Conversations with a Catholic 3: Glasses

I have been corresponding with a Roman Catholic regarding the differences between our theological traditions. See previous posts here and here. 

Brian’s Letter

Trevin,

You don’t see liturgy, hierarchy, and sacraments in the NT because you read the NT through Baptist glasses. Plus, folks seeking to “find the church of the upper room” are looking for the infant church, rather than the church which has matured in understanding through the centuries. The early creeds, doctrine of the Trinity, canon of scriptures are examples of a matured understanding which occurred centuries after the upper room and which aren’t explicitly explained in scriptures. These truths are as true today as they were in the centuries in which they were formalized as well as in the time of the upper room. Yet, it took some time to hash them out.

So, taking off your Baptist glasses for awhile, consider the example of the following passages… Matt 23 – “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.’” So here we have those despicable scribes and Pharisees, and Jesus is telling his followers to do whatever they tell you! In other words, the oral tradition as handed on, is authoritative. Plus, where do we find “Moses’ seat” in scriptures? We don’t find it anywhere, because it too is part of that oral tradition.

But, you may be thinking, I thought tradition is bad; condemned by Paul. Well, why would Paul elsewhere say, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thes 2:15. So, here we have Paul affirming that the Christians in Thessalonica should adhere to oral and written tradition.

What about hierarchy? Let’s see… Moses recruits 12 followers (princes from the 12 tribes), and then later appoints 70 more. Jesus picked 12 followers, then later in Luke 10 chose 70 more. Those men, then likewise entrusted others and sent them forth. Sounds orderly and hierarchical to me. Similarly, in that light, in Acts 2 do we read how after Judas is gone, the apostles are hunky dory with 11 remaining? No, there is great import attached to choosing a successor (Mathias).

These are but a small smattering of examples replete in scriptures. Ask yourself, since God is a God of order, not of chaos, would he likely install one shepherd over his church or would he allow the sheep to interpret scriptures on their own, all the while discerning contradicting meaning? Remember Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch reading scriptures in Acts 8… Philip asks, “Do you understand what you are reading?”, and the eunuch responds, “How can I, unless someone guides me?”. So much for sola scriptura. It’s clear that Jesus’ church has a teaching authority – supremely clear when we read Paul’s letters for his letters are virtually entirely an espousing of his teaching authority, and he says as much in various places.

With regard to Peter’s confession of faith, keep in mind that it’s universally accepted that Jesus’ everyday language was not Greek, but rather Aramaic, so his quote to Peter would most likely have been, “Thou are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” (Hence, Paul calls Peter Cephas.) The point is that this grammatical petra (feminine) and petros (masculine) use by Matthew is a point of gender attributed to the Greek language, which Matthew rightly adjusts so as not to ascribe a feminine name to Peter. I’m sure you’ve heard this explanation before, but keep this in mind, then read Isaiah 22:15-25. The Jews of the time would certainly have recognized the parallel that Jesus was giving the keys to Peter to act with authority much the way that Eliakim was given the keys to serve as the successor prime minister in the House of David. Isaiah 22:22 says, “I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.” Sounds kinda familiar, doesn’t it?

Lastly, Protestants are quick to point out that faith alone saves, and works have no role. It always seemed to me that faith is our response to God’s call. How is that not a work? Can scriptures shed some light on my question? Well, John 6:28-29 reads, “So they said to him, ‘What can we do to do the works of God?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent’.” So, there you have it, even our faith is a work. Thus, it seems logical to assert that both our faith and our works are inseparable, and God’s grace provides both, and faith without works is incomplete (James 2:22). 1 Cor 13:13 says, “And now remain faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is faith.” No, it says the greatest of these is love. If faith alone gives salvation, why isn’t faith the greatest?

I hope my polemics don’t come across too strong. I simply enjoy sharing and desire the unity Jesus prayed for in John 17, yet I realize I get overly excited sometimes. I think your exposure to the Orthodox church places you in unique position. What God does with that, I haven’t the foggiest, but I pray he uses you for the building of unity of His kingdom. Blessings.

Trevin’s Response

Hi Brian!

Thanks for your lively email filled with good RCC polemic! I’ve always thought that good theological discussion should be clear and concise and bold, so I’m glad you have chosen to do that instead of give a weak “well we both love Jesus, so this stuff doesn’t really matter” answer like some people do.

You started off by saying I don’t see liturgy and hierarchy because I read the NT through Baptist glasses. Well of course I read the Bible through Baptist glasses, as you also read it through RCC glasses and therefore see what the RCC has conditioned you to see. I think it is naive of you to assume that I miss things in Scripture because of my background, whereas you don’t miss things because of yours.

We both have backgrounds. And it is good to admit that you are conditioned to read the NT a certain way, as am I. That doesn’t relativize the discussion; it simply adds a humility to our hermeneutic and stops us from descending too quickly down a “I’m totally right and you’re totally wrong” path, and instead allows us to see if maybe the other person has a point.

If I didn’t think that I could learn something important from Roman Catholics, I would not be continuing this correspondence. And I hope that if you do not think there is something to be learned from the Baptist tradition, you would tell me upfront. That way, I would know right now that you are eager to debate with me, but unwilling to learn from me.

The whole discussion on “glasses” is very important, because this is one of the reasons why I can glean from the Church Fathers without seeing their writings on the same level of authority as Scripture. The church fathers had their problems too. They saw things through their own cultural context, which eventually led them to adopt certain cultural principles that Scripture itself never allows. I’m thinking of celibacy as a higher calling in the priesthood than marriage, or of Origen’s universalism or of Tertullian’s turn toward hyper-charasmatic theology at the end of his life.

You are right in saying that there are certain doctrines that were worked out over time – such as the Trinity and the canon of Scriptures. But these doctrines were not true and binding because the church declared them such. They were already true because they can be found in Scripture. The NT canon is not authoritative because the church says it is. The church simply recognized the authority already inherent in the NT text.

You put forth several arguments for the importance of tradition. Oral and written tradition is important. And any good Baptist will admit such. Baptists, historically, have been and still are a confessional people. We believe in the earliest creeds of the Church, and Southern Baptists unite around the Baptist Faith and Message. Creeds and confessions are extremely important to the church, but a creed is only worth something insomuch as it teaches what Scripture teaches. When Scripture and creed contradict, Scripture wins.

I have never said that Tradition is bad necessarily, which you accused me of “thinking.” If I may say so, I think your view of Baptists is colored more by your Catholic glasses than by an actual understanding of tradition’s place in Baptist theology. We believe tradition is very important, but Scripture is the supreme authority, to which Tradition is subject.

Regarding hierarchy, the examples you pick don’t really prove anything, other than the fact that numbers meant something. (Jesus obviously picked 12 disciples to represent the True Israel he was inaugurating.) You will not find the system of pope, cardinals, bishops and priests as seen today in the RCC in the NT. That doesn’t necessarily mean that all issues of polity in the RCC are wrong. Protestants also differ on how the church should be structured. But Baptists are not against hierarchy. We believe strongly that church structure matters, and we seek to structure the authority of the church as the New Testament commands. But whereas you will appeal to later tradition to justify the hierarchy of the RCC, we will appeal to Scripture.

Regarding Scriptural interpretation, Baptists believe and have always believed that we need one another in the church to help us interpret the Scriptures correctly. No Baptist that I know of will say, “just sit down and read your Bible alone and it’s all going to make sense.” This is precisely where tradition, theology, creeds, Bible teachers, and commentaries are needed. As a confessional people, we believe that our confessions can be adapted and modified by the teaching of Scripture, but we are not free to go teach our own thing and not give a whit what the church says about it.

Creeds are like signposts. I look at them and see that if I’m teaching something that contradicts them, I must have taken a wrong turn somewhere and need to get back on track, because for hundreds of years they have been reliable testimonies to Scriptural teaching.

I too believe that Jesus’ church has teaching authority, but I believe that the apostles’ authority trumps the authority of the church fathers. Every time I step into the pulpit, I preach with the conviction that God has set me apart for this very task, to stand up and say, “Thus says the Lord.” If I was not invested with teaching authority, I would have no message. But Baptists are very “hierarchical” in this matter – my teaching authority is only authoritative insomuch that I accurately represent what the Scriptures say. I am not over Scripture, but under Scripture.

Faith is not a work, in the sense you are claiming it is. Faith itself is a gift of God’s grace, as are works. Paul very clearly says that we are justified by faith alone, not of works so that no one will boast. I do not believe that I am saved on the basis of my faith in Christ. I am saved on the basis of Christ’s atoning death and resurrection alone. Faith does not give salvation – Jesus does. If I were to stand before God and he were to ask me why I should be allowed into heaven, I would not say, “Because I believed” or “Because I worked,” or “Because I confessed my sins” or “Because I made a decision for Christ.” I would say instead, “Because of Jesus’ blood and righteousness.” My hope is built on nothing less.

Consider Galatians 2:16… how many times does Paul have to say we are justified by faith and not works? “A person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ (or it can be translated through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ), so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” I encourage you to take off your RCC glasses and count how many times and in how many ways Paul, in this verse, reiterates that justification is by faith alone.

Thanks, Brian, for the conversation.

In Christ,

Trevin

This conversation continues here.