

Why Is Language Important?

Language determines the realities we attend to. If certain words fall into desuetude, it means that certain realities have dropped from our attention as well. Words, for example, such as valor, nobility, honor, sanctity, chastity, and purity hang on to life but seem to be written in the past tense, as though the realities they refer to are remnants of some dim history. Such words appear rarely, if at all, in the vocabulary of social scientists or in the popular media. Other, more “relevant” words have edged them aside. For every purity that gets to print, there are a hundred needs, naturals, and sexuals to crowd them out.

What is perhaps most effective about such a technique is that it requires no confrontation. It does not deny the other realities. It by-passes them the way a superhighway bypasses a village so that after a while people forget that the village is there.

William Kirk Kilpatrick, Psychological Seduction: The Failure of Modern Psychology, p.127-128

Roman Catholic Apologists And Circular Reasoning

• Defining The Issues: 

          -Following are comments from a brief exchange with De Maria on the issue of Sola Scriptura and defining the Trinity. His comments are provided in bold quotation marks and my own criticisms of his claims come after each of them:

          "...that Sacred Tradition came before the New Testament. And this Sacred Tradition was passed down by Christ, through His Church. All you have for your side is denial of the truth (Matthew 28:16-20)."

           Sola Scriptura is not a denial that the New Testament Scriptures were originally taught orally.

          The problem is that De Maria is unable to come up with a spiritual standard which judges the validity of "Sacred Tradition," apart from the say-so of the bishop of Rome (i.e. circular reasoning). How does he know that the pope possesses the gift of infallibility?

          "On the contrary, the infallible authority of the Catholic Church is proven by Scripture. You can object all that you want, but Scripture doesn't advise us to go to Scripture alone to learn the Faith of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 13:7)..."

          In what manner does Scripture support the alleged infallible authority of the Catholic Church, apart from the interpretations of Scripture which Rome commands its members to use when questioned about their faith (i.e. circular reasoning)?

          How can we submit to leaders in God's church, if we do not have an established standard to judge the validity of their claims? Even Mormons could cite Hebrews 13:7 in telling us to submit to their leadership. 

          "No, Jesse. The Teachings of Scripture reflect Apostolic Tradition. Apostolic Tradition came first. The New Testament was written based upon the Teachings of Jesus Christ. Not the other way around."

          How can we know with any degree of certainty which oral traditions are inspired (i.e. not just because the pope said so)?

          "No one said the relationship was supplementary. That is your straw man argument."

           De Maria has been contradicted by more authoritative Catholic sources than himself:

          “. . . the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” (CCC # 82)

          "Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice." (James Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 72)

          "...oral revelation serves as an additional source of revelation alongside the written word” (Robert Sungenis, Not By Scripture Alone, p. 126)

          De Maria does not get to speak for everyone else. Why should we believe what he says over any other person?

          "On the contrary, the New Testament records the customs, Traditions and Doctrines that were already in place. Here's a very simple proof. Answer this question and don't ignore it. Was the Doctrine of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ written before or after Christ was resurrected? Answer it, Jesse. Don't ignore it. Because it is obvious from the Gospels, that Jesus Christ taught His Resurrection long before it was ever written down."

           This is nothing short of ridiculous. The resurrection was not passed down to us by oral tradition, but Scripture. Jesus' words carry weight because of who He is, not how His words were transmitted. Moreover, Roman Catholics are unable to come up with an objective standard that judges the validity of "Sacred Tradition," apart from the say-so of the Magisterium, which is circular reasoning.

          "ON the contrary, it is you who is guilty of circular thinking. Your entire process is, "because the bible tells me so." But the Catholic Church goes by the true Bible Teaching. Which is, because we know from Tradition and Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6)."

          The charge of Sola Scriptura being circular reasoning is false, as this article shows:

          https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2017/02/is-sola-scriptura-based-on-circular.html

           How can we know that the Roman Catholic Church (or its interpretations of Scripture) are infallible (apart from the occupation of circular reasoning)? This is not an unfair question to ask. It is also not hard to understand.

          "Because Christ appointed the Catholic Church as the Teacher of His Doctrines...Our Church is infallible because Jesus Christ said so (Matthew 16:18)...."

         De Maria is simply making a circular argument based on the text of Matthew 16:18. He resorts to the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation of that passage. How do we know that interpretation of Scripture is correct? How can we know which oral traditions are of divine inspiration?

        "You are simply ungrateful about the fact that it is from the Catholic Church that you learned all that you know about the Holy Trinity."

          The Council of Nicaea simply submitted itself to the supreme authority of Scripture as it defined the doctrine of the Trinity.

          Why should we bother with submitting to the "Holy See" when people like De Maria invest time into didactically lecturing us on the official Church doctrine? How can he prejudge me as being ungrateful for anything?

          "And of course, your entitled to your opinion. But I have proven that your opinion, is false."

          De Maria's arguments fall short of anything but proof. It does not appear that there is a way for the Papacy to circumvent the charge of circular reasoning.

          Karl Keating, in his book titled Catholicism and Fundamentalism, posits that the Roman Catholic Church does not argue in a circular fashion, but instead uses "spiral reasoning." But his attempt at rebuttal does not work for the reason that it in and of itself is an instance of begging the question.

           The Roman Catholic Church claims that only it can correctly interpret the Bible. In other words, Rome's interpretations are correct because it declares them to be such. The Roman Catholic Church gets to define the canon of Scripture and Sacred Tradition while also using the Bible to support its own assertions to having been invested with divine authority. How circular that is!

Interaction With The Synoptic Problem

• Why Do The Four Gospels Contain Differences?:

          -The reasons for the differences between the gospel accounts is not that they disapproved of each other's content. Rather, they were writing with a slightly different theological emphasis or intended audience. Matthew, for example, wrote mostly to Jews. Luke is more accessible to Gentiles. There were differences in reporting, which is only natural for reporters as they have biases and different perspectives. There were different points of emphasis. There is nothing inherently wrong with choosing not to include certain content. John himself wrote, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written” (John 21:25). That is a hyperbolic way of saying Jesus Christ said and did many things; certain details were included while others were not. If the material of the four gospels was a fabrication, then we should expect very few dissimilarities in reporting. If the four gospels were exactly the same in terms of content, then there would be no need to have more than one narrative of the life of Christ. We should expect more than a few similarities between the four gospels because they cover the same subject matter. 

• On The Q Source Hypothesis:

          -This is a hypothetical source of the original teachings of Jesus Christ and proposed by scholars in an attempt to account for similarities in Matthew and Luke's written material. This Q document has not been discovered, but that does not necessarily mean it did not exist. It is a hypothetical idea, and, if it did exist, remains separate from the four gospels themselves. They, not some speculative reconstruction, are to remain our primary source for the life and teachings of Christ. Further, early writers such as Jerome never spoke of a source that is today called a Q document. The general theological message of Scripture is not to be sacrificed in the name of some historical critical method. There may have been sources akin to Q, but that does not prove such a hypothesis to be correct. Nor does it follow that we can reliably reconstruct what they would have looked like. 

• The Gospel According To Matthew: 

          -The Gospel of Matthew was written for the purpose of convincing Jews that Jesus Christ is their promised Messiah and legitimate King. Matthew's narrative contains more quotations from the Old Testament, demonstrating in greater detail how Jesus fulfilled prophecies than any of the other three gospel accounts. It also traces His ancestral lineage from King David. In addition, Matthew utilizes language from the Old Testament that the Jewish people would have been more comfortable with hearing. For example, Peter is said to have called Christ the Son of the living God in Matthew 16:16. That is distinctly Jewish terminology. This gospel has a decidedly Jewish flavor to it and places a special emphasis on the kingdom of God. Matthew likely gleaned material from Mark's gospel without source attribution as well as circulated oral traditions concerning the life of Christ. This way of borrowing ideas from other authors in writing a text is consistent with what we know about authorship at this time.

• The Gospel According To Mark:

          -The Gospel of Mark was originally directed to Gentile Christians, most particularly those who were thriving in the midst of persecution under the Roman Empire. Terms such as "census" (Mark 12:14) and "denarius" (Mark 12:15) are consistent with such an audience. This short biographical narrative of our Lord Jesus Christ was written for the purposes of building up the faith of fellow brethren and teaching what it really means to be a disciple. In this narrative, Christ seemingly keeps His true identity hidden and reveals Himself as the Son of Man. That title emphasizes His humility. His character is a point of consideration in this narrative. As does Matthew's gospel, this one emphases Peter's confession of faith in Christ as the Messiah (Mark 8:27-9:1). Tradition has it that Mark was a companion of the Apostle Peter and wrote a narrative based on his eyewitness testimony. He was reputed by Paul to be of benefit in ministry (Colossians 4:10). This gospel has no birth narrative of Christ or list of descendants. It records several miracles that He did. Roughly ninety percent of this gospel is found in Matthew. Roughly fifty percent is found in Luke's gospel. Matthew and Luke may have taken Mark's narrative and expounded further on it.

• The Gospel According To Luke:

          -The Gospel of Luke strives to bring into light "all that Jesus began to do and teach" (Acts 1:1-2). It was intended to be an accurate, organized narrative that gives readers certainty regarding the teachings and events surrounding Jesus Christ (Luke 1:1-4). The composition is concise. The Greek style is of a superior quality. Luke undoubtedly had access to Mark's gospel as well as other written and oral sources. Moreover, this book oftentimes records details that were omitted in the other canonical gospel narratives. Consider, for instance, the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) and the Parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14). This chronicle which was authored by a Gentile physician and historian named Luke presents Christ as showing compassion to all people of different societal classes. The point being made is that Jesus did not come just to save the Jews, but also Gentiles who turn to Him in faith and repentance. This gospel places a special emphasis on woman that is unique for its time. French critic Joseph Ernest Renan said that this book was the most beautiful one ever written. "The ancient opinion, that Luke wrote his Gospel under the influence of Paul, rests on the authority of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius. The two first assert that we have in Luke the Gospel preached by Paul ; Origen calls it " the Gospel quoted by Paul," alluding to Rom. ii.16; and Eusebius refers Paul's words, "according to my Gospel" (2 Tim. ii. 8), to that of Luke, in which Jerome concurs. The language of the preface is against the notion of any exclusive influence of St. Paul. The four verses could not have been put at the head of a history composed under the exclusive guidance of Paul or of any one apostle, and as little could they have introduced a gospel simply communicated by another." (William Smith, A Dictionary Of the Bible Comprising Its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History, p. 492)

• The Gospel According To John:

          -Rather than providing us with a chronological listing of the major events that took place during the earthly life of Jesus Christ, the purpose of the Gospel of John is to reinforce His divinity. It speaks of Christ as the eternal Logos who took on flesh and dwelt among us (John 1). Therefore, it would not have been suitable for John to provide an account of His earthly birth or a genealogy. This gospel has a unique purpose and scope when compared to the other three gospels. It was written to bring about the conversion of souls to Christianity through the recording of Christ's miracles (John 20:30-31). This book has been reputed by many to be the evangelistic gospel. The Gospel of John occupies metaphors such as "bread of life," "born again," and "living water," none of which can be found in the other three gospels. It is very much distinct from the Synoptic Gospels (i.e. Matthew, Mark, and Luke). The Gospel of John places a unique emphasis on the miracles of Christ and the nature of truth.

Is Praying To Departed Saints A Biblical Practice?

• Introduction: 

          -The Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, and certain Lutherans and Anglicans believe that we can pray to and receive help from certain saints (and even angels) in heaven. It is believed that God has enabled them to intercede on our behalf before Him in heaven and offer assistance for nearly every aspect of human life.

          -"A further reinforcement, of the same idea, was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...” (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, "Down to the Council of Nicaea")

• A Practice That Is Not Consistent With The Biblical Pattern Of Prayer:

          -Throughout Scripture, there are dozens of references to prayer (Matthew 6:6-14; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 11:1-4; John 14:14; John 17; Psalm 25; 2 Samuel 7:18-29; 1 Kings 8; Colossians 3:16-17; Acts 7:51-58; James 1:5-6; Romans 10:1; 15:30; etc.). All were directed to Him alone. Furthermore, the theme of the Bible is trusting in God alone (Matthew 6:25-34; Jeremiah 33:3; Isaiah 48:17-18; Psalm 23; 50:15; 71:1; 91:15; Joshua 1:1-6; Ephesians 5:19-20; John 16:23; 1 Corinthians 10:31; etc.). We have no examples in the Bible of calling on entities other than God, with the exception being pagans. We never see God approving of the practice of praying to departed saints. If we are going to be consistent with the principles of Scripture (which we ought to be), then we are forced to conclude that all prayer should be dedicated to God alone.

• Can Believers In Heaven Really Hear Us?:

          -It is impossible for finite beings with inherently limited abilities to simultaneously hear the requests of every person around the world in different languages. Such an ability could only characterize deity. If saints are able to answer our prayers, then the uniqueness of God has been compromised and the self-sufficiency of Christ's work diminished. Notice that in Scripture, all occasions involving two-way communication between or among beings from heaven (with the exception, of course, being God) and earth required the creations to be in the same realm (i.e. earth on earth communication), rather than being in two separate realms (i.e. heaven to earth contact is never found in Scripture for mere finite beings). This is perhaps the clearest indication from Scripture that saints who are in heaven are incapable of receiving prayers from earth.

• Unnecessary Assistance:

          -We do not need any support from Mary and the saints in heaven because Jesus Christ always intercedes for our prayer requests. He is able to rescue sinners from eternal condemnation in hell Himself (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25). Christ's intercession alone is sufficient for all our needs. Moreover, the Holy Spirit gives us the strength that we need during our times of spiritual weakness. He also intercedes on our behalf (Romans 8:26). If two persons of the triune God intercede on our behalf in prayer, what more could we possibly need? We can approach God with "boldness" and "confidence" as a result of Christ's atonement sacrifice (Ephesians 3:12; Hebrews 4:14-16). Only God knows all of the thoughts and intentions of the human heart (1 Kings 8:37-39; 2 Chronicles 6:30). Consequently, praying to saints in heaven to grant our prayer requests is pointless because they do not have the same abilities that God has.

          -"The church appears to have painted itself into a theological corner. In trying not to detract from Christ, its theologians have so defined the role of Mary as to make it entirely indispensable: everything we need we get from Christ. If that's the case, what is the point or importance of Mary's mediation? One the other hand, the oft-heard affirmation that Mary can influence her Son to help us necessarily implies that the Son otherwise would be less disposed to do so. In fact, the very concept of a mediator presupposes that there are differences that need to be reconciled between two parties. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that, apart from Mary's mediation, Christ himself would not be perfectly reconciled to us. All this seriously compromises the integrity of his high priesthood. The church is stuck in a hopeless dilemma wherein either Mary's role is rendered superfluous, or the all-sufficiency of Christ's mediation is diminished. In trying to avoid either of these perceived pitfalls, it has fallen headlong into both." (Elliot Miller and Kenneth R. Samples, The Cult of the Virgin: Catholic Mariology and the Apparitions of Mary, p. 56)

• Why The Charge That Roman Catholics Are Guilty Of Necromancy Is Correct:

          -God expressly commanded the Jews to not have any sort of contact with spirits who have departed into the supernatural realm (Deuteronomy 18:9-14; 26:13-14 Leviticus 19:31; 20:26-27; Isaiah 8:19; 19:1-4). What Roman Catholic prayers to departed saints have in common with pagan prayers to the deceased is this: personal communication. That is condemned in the Law. This is the underlying reason that we correctly lay the charge that the Roman Catholic Church is guilty of promoting necromancy. There are no prayers for, to, or through the dead.

• Do Psalm 103:20-21 and Psalm 148:1-2 Support Prayers To Deceased People And Angels?:

          - The Psalmists are simply telling all creations in all places to praise God's name. Creation is a reflection of His glory. These passages do not in any way exhort us to honor or pray to beings other than the Lord. In Psalm 103:22, inanimate objects are told to praise God. In Psalm 148:3, the sun, moon, and the stars are also told to praise God. Should we also pray to these things?

• Does The Transfiguration Support Prayers To Deceased People, Since It Shows Jesus Speaking With Moses And Elijah?:

          -The point of the transfiguration was to show the preeminence of Jesus Christ. He was speaking to Moses and Elijah in His glory. These verses do not say anything in regard to prayer. Are there even any Catholics who offer prayers to Moses and Elijah?

• Does Luke 15:7-10 Support Prayers To Deceased People, Since It Says Angels In Heaven Rejoice Over The Conversion Of Sinners?:

          -Angels rejoicing over a conversion cannot simply translate into support for them receiving our prayer requests because they most probably know when a soul is added to the Book of Life. Even if saints and angels in heaven were conscious of events on earth, could hear prayers, and had the ability to pray for somebody on earth, it would not follow that we are justified in offering prayer petitions to entities other than God. Satan is without a doubt conscious of events taking place in this world, yet no Roman Catholic would ever suggest prayer to him.

• Does Hebrews 12:1 Support Prayer To The Saints, Since It Speaks Of Believers Being Surrounded By A Cloud Of Witnesses?:

          -The context of this passage relates to viewing the Old Testament saints as good moral examples. We are all united into a spiritual family by faith in Christ. There is nothing in that which would even remotely suggest prayer to these witnesses. People enter into the supernatural realm at the moment of physical death. So in that sense, believers on earth certainly are separated temporarily from those present in heaven.

• Do Revelation 5:8 And Revelation 8:3-4 Support Prayer To Saints, Since They Speak Of Them Offering The Prayers Of Saints To God?:

         -This simply means that God allowed saints in heaven to "hold" bowls of prayers. The text says nothing about prayers being directed to saints or angels in heaven, nor gives us permission to do so. The text does not indicate how these saints would be aware of our prayers. Bowls of wrath are mentioned in Revelation 16. Should we conclude that they were directed to the saints in heaven because they also carried them?