My dialogue with Brian, a Roman Catholic, continues. See previous discussion here:
Trevin’s Letter
Hi Brian,
Thanks for the feedback on the interviews. I’m glad you enjoyed them and thought they were the basis of a good discourse.
I do not wish to dismiss the patristics. There is much that we can learn from their writings, and Baptists (and Protestants) in particular would do well to revisit the ancient church and benefit from the treasures left for us there.
I too am weary of a continual search for the “authentic New Testament church.” When I think of the early church, I consider Corinth and Galatia and other churches that were far from where they needed to be. Which church do we want to imitate? Even the early church had serious problems, with sin and with doctrine. Within a generation after Jesus, Paul condemned the Galatians for forsaking the very Gospel their church was founded upon.
Looking at the patristics, I do see liturgy, heirarchy and sacramental theology. I do not find these so much in the New Testament itself, though. Baptists believe that the early church serves as an example to us, but that ultimately, our authority lies in Scripture – the inspired Word. The New Testament is relatively quiet about church heirarchy and liturgy, which gives me the impression that the church is free to adapt and shift, as long as it remains tied to the pier of Scriptural authority.
The main difference between the RCC and Orthodox churches and Protestants on justification by faith alone is in our definition of grace and our definition of faith.
We do not believe that our works in any way contribute to our salvation, but that Christ’s work (through his perfect life and sacrificial death) is the only basis for salvation. Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer, so that he is seen as righteous before God. Christ takes our sin, we take His righteousness. Then, on account of our faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, God declares us to be “justified.”
Regarding the relationship with faith and works… Baptists believe that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, but that this faith never comes alone… true faith is always accompanied by works. I too believe that our faith is a gift of God, and our works are too… but that my own faith and my own works do not play a part in the reasons why God looks on me and calls me His own. It’s Jesus’ faithfulness and His works that form the only basis for my acceptance before God.
I’m sorry if the quote about fingers seemed unfair. Writing this interview, I wrestled with how to maintain objectivity and how also to share real concerns based on the work I’ve seen oversees.
Regarding the relationship between the Church and the Scriptures… I believe that the church is birthed by the Gospel, which we find recorded in the Scriptures. It is not vice versa. This is a major difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Jesus’ words to Peter are based on Peter’s confession of faith. “You are Peter – the Rock (who just confessed Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God)” and upon this rock (Peter, the confessor of the Gospel) the church will be built.” The Gospel forms the basis for the church. The church then birthed by the Gospel is commissioned with the task of spreading the news.
Thanks for the feedback and the food for thought,
Trevin
Our conversation continues here.
Trevin,
Again, I’m really looking forward to participating in this discussion. Given what I’ve read of your posts, I have great confidence that, under your guidance, the discussion will remain respectful and be of benefit to both Catholics and Protestants.
Obviously, as a Catholic, I have some things to say in response to Conversations with a Catholic 2. Please keep in mind, though, that I’m neither a theologian or a Scripture scholar, so I won’t be able to take the discussion to a very high level. I’m a catechist and, as such, try to keep it simple and straightforward. That being said, allow me to respond to some of what you said in your post.
First, regarding seeing liturgy, heirarchy and sacramental theology in the Patristics, but not so much in the Scriptures: the Catholic Church sees references to the liturgy and sacraments in Paul’s account of the agape meal and Eucharist, in the reference to the prayers and breaking of the bread in Acts, in the commission to baptize and in examples of such, in the admonition to confess your sins to one another and in other places. There are references to bishops, presbyters and deacons. St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107) wrote, “Where the bishop is, there is the catholic church” barely 25 years after the last books of the NT were written. The Patristics were the first readers and interpreters of the New Testament Scriptures. Catholics have confidence that they understood the structure, the sacraments and the liturgy of the Church as springing from their understanding of the Gospel, the revelation given to us by Christ. Catholics would say that the early Church sets an example that is normative for all believers through the centuries: so, the heirarchical structure of the Church is how the Patristics understood the structure of the Church given them by Christ, through Scripture and Tradition. The same with the liturgy and the sacraments. That structure, then, (and that liturgy and that sacramental theology) became normative for the Church through the centuries, and even today.
As for authority, the Catholic Church claims to be the final interpretor of the Scriptures. So, a Catholic would say that the final authority on matters of faith and morals is the Church, especially the teaching authority of the Church that resides in the magisterium. This teaching authority of the Church is not in conflict with Scripture, but rather guards the “rich deposit of faith” given to us in both Scripture and Tradition. So, the Church interprets Scripture and the Church interprets the Patristics.
When Protestants say that “ultimate authority lies in the Scriptures”, that statement always begs the question: whose interpretation of Scripture? If you think about it, the real final authority belongs to the one who interprets the Scriptures, and the authoritative interpretation belongs to the Church, the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15)and “the instrument by which the wisdom of God [Christ] is made known” (Eph 3:10).
So, the Scriptures are very much the book of the Church. The Church, after all, is the Body of Christ, which existed before the written tradition. Revelation, both Scripture and Tradition, come to us from God the Father, in Christ the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and through the Church. The Scriptures, then, come to us through the Church. Of course, the Church was birthed by the Gospel, which is the revelation of our salvation through Christ.
Catholics refer to Pentecost as “the birthday of the Church” because it was then that the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles, to empower them to preach the Gospel to all the world. But this was decades before the first word of the NT was put down. The Church precedes the written Gospel, as proclaimer of the preached Gospel.
The NT was written by men, men who were incorporated into the Body of Christ, which is the Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit — so, it is the written Word of God. The Church recognized which of the early Christian writings were, indeed, Scripture and assumed the authority to declare such. The authority of those Scriptural writings then became the written rule of our faith. Nothing the Church teaches can contradict Scripture, though Scripture is understood as part of the revelation given to us by Christ, and requires interepretation by the Church. All that is necessary for our salvation is contained in the Scriptures.
I’ll have to come back later and respond to your remarks on faith and works. For now, have a good day and God keep you in His tender care.
Pax et bonum,
Bob Hunt
Knoxville, TN
Comment by Bob Hunt — May 17, 2007 @ 12:25 am