Several E-pologists Answer Svendsen's $100,000 Challenge

I have been discussing/debating with Eric Svendsen and several others on Svendsen's message board. One of the discussions came to this challenge from Eric:
Scott said: <<As for providing examples of "obvious disunity," I did so in my posting to Wonky, with whom I have had the pleasure of dialoging with for quite some time now. I cited baptism and holy communion as examples in that posting. I also notice that you've reduced the scope of my statement, I said "Protestantism" and you're reducing it to "Evangelicalism." Nice ploy, but it doesn't invalidate what I said. >>

Eric responded: Finish my statement. I asked, What "obvious disunity" do Evangelicals have that RC don't have? You (in typical RC fashion) provided a list of doctrine you think disunifies Protestants (I use the term "Evangelicals" because, contrary to your oversimplification, not all that glitters is gold. Not all Jews are Jews, according to Paul. And not all Protestants are true Protestants; read Evangelical). Baptism and communion is the best you can do? Let's just compare that to the RC disunity in just who can be saved, whether the Scriptures are fully inspired, whether the creation account is to be read literally or as myth, whether God engaged in special creation of Adam and Eve or whether man evolved from apes, whether Vatican II is to be considered an infallible council or whether it is in error and will one day be overturned, whether Mary is to be considered Co-Redemptress and Co-Mediatrix or not, whether the current pope is valid, on and on and on.

Scott said: << What "false comparison" have you already refuted? I have not read every single message on this board, nor could I even possibly do so. I am following a couple threads that I have become involved in. If I have overlooked something, I have no problem being shown the oversight.>>

Eric responded: You may start with my Roman Catholic Challenge (http://www.ntrmin.org/rcchallenge.htm), and then read the relevant epistemological articles in the Roman Catholic Corner (http://www.ntrmin.org/rccorner-epistemology.htm). After that you may state your case against it.

The only article directly mentioning "epistemology" was one by Tim Enloe that was a response to John Pacheco of Catholic Apologetics International, and on the subject, primarily, of sola scriptura. After skimming through several of the other articles, I am not sure which one(s) Eric intended for me, so for now I will respond to his "Catholic Challenge."

Challenge Questions and Scott's Responses

  1. Tell us how you came to decide that Rome was the "true" church without engaging in the very private judgment that Rome condemns as illegitimate.
    My personal decision is irrelevant in the overall scheme. Eric, I believe your point here is to ask if there is sufficient evidence to support one's decision to become a Catholic - assuming I am correct, I would answer yes. This is not something one can answer in a short questionaire-like response. The evidence is overwhelming to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear it! For more evidence, I'd have to cite my entire website - so feel free to browse it. There are many others out there which do excellent jobs in presenting the Catholic Truth on this matter, so don't stop with my site. That being said, of course there is a private element, as there is in all decision-making. The Church is not saying there can be no private element, but just that the private element has a different place in doctrinal decisions than it does in other decisions. What is clear is that despite the private element, the Catholic system provides something that sola scriptura doesn't: You see, both we and Prots start with an initially private judgment... they believe Scripture alone, we believe Scripture + Tradition + Church. There is indeed a private element. But in the Catholic system, it gives us access to an infallible interpreter. This does not mean that the private element suddenly disappears. But it means that it is not alone. The the kind of private judgment the Church has historically condemned is: whatever I say goes. Sola scripturists, on the other hand, cannot get away from the "private interpretor" for they are truly not left with "Scriptures Alone" but Scriptures and their interpretation of them. They cannot separate the individual (private) interpretation here without naming another "interpretor" and they are quite careful not to do this.

  2. Demonstrate that those ecclesial systems that follow "Scripture plus an Infallible Interpreter" are more unified in their beliefs than those ecclesial systems that follow Sola Scriptura.
    Well Eric has presented an inconsistent statement, let us try to provide the proper focus in our answer.

    First: Scripture plus an Infallible Interpreter.
    Well, that's close, but we've got one absolute: "Scripture" and one specific, but general "an Infallible Interpreter." To be consistent with the absolute of "Scripture" we'd have to use another absolute, like "The Catholic Magisterium" in place of "Infallible Interpreter." Otherwise, Eric can point "Infallible Interpreter" to not only the Catholic Magisterium, but also the Council of Prophets, as in Mormonism - then boast, "See, there's no unity between Mormons and Catholics, so they can't point to differences in Protestantism that adhere to sola scriptura." Well, Eric makes an invalid comparison if he does this. Now, if we restrict the premise to "those who adhere to sola scriptura vs. those that adhere to the Catholic Magisterium" then we have a valid comparison, and those that adhere to the Catholic Magisterium are clearly more united than those that adhere to Scripture Alone.

    There is nothing beyond superficial unity in groups that where the name "Baptist" in them, to prove that point. There are "Free Will Baptists," "Reformed Baptists," "American Baptists," "Southern Baptists," and a whole host of "Independent Baptists." They all claim to believe in the same Jesus and the same Bible, yet we have extremes in "Baptist Ideology" from staunch Calvinist views to more liberal "Free Will" views. Can both extremes be correct? Are those "in the middle" more correct? Free Will vs. Calvinism is a very fundamental difference in "ecclesial systems" yet Eric claims there's more, or as much, unity among those that adhere to sola scriptura than those that adhere to the Magisterium of Catholicism. The contrast is quite stark, and we've only named "Baptists" thus far! What if we start including other "ecclesial systems" that adhere to sola scriptura? Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, etc. all make the claim of sola scriptura yet the disunity in fundamental ecclesiology gets more obvious with each denomination we name!

    OK, above we've taken a more strict approach to Eric's terminology, what if we go with a more liberal approach?

    If we're going to use a generic statement of "an Infallible Interpretor" (so as to include Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons), then we must be more generic than "Scripture" and refer only to "A Holy Book" or "Set of Holy Books." So to be more consistent with this view we'd have to say, "A Set of Holy Books plus An Infallible Interpretor vs. A Set of Holy Books" (keeping in mind, though we have "The Bible" in book form, it is actually a compilation of Holy Books assembled under one cover - and that "one cover" wasn't even agreed upon until nearly 400 years of Christendom had passed).

    Let's illustrate both ways of presenting Eric's challenge here and see which is more unified:

    Scripture + Catholic MagisteriumvsScripture Alone
    Catholics
      Baptists
    • Free Will Baptists
    • Southern Baptists
    • Reformed Baptists
    • American Baptists
    • Independent Baptists
      Methodists
    • United Methodists
    • Free Methodist of North America
    • African Methodist Episcopal Church
    • The Evangelical Methodist Church
      Lutherans
    • Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
    • Lutheran Ministerium and Synod - USA
    • Lutheran Church Missouri Synod
    • Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland
    • Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
    • Evangelical Lutheran Synod
    • Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
    • Concordia Lutheran Conference
    • Church of Lutheran Confession
    • Church of the Lutheran Brethren
    • Association of Free Lutheran Congregations
    • Apostolic Lutheran Church of America
    • American Associiation of Lutheran Churches
    • American Church in Berlin (The)
    • Association of Courageous Churches (LCMS)
    • Evangelical Lutheran Church in Hungary
    • Evangelical Lutheran Church in South Africa (Cape)
    • Evangelical Lutheran Church in South Africa (Natal Transvaal)
    • Evangelical Lutheran Church in South Africa (ELCSA)
    • And many more...
    • (Source: http://www.suite101.com/linkcategory.cfm/lutheranism/4673)
    Anglicans
    Presbyterians
    Pentecostals
    Nazarenes
    Vineyard
    Calvary Chapel
    etc., etc., etc.
    Set of Holy Books + An Infallible InterpretervsSet of Holy Books Alone
    Catholics
    Orthodox
    Mormons
    Jehovahs Witnesses
      Baptists
    • Free Will Baptists
    • Southern Baptists
    • Reformed Baptists
    • American Baptists
    • Independent Baptists
      Methodists
    • United Methodists
    • Free Methodist of North America
    • African Methodist Episcopal Church
    • The Evangelical Methodist Church
      Lutherans
    • Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
    • Lutheran Ministerium and Synod - USA
    • Lutheran Church Missouri Synod
    • Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland
    • Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada
    • Evangelical Lutheran Synod
    • Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
    • Concordia Lutheran Conference
    • Church of Lutheran Confession
    • Church of the Lutheran Brethren
    • Association of Free Lutheran Congregations
    • Apostolic Lutheran Church of America
    • American Associiation of Lutheran Churches
    • American Church in Berlin (The)
    • Association of Courageous Churches (LCMS)
    • Evangelical Lutheran Church in Hungary
    • Evangelical Lutheran Church in South Africa (Cape)
    • Evangelical Lutheran Church in South Africa (Natal Transvaal)
    • Evangelical Lutheran Church in South Africa (ELCSA)
    • And many more...
    • (Source: http://www.suite101.com/linkcategory.cfm/lutheranism/4673)
    Anglicans
    Presbyterians
    Pentecostals
    Nazarenes
    Vineyard
    Calvary Chapel
    Jews
    Moslems
    Hindus
    Buddhists

    I'm sure we've left out some here and there, but the above illustration clearly shows there is more unity among Catholics than among those who adhere purely to sola scriptura.

  3. Demonstrate that you picked the "true" church from among all the other "true" churches that say you can’t rightly understand the Bible and church history without their help, such as the Eastern Orthodox church, the Watchtower Society, Mormonism, and every other cult that exists (remember, you can’t use private judgment for this since you are fallible).
    Eric, your question begs the question. There can only be One True Church, so one cannot "pick among all the other "true" churches." Overlooking the invalidity of your question, let me answer again, my personal choice here is irrelevant. In essence, you've asked your first question over again, I refer you back to my answer to the first question.

  4. Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on the Inerrancy of the Bible--does it contain errors or not?
    The Bible contains no errors in doctrinal or dogmatic concerns. For a fuller treatment of this, I refer the reader to the online Catholic Encyclopedia article on this subject.

  5. Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on Predestination--is it the position of Augustine? Scotus? Molina? Aquinas?
    Catholicism has not "defined" a position on Predestination, so a Catholic in good standing could take an Augustine, Scotian, Molinian or Aquinan position on Predestination. I again refer you to a fuller treatment of this through the online Catholic Encyclopedia.

  6. Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on interpreting the Genesis account--was there a literal Adam and Eve, or did evolution take place?
    The Genesis account is not a part of "defined dogma." A Catholic can accept the very literal presentation of Genesis, or a very mythical (but true) explanation of the Genesis account.

  7. Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on whether or not Jonah was really swallowed by a "great fish."
    The Jonah incident is not part of "defined dogma." A Catholic can accept the very literal presentation of Jonah, or a very mythical (but true) explanation of the Jonah account.

  8. Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ("no salvation outside the church"). Is it the view of Vatican II, or the view of every Roman document before Vatican II? Should Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox be embraced as "brothers" (as Vatican II teaches), or should they be eternally condemned as heretics (as all pre-Vatican II documents teach)?
    You've raised several points in this one question, so I will break them down too:
    1. EENS, more literally, "Outside the Church there is No Salvation," is dogmatic truth that no Faithful Catholic can deny.
    2. Is it the view of every Catholic document before Vatican II? No, not every (Catholic) document (before or after Vatican II) deals with this subject matter. Those that do are in agreement.
    3. The proper term for Protestants and Eastern Orthodox is not merely "brothers" but separated brethren. Big difference here in the one word you left out from Vatican II's teaching. I would also add that there's a huge difference between Protestants and Eastern Orthodox due to the fact that the Orthodox have a valid Eucharist, (please see addendum 1).
    4. Vatican II does not negate the fact that those who would not qualify as invincibly ignorant would still be condemned as heretics.

  9. Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on Vatican II. Was it an infallible ecumenical council? Does it contradict earlier teachings of Rome (as the Traditionalists claim)?
    The Second Vatican Council was an ecumenical council that was "pastoral" in nature. Vatican II took a look at several previously defined dogmas and represented them in an new way to a modern world, but nothing dogmatically new came from the Second Vatican Council, in fact I challenge you to show a "new dogma" from Vatican II. What some "Traditionalists" claim is irrelevant - there is no contradiction when taken in context, both in time and in what is written.

  10. Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on Divine Revelation. Is it all found in Scripture, or is it partly in Scripture and partly in Tradition?
    Scripture is part of Divine Revelation, but it is the Catholic position that there has been no new binding Divine Revelation since the time of the Apostles. Personal revelations (like Fatima and Lourdes, which have been authenticated by the Church, are not binding on Faithful Catholics).

  11. Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on the decisions of the synods of Hippo and Carthage (which lists the books of the canon). Were these infallible "councils"? Where they right in their list of OT books, or was Trent right in its list instead?
    Carthage and Hippo were not ecumenical councils. "The List" was dogmatically defined at Trent. Any differences are resolved at Trent.

  12. Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on the Greek manuscripts of the NT. Are we to trust the Byzantine text-type (as Roman Catholic apologist Bob Sungenis does), or are we to trust the Eclectic test type (as do almost all of Sungenis' colleagues)?
    There is no "dogmatic definition" as to which manuscript(s) is/are more correct.

  13. Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on the Eucharist. Is it a "real," bodily presence, or is it a sacramental presence?
    It is not an "either/or" answer - it is both.

  14. Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on Transubstantiation. Is this something the church has "always held from the beginning" (as Trent claims), or did this belief develop over time? And for that matter . . .
    Jesus taught it, from the beginning. St. Ignatius, a disciple of St. John, the Apostle, testifies to it (see Ignatius, and several other Early Fathers in this article). Clearly, it is taught from the beginning.

  15. Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on the formulation of doctrine. Was the apostolic deposit complete in the first century (as Trent claims), or did doctrine develop over time (as Newman claims)?
    I have already answered that there is no new binding Divine Revelation, however, there is a development of doctrine based on ecclesial need. When heresies arose challenging something the Church has always held - the Church has further "defined" such doctrines (like the Trinity, the Two Wills of Christ and the Two Natures of Christ). Most often such definitions have come from Church councils, but at times (very few times) the Pope has excercised the authority granted him by Christ Himself, and that is when he speaks "ex cathedra" or "from the chair" of St. Peter.

  16. Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on how to interpret the Bible. Should we use critical methods such as redaction criticism and form criticism, or were these officially condemned by Pius X's Pascendi Dominici Gregis?
    (full text) Since the terms "redaction criticism" and/or "form criticism" are not found in this document - I must overlook this as a bogus question. In fact, allow me to quote:
    Redaction criticism of the gospels developed after WW2 as the inevitable sequel to form criticism, which arose after WW1. While form critics focus on distinguishing small elements of oral tradition from their current gospel contexts, redaction critics focus on patterns that are typical of a particular work by contrasting it with others.
    http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/redact.html
    St. Pius X's encyclical was written prior to WWI (in 1908) so how could Pascendi Dominici Gregis be addressing forms of criticism that had not yet even arose? A bit anachronistic of Mr. Svendsen here.

  17. Tell us what the Roman Catholic position is on the novus ordo mass? Is it binding and infallible? Or is it just an option among other options? Is the Latin mass still valid, or is it merely an accommodation to those who are not inclined to change with the Roman times?
    Eric claims he was a Catholic, well, one sure couldn't tell by this last question! The Mass is not "binding" in any "ordo" (form) it takes. As for the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass) it was offered as an alternative to the Traditional Latin Mass. This offering came from Pope Paul VI in 1969. Since that time, most bishops, throughout the world, have accepted the Novus Ordo Missae (NOM) as "the" Mass that would be celebrated in their diocese. The Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) remains a completely valid Mass. This issue that arises in some diocese is that in order for a Mass to be "licit" the local ordinary (bishop) must grant explicit permission for that particular "form" or "order" of the Mass to be celebrated. This has nothing to do with validity. Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Ecclesia Dei even explicitly asks that all bishops generously approve the TLM for those who still desire it. Likewise, the Divine Liturgy of Sts. Basil and Chrysostom remain as completely "valid" rites of the Mass - though it would be "illicit" for a Latin Rite priest to celebrate this Mass unless such a priest has received special permission.
  18. Did Mary die?
    Again, this is not "infallibly taught." Some believe she did die, and immediately upon her death, she was bodily assumed into heaven. Others believe this assumption happened just before she died. Again, there is no "defined dogma" on this particular portion of the defined dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary - so a Faithful Catholic could believe she died, or could believe she was assumed before her death. What cannot be doubted by any Faithful Catholic is that she was bodily assumed into heaven.


$100,000 Challenge?

In the same article that Eric issues the above challenges, he also states he'd pay $100,000 to any Catholic that answered, his exact words:
Recently we advertised that we would pay $100,000.00 to any Roman Catholic who could pin down the official Roman teaching about certain issues.
Now, does Eric's challenge/offer still exist, or has he pulled it? I believe that he's made it a "no win" situation, since he's asking for "official Roman teaching" on several items that have NO OFFICIAL CATHOLIC TEACHING! Safe bet, eh Eric? Can you say "smoke and mirrors?" (Making note too that he asks for "Roman" teaching, not "Catholic" and since the "Roman Empire" does not exist anymore, he's also given himself an "out." He, I'm sure, means "Catholic teaching" but has so much bitterness to the Church to which he once belonged, that he must use "Roman teaching" even though he's aware that such is a bit of a slur).

Now, one of Eric's charges is that Catholics are in as much disunity as Protestants. Well, I am submitting this file to several Catholic apologists prior to making it public. Each one that signs on with me and what is said here will split the $100,000.00 that Mr. Svendsen has promised to "any Roman Catholic who could pin down the official Roman teaching about certain issues." I've laid out the issues, provided responses and here's a list of those that agree (and perhaps a short comment if they added one):

Scott Windsor - aka: BigScott/CathApol (e-pologist)

Chris Muha - aka: The-Ox (e-pologist)

James Chevalier - aka: JimmyJoeJ (e-pologist)

Andrew Mitchell - aka: ajmitch (neophyte e-pologist)

Lee A Crocker - aka: SursumCor (e-pologist)

Christopher Bernholt - aka: Namzat (e-pologist)

Adam Fierro - aka: Veritatis (neophyte Catholic - long time e-pologist)

Aquinas from #CathApol (e-pologist)

D Sluga - aka: OrtaDug (neophyte Catholic - long time studying the Church)

Dave Brown - (Convert and Revert)

* An "e-pologist" is a take-off on "apologist" (one who defends) and applies "apologist" to the "electronic" medium. So, like mail becomes e-mail, apologist becomes e-pologist.


Addendum

  1. From Dominus Iesus:
    The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity - rooted in the apostolic succession - between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”. With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

    Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.



  2. Due to some recent discussions in which we have less than satisfactorily explained our position in this work, we provide this article which, though originally intended for a future date, has been posted to clarify and expound our position.

    Click Here Now for that article


    Number of visitors to this page since August 31, 2002:


    Return to ACTS Homepage