Christianity's intellectual problem

  Understand, I am not saying that Christians cannot be intellectual.  Many are, or were, such as C.S. Lewis, Thomas Aquinas, NT Wright, J.N.D. Kelly, Karlo Broussard, Brant Pitre (Pitre and Broussard are both southern, and Cajun at that, so much for stereotypes!) and many others. My French professor said (when I said that I like to read books), that I am (in French) very intellectual.  I think she gives me too much credit.
 I bring this up, because occasionally, I'll hear some Christians (usually Protestant, and, more specifically, Baptist), criticise philosophy.  Usually based on, I would say a misrepresentation, of Colossians 2:8.  Reading the verse in context, it seems to be a reference to a certain type of philosophy.  You have to remember, that the type of people that the Colossians would have been dealing with.  According to the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible that the term is used to refer to the Jewish way of life.  It goes on to say (not word for word), "it is true, that every philosophy that disregards or denounces what God reveals as true, etc is vain".   That being said, I want to point out, this is in no way universal amongst Baptists OR Protestants.  The fact that people mistake the word "intellectual" for atheist, is kind of a problem.  Christians NEED to be intellectual.  We need to know philosophy. Aristotelian metaphysics is more useful than you think.  If we can't tell people WHAT we mean by God, we are never going to convince them of his existence, and THIS requires philosophy. 

Jesus is not an angel, and he really did rise from the dead

  I'm going to use the fundamentalist Protestant pastors favourite argument here: "Don't believe me, look in your Bible!".  Seriously.  First of all, the argument that Jesus is Michael is, not only bizarre, but without scriptural or historical warrant.  Some groups (JWs and their allies) will argue that Jesus is Michael the Archangel.  But also human.  Neither of these things seem possible.  Check the verse they appeal to to prove their view, 1 Thessalonians 4:16, "For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God; and the dead of Christ will rise first;"  There's more there, but I want to focus on this.  First of all, an archangel is simply a high ranking angel.  The JWs mistake this for meaning there is only one archangel.  There isn't (Tobit 12:15).  Of course, the JWs don't consider Tobit scripture (and they are wrong), and it is unfortunate that Protestants don't, because right now, that would be very helpful for them.  But, another thing, there is not a single shred of evidence that 1 Thess 4:16 is calling Jesus an angel, much less an archangel.  This is an inference, not in the text.  Now, another thing, Hebrews EXPLICITLY DENIES THAT THE SON is an angel.  Check out Hebrews 1:5, "For to what angel did God ever say, 'you are my Son, today I have begotten you"?  Or again, 'I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"?  There's plenty about Jesus and angels in the Good Book, but no verse saying that Jesus is one.  Now, Jesus did rise from the dead.  If you deny this, you are denying the overwhelming majority of Christians throughout the ages.  There were groups that believed the Resurrection was spiritual, Gnostics.   I am not sure whether or not the JWs believe that matter is evil, but this was the Gnostic's logic against Jesus rising from the dead.  Now, back to the Bible.  Lk 24:36-53, John 21:1-23, John 2:19-21, Acts 1:3, Rom 10:9, 1 Cor 15:4-8, 1 Cor 15:13-17.  Jesus definitely rose from the dead.  There is no evidence he did not, at least not from the Bible.  No spiritual Resurrection, here.   I think a big problem may be the JWs "New World Translation".  Which is a terrible "translation", that was written using spiritualism by a former Catholic priest "correcting" the text.  His name was Johannes Greber, look him up.  The truth is, no translation is perfect (my quotes were all from the pretty good RSVCE), even the widely popular NIV, as good as some of it is, has some flaws (out of personal taste, I don't care for it, but some if it is rendered very well), but almost every serious Biblical scholar will tell you that the NWT does not do a very good job of translating, partially because it's not a translation. 

Don't call yourself a Christian if you have a problem with the word "religion"

From the RSVCE (2nd edition): James 1:26-27,
"If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man's religion is in vain, Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world".
From the Douay Rheims:
"And if any man think himself to be religious, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his own heart, this man's religion is in vain.
Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation: and to keep one's self unspotted from this world."
From the NIV:" Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless.  Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." (the most popular Protestant translation seems really clunky to me).
From the KJV: "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." 
From the NRSVCE
" If anyone among you thinks he is religious If any think they are religious, and do not bridle their tongues but deceive their hearts, their religion is worthless.  Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.s, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless. Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world."
 From the NABRE: "
 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, his religion is vain. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world."
 This is not the only place that the word religion is used.  Although, what I find really interesting is what the word means in Greek.(thrēskeia).  According to Strong (2356), it means "religious worship, especially external, which consists of ceremonies".  The Bible is telling us to do those external religious things.  Think about that. Now, that word is not always used positively.  The phrase "religion of angels" is very much negative in Colossians 2:18 (same Greek words are used). Some of the other words translated as religion are
theosebeian (which is also translated as godliness in 1 Tim 2:10 in some versions of the Bible).  Of these, one of my personal favourites is eusebeias in 1 Tim 3:16, and 2 Tim 3:5.  Strong 2150, uses the definition "piety (towards God), godliness, devotion, godliness.".  I think the problem is, is that so many people mistakenly believe that religion means "legalism".  Nope.  It comes from the Old French "religio", via the Latin word "religare", and it means something like "to bind".  In other words, if you are Christian, and you do not believe that Christianity is a religion, how exactly are you bound to Christ?  Isn't that what a relationship with Christ would entail?  How can you be his friend then?  John 15:12-17.  If Christ is not your religion, how can you die for him?  So, when you say Christianity is a "relationship" and not a "religion", you are saying something that is quite impossible.  

Proving from the Bible that Protestantism isn't true.

Now, I do not want to be accused of Protestant bashing, so Protestants should take note that I have a healthy respect for scripture and admire them for their love on scripture.  So, here we go.

Sola Scriptura, this one is the easiest to disprove, as it is not taught anywhere in the Bible.  Seriously, some folks like to quotes this:

            (From the Douay Rheims, as that’s the version I have on hand) “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct in justice,

            That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.  (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  But, with everything, let’s read it in context:

            “But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, long-suffering, love, patience,

Persecutions, afflictions: Such as came upon me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra: what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord delivered me

And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution.

But evil men and seducers shall grow worse: erring and driving into error.

But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been   committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All Scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct in justice,

That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. (2 Timothy 2:10-17).

            Useful and true, but it does not teach Sola Scriptura.  In fact, it isn’t even implied in the text.  That’s not to say The Bible isn’t important, it is, it is THE most important book of all times (actually, books, but still).   I feel like this is a really common thing amongst Protestants, they see a verse in the Bible and say “see, that proves it, because they use the Bible”.  It’s almost like they think Catholics don’t really the Bible.

            Also, if he knew it “from infancy”, or “childhood” as some newer versions of The Bible say, and it really did teach Sola Scriptura, then Protestants would have a logical problem, as it would have to be the Old Testament.  Seriously, the New Testament was still being writing.  The Bible is important and useful for instruction, but does not teach that it alone is authoritative.   

            Sola Scriptura is impossible anyway, because a Protestant cannot safely answer which books are in scripture.  Why is it those 66 books and only those 66 books?  Can they point to a verse in scripture that says it is those 66 books?  No, because there isn’t one. 

Faith alone is another one that is certainly unbiblical, so, instead of using the common argument from James (James 2:14-26), I am going to use Paul himself.  After all, if Paul so clearly taught salvation by “faith alone”, we should be able to find it in the Bible.  So, let’s start with the verse Martin Luther added the word “alone” to, remember, all quotes are from the Douay Rheims:

“For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law”.(Romans 3:28)  Notice something?  Nowhere in there does it say “alone”.  In fact, read it IN CONTEXT.  In fact, the entire chapter is about gentiles and Jews in the context of Old Testament law and how it applies to Christians.  Seriously y’all, go read it. 

What is really interesting to me, is Romans 6:1-4:

“What shall we say then?  Shall we continue in sin, that grace may about?

God forbid.  For we that are dead to sin, how shall we live any longer therein?

Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death?

For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life”.

Sounds like to me there is some kind of law we’re supposed to follow.  Sounds to me a lot different than being saved by “faith alone”.  Our baptism seems to imply that following Jesus means to actually do something.  I’ll give you another.

Ephesians 2:8-9

“For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God;

Not of works, that no man may glory”

Now, that sounds fine and dandy.  We’re saved by faith, so works have no role, right?  Wrong.  In fact, it always amazes me that people don’t seem to know there is an Ephesians 2:10.

“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them”.

You and I are quite literally made for good works.  How then can we say that faith alone is what justifies us?  There is no way we can earn our salvation, we can do good works, through grace, in faith.  Faith and works go together like hand-in-glove, Paul even talks about the obedience of faith in Romans 1:5.

Okay, so now we turn to Sola gratia.   (See Council of Orange, 529)

Actually, Catholics believe this, so no problem there.

Christ alone, okay, only Christ can save us, but this does not eliminate the need for an ordained priesthood.  In fact, for a proper celebration of the Eucharist, we would need one.  Remember, Jesus uses sacrificial language at the last supper, Matthew 26:27-28:

“And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: ‘Drink ye all of this.

For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins. 

And, if you remember your Old Testament, you will know that blood is shed in the Old Testament offerings.  St. Matthew would not have rendered this with sacrificial language if it was not supposed to be a sacrifice.  And not only that, it is supposed to be a perpetual sacrifice, if Malachi 1:11 is anything to go by, and this is what Jesus intended, going by Luke 22:19

“And taking the bread, he gave thanks, and brake: and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me”.

Now, don’t be put off by the language.  Some modern Bibles do indeed say “memorial” or “in remembrance”.  That isn’t the point.  Jesus used sacrificial language, and told us to do it.  Since he used sacrificial language, we can surmise it is a sacrifice.  Now, what class of people offers sacrifices?  Priests. 

So, we can infer from that, the Luther’s idea that the Eucharist must be a sacrament or a sacrifice and can’t be both, is absurd.

Now, with Soli Deo Gloria, most of what I can find is just insults towards Catholics for venerating Saints.  I guess Protestants are unaware that Martin Luther held the Virgin Mary in high regard (Personal Prayer Book, 1522), although he had a problem with intercession of the Saints, Augsburg Confession of 1530 (Article 21).

But, I can prove from the Bible, that intercessory prayers of Saints in Heaven and angels are quite biblical.

First of all, angels are probably the easiest.  Angels watch over children.  Jesus says this:

“See not that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my father who is in heaven”. (Matthew 18:10)

Seriously, if you know what the angels are doing before the throne of God, you would be asking for their intercession.  Seriously, the Bible says this

“And I saw seven angels standing in the presence of God; and there were given to them seven trumpets

And another angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God.

And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel”. (Revelation 8:2-4)

Catch that?  It’s the angels that bring Christian prayers to the throne of God.  Sounds like an intercessor to me.  So, what about people in Heaven?  Aren’t they dead?  How could they possibly hear all those prayers?  Okay, one, bad argument, that’s not what we’re saying, two, so what if they don’t know what we’re saying?  It’s ultimately God that grants the prayer. 

If I say to my friend “hey, please pray for me”, do I really need to be specific on WHAT I need prayer for?  I think those in Heaven may possibly be the same.  I should probably point out that there ARE humans in Heaven that are worshiping the Lamb, seriously, read Revelation 5, but especially Revelation 5:8

“And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the saints.”

Now, there is much more (seriously, read the Book of Revelation), but I just wanted to get to the point.