I've been keeping up with Moses Flores' debates with Charismatic Catholic Ben Rosado as the readers of this BLOG are well aware and in my reading just a moment ago I was very disappointed at some things that Ben said. Now let it be said here that I can empathize with Ben's charismatic experience because I am a Charismatic, but I can also empathize with Moses' doctrinal positions concerning authority because I am a Protestant--that being said, I cannot empathize with Ben's approach to this debate in his first rebuttal statement.
It's no secret that Charismatic's are generally perceived to be an emotional bunch who get all worked up and do a bunch of crazy things and aren't really all that concerned with doctrine--and the truth is (sad to say) that stereotypes are usually pretty accurate. Now not all of us are like that (my pastor for instance does not fit the sterotype) and I certainly don't wish to paint with a broad brush--I'd ask that you deal with each individual on an individual basis--but let's be serious for a second--a good majority of the Charismatics I know would abandon serious exegesis of a certain text of Scripture for a feeling they got from the Holy Spirit (as if the Holy Spirit would contradict sound exegesis).
But I said all this to say that I can place Mr. Rosado into this bunch and although I don't know him personally I can make this determination from his writings--after all Jesus did say, "for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" (Mat. 12:34). Now Ben's position is a bit different than the Charismatics that I interact with on a regular basis as he believes that the RCC is infallibly led by the Holy Spirit (which consequently bears witness with his spirit) and therefore whatever they teach is correct. This sets the stage for some of his comments to Moses in his first rebuttal of their debate on the Papacy.
Ben said:
Please listen to what we now teach about this very statement. We teach that Protestants are a part of Christ's sheep. This is because Protestants are under the care of Peter and His successors.
This is because the bible came from God and was put into the hands of the Catholic Church. After all, who else defined what books did and did not belong to the canon of scripture? It was of course, the Catholic Church with the inspiration of the holy Spirit. Can you deny this?
Be warned, if you claim that we did this without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then you have a huge problem with your bible. It most certainly has some wrong books in it. Also, some of the books that should be there are not. Because who can make an infallible decision (like which books belong to the bible) without the Holy Spirit???
Notice the logic (or lack thereof) in Ben's position. He first asserts that Protestants are under the care of Peter and his successors (i.e. the Bishops of Rome throughout the ages) which would be rejected by every Reformer and every Protestant not seeking some kind of ecumenical agreement with Rome. But from this he alleges that God infallibly led the Catholic Church by his Holy Spirit to define what books did and did not belong in the canon of Scripture. He asked if this can be denied and of course it can be! If we are to believe that it took an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church to infallibly decide the canon of Scripture then there was no canon for the first 1500+ years of the Church! Could we possibly argue in favor of such a position? But from this he alleges that if we do deny the infallible choice made by the Catholic Church in the choosing of the canon then we "most certainly have some wrong books" in our Bibles and also that we are missing some that should be there--but this does not follow. We never needed a group of fallible men claiming infallibility to declare Scripture--Scripture is what it is by virtue of the fact that it is God-Breathed. The recognition of this did not make it Scripture. Likewise the canon is what it is by virtue of what Scripture is (i.e. God-Breathed)--the canon of course being the 'rule of faith' for the Christian. Determining the canon is as easy as recognizing Scripture and ultimately we must credit the Scriptures themselves with bearing the marks of inspiration in order that they be recognized (these marks being things such as prophetic fulfillment; internal consistency, apostolic endorsement, etc.)
But this comment as misguided as I feel it is was not what disappointed me so much as what follows.
Ben later said:
Moses, I am getting tired of this discussion with you. Your own words are for you to listen to... You cannot come to the Eucharist and the Church unless the Father draws you.
I have seen many Christians not accept these things, you are not easily led. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that you don't even hear God talk to you. This is awful for you, because He is a loving friend and savior. You should try to start praying and listening. Become like Philip in Acts 8, 29. When you start hearing the Lord speak to you, you will know which way to go.
I have to leave you now. If you will not hear my voice, why do we talk? You might as well debate the catechism that is in your room. You don't need me to say anything to you, you don't want to.
This is a sad commentary on the position of many Charismatics (and this is from my experience a Charimatic thing moreso than a Roman Catholic thing)--the position that if one doesn't hear them then they are not hearing God. Ben entered this debate with Moses knowing well that Moses was a Protestant (and a Calvinist as well). Ben entered this debate knowing that their positions were contrary to one another and that they didn't agree to begin with. One has to ask why Ben is "getting tired of this discussion" now? From my vantage point it seems as if Ben has become frustrated with his inability to counter Moses' arguments and this is understandable as I have not seen anything even remotely close to a refutation (and Moses has said some things that I personally disagree with but nevertheless they went unrefuted).
Ben has concluded that Moses does not "hear God talk to [him]" simply because he is rediscovering what he already knew going into the debate... that Moses disagrees with him! This is the height of arrogance in my mind. Moses and I debated Calvinism for a while and during the process we never reached a mutual agreement but never once did the other accuse the other of not hearing or knowing God. I have to ask myself who is Ben to judge another's servant? I wonder if Ben has ever considered that perhaps Moses does hear from the Lord and the Lord has led him in the direction that he is going and perhaps it is him who should seek God's voice? I doubt it as this is usually not the mindset of my fellow Charismatics.
But Ben's closing really bothered me in that he asked why they continue to talk if Moses does not hear him and then suggests that Moses debate the Catechism in his room. This bothers me because Ben has taken the position that this debate is about converting Moses or about him being right--never taking the time to think that it is the readers of these exchanges that benefit from them. I have never once seen a debate in which either person changed their position. But that is not why we enter into these dialogues--no--we enter into them in hopes of understanding our opponents position better so as to possibly be able to help another somewhere along the line. But Ben's attitude is summed in saying, "why continue if you won't concede defeat and agree with me?"
I am very disappointed with this last exchange and while I still believe that Ben is a heck of a nice guy, I can't help but feel that these final comments are somewhat less nice.
B"H
