My dialogue with Brian, a Roman Catholic, continues. Check out previous posts in this series.
Conversations with a Catholic 1: The Church
Conversations with a Catholic 2: Tradition
Conversations with a Catholic 3: Glasses
Brian’s Letter
…picking up where we left off… Of course I can learn from the Baptist tradition. You’ve got to understand that Montgomery is a piddly 4% Catholic and is waaaaaaaaay predominantly Baptist. Many of my best friends are Baptist, and I can only but hope to approximate the piety with which they live their lives. They are powerful witnesses. And yes, obviously I read scriptures through RCC glasses, and I can say, like a convert friend of mine says… “they are the original pair… 2000 years old.”
So, continuing the “glasses” discussion, I never said patristic writings are on the same level of scripture. I merely state that those writings as historic documents tell us what the Church was like immediately following the death of the last apostle and for the next few centuries after that.
The challenge is for the Protestant to produce one writing from the first thousand years, or even the first 1500 years, of Christendom which states the Jesus spoke only symbolically about communion in John 6, or that Baptism is only symbolic, or that statues were a forbidden as idolatrous.
Yet, I can produce scores showing Christians on the whole understood that Jesus spoke literally about his body and blood in John 6, and that baptism is regenerative, and that Mary was revered, and that the bishopric is in succession to the Apostles, and that the bishop of Rome holds preeminence. I’m not talking theology here so much as simple plain history of what the Christian life entailed as seen through historic writings.
I’ll admit you’ve thrown me a real curve ball by stating that any good Baptist will admit that oral tradition is important. In my 47 years, I don’t think I’ve met a single one to say such (present company excluded). I’ve had to defend tradition to Baptists and other Protestants until I’m blue in the face. After doing such, I pose the question… “If it is a paramount given that ‘Scripture is the supreme authority’, as you’ve said, why doesn’t scripture claim such?” Seem like a critically important point to not drive home in specific and explicit language. Nowhere does it say that, because it was never intended as such.
The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and serves as the arbiter of decisions of faith and morals. That’s how heresies are defined and to what Matt 18:17 and John 16:13 refer. Remember…”He who listens to you, listens to me, and he who rejects you, rejects the one who sent me.” Real authority was given to the apostles, along with the promise to guide them unto all truth – not some truth and not partial truth, but all truth (Jn 16:13).
Under the system where the bible is the pillar and arbiter of truth (sola scriptura), aside from general confusion, one of two things must be true…
A) doctrine does not matter, or
B) it’s acceptable to have conflicting doctrine. For example, some protestants say, “even though we disagree on some of the nonessential doctrines, we agree on the essential doctrines.” I can’t seem to find the table of essential and nonessential doctrines in my Bible.
As an example, do Jesus and the Father argue because one wants infants baptized and the other thinks it’s improper? With regard to the essential nature of doctrine, several verses point us in the right direction… Matt 4:4, Matt 5:18-19, John 14:26, John 16:13, and Malachi 3:6 .
Doctrine matters and cannot conflict, yet conflicting doctrine seems okay in the protestant world, even within single denominations. For example, Anglicans can believe communion is the Real Presence or they can believe it symbolic – either one. Lutherans believe baptism is regenerative, and Presbyterians and Baptist see it as symbolic.
So your concern that I’ll descend down a “I’m totally right and you’re totally wrong” path isn’t about what I, Brian Belsterling, believe. It’s about what the Holy Spirit wants his church to know. I believe John 16:13, and I don’t believe he left us to figure this all out for ourselves.
Lastly, reading Gal 2:16 as you suggested, it’s quite clear that Paul is speaking of the observed Jewish Levitical law. He is speaking of Jews who seek justification through works of the law in that respect. He isn’t speaking of deeds or good works. If he was, perhaps then Jesus was confused when asked directly, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?”. (Matt 16) What did Jesus tell him? To believe in me and forget good works because no one is justified by works? No, he told him to “obey the commandments”. Indeed, in every single instance where Jesus discusses the afterlife, he never mentions faith (likely because it’s assumed), but instead in each case he mentions good works and deeds. Every single case! We are justified by faith, surely, but not by faith alone. Exactly what James says. How can you hold a position that is the exact opposite of what scripture says… “See how a person is justified… not by faith alone”. James 2:24. Can’t be stated any clearer. Blessings.
Trevin’s Response
Hi Brian,
Good to hear from you again.
I think it a bit humorous that you believe that RCC glasses are the “original” pair, 2000 years old. There have been so many theological developments within the RCC during the past 2000 years, that it is very difficult to see it in any way as “original.” Doctrines like the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility… all of these are much later traditions that betray your well-intentioned belief that the RCC glasses are “original.” If you really want the “original” glasses, you should return to Scripture itself, from the very pens of the apostles.
I understand your view on the Eucharist, and (you will get a kick out of this) actually believe that one can use Scripture to back up this belief. Ultimately, I do not believe that the bread and wine become the actual, physical body of Christ (in the carnal sense). Neither do I believe that the Bible teaches this. Obviously, when Jesus was saying these words, he was right there physically. Jesus also said he is the door, but we know he’s not actually a door. Neither does he become an actual Door that lets us into heaven. This is obviously symbolic.
But regarding the Eucharist, I disagree with Baptists who believe the Eucharist is “merely” symbolic. Historically, Baptists have believed that there is a real, spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist and that an actual feeding on Christ takes place, though this is spiritual, not physical.
I also believe that grace is imparted through the Lord’s Supper, though this is not saving grace (which is provided by Jesus’ death alone) but a strengthening grace to Christians, much like grace is imparted through study of God’s Word, prayer, and yes, even baptism.
There is no justification in Scripture for the idea that the Eucharist is a re-sacrificing of Christ on the altar, which is what much of the Eucharistic theology of the RCC tends to.
I have never said that statues are idolatrous and forbidden. I believe that the worship of statues is idolatry, just as the worship of icons in the Orthodox Church is wrong. I understand that RCC theologians and Orthodox writers all agree that statues and icons are windows to the heavenly world and that one should not worship them, but respect them for what they are – gateways to worship.
The problem is not with the RCC theology so much, as it is with what happens in RCC practice. Many lay Catholics and Orthodox simply don’t understand the theology behind statues and icons and because of this, they invest them with an almost-mystical power that borders on magic, not faith. The reason why Baptists shy away from icons or statues is not because we believe they are necessarily idolatrous, but because of the extremes of the Catholic church in venerating these objects in a way that seems to clearly disregard the Commandment against graven images.
I agree that the Church is the pillar of truth, because Scripture says so. I do not believe that the Church in question is the RCC. Instead, the Church in question is the truly catholic (I’m not surrendering that grand term to Rome) and apostolic church through all the ages – the church that has defended the gospel and the truth of the Word against heresies. Scripture is inspired, God-breathed and sufficient for all matters of faith and practice. The Church is not infallible. Scripture is. The Church is the pillar of truth insomuch as it stands on the truth of the Word of God.
It amuses me that you claim that sola scriptura necessarily leads to conflicting doctrines, when the history of RC dogma is chock full of inconsistencies, contradictions, and papal retractions of what other “infallible” popes did in the name of Christ.
Doctrine does matter. Why else would we be having this discussion? The Bible does not say that the RCC is the final arbiter of Scriptural interpretation. Why do I need to have 2000 years of conflated doctrines tell me what to believe, when some of these beliefs are in direct contradiction to Scripture or cannot be justified by Scripture? In matters of doctrine, Protestants appeal to Scripture. Roman Catholics appeal to the church. Scripture is without error. The Church, though beautiful as Christ’s bride, is not perfect. I’ll take Scripture, thank you.
Regarding Jesus’ view of works, you are right. Perfect, unblemished keeping of the Ten Commandments and all God’s moral law is necessary for salvation. Jesus is absolutely right to tell people to keep the commandments, and to tell people to be perfect as God is perfect. Absolute perfection is required for salvation.
The question I have (and Scripture asks) is Whose obedience do you rely on? I fall short of absolute perfection. Thankfully, my trust is not in my ability to keep the commandments (though I try). Neither is my trust in my sincerity of religion. My trust is in the spotless Lamb of God who kept the commandments in my place and then died to pay the price of my failings.
James does say that we are justified by faith and works, but a careful analysis of this passage shows that he is contrasting dead faith (no works) to living faith (faith that is expressed in good works). Yes, it is living faith in Christ that justifies – not dead faith or mere mental assent to Christian doctrine. I challenge you to read PJ Hartin’s commentary on this passage in James. It’s part of the Catholic Sacra Pagina commentary series. Hartin (though he is a Catholic) does a commendable job of analyzing this text.
Blessings,
Trevin
The discussion continues here.
Trevin,
I have to say I’m disappointed in this, your most recent contribution to your conversation with Brian. In an effort to discredit Brian’s points, you don’t hesitate to scrape from the bottom of the bucket and pull out the old anti-Catholic stereotypes of Catholics worshipping statues, popes declaring that the infallibly defined doctrines of past popes are wrong (When has that happened? Can you give even one example of a pope defining infallibly a doctrine of faith or morals that was later contradicted by another pope?), and a serious misrepresentation of the Catholic Mass as a “re-sacrificing” of Christ. You can do better than that.
Your explanation of the relationship between the Church and the Scriptures is incomprehensible. You interpret 1 Tim 3:15, where Paul clearly writes that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, and interpret it to mean that the Church is not the pillar and foundation of truth, but Scripture is. The Church, you claim, is only the pillar and foundation of truth if she teaches consistently with Scripture (meaning your interpretation of Scripture?). So, you would have us understand that Paul, writing some decades before the books and letters of the NT were anywhere close to being completed, and some centuries before they were universally recognized as divinely inspired, intends to communicate in his letter to Timothy that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth only insofar as she teaches consistently with Gospels and Epistles that have yet to be written. Congratulations if you can wrap your mind around that one, but I can’t. Rather than accept Paul’s clear teaching, you rip Scripture out of history, and treat is as if it’s some magic crystal ball dropped down from God, instructions provided. Rather than accept the early Church’s understanding of Scripture, you rip the Church of the apostles out of history, as if that Church was somehow disconnected from the Church of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and the other Church Fathers, even the ante-Nicean Fathers, who were closest to the apostles.
What you say about the relationship between Church and Scripture seems to confirm what I’ve always suspected about sola scriptura advocates: that ya’ll believe that the Church is essentially optional. All I need is the written Word of God, and I’m good to go. I don’t need a Church telling me what to believe. The Bible tells me what to believe. And, I don’t need a Church interpreting the Bible for me. I can interpret it myself, thank you. The Church is there if I want it, but my relationship with the Church is on my terms, and only if I’m certain that she’s teaching consistently with the Scriptures (that is, with my interpretation of the Scriptures). If I think the Church is straying from the truth of the Scriptures (that is, the truth as I interpret it), then I’ll just have to leave that old Church behind. The Church isn’t perfect, after all. But Scripture is (that is, my interpretation of Scripture is).
Do I have that about right? I’m thinking so. I recall a conversation I had with a sola scriptura Christian who was having a difficult struggle over a moral issue. I asked her what her church taught about the matter (I think she was going to an Episcopal church at the time). She gave me a look of utter confusion and said, “What difference does that make?” Of course, it made no difference at all. Her struggle was between her and God. The Church had nothing to do with it, and no part to play. It was just her and her Bible and her personal relationship with her personal Lord and Savior.
What a contrast from a Catholic understanding of the Church, and from a Scriptural understanding, and from a Patristic understanding. Somewhere I recall Paul referring to the Church as the body of Christ. Somewhere I recall Paul referring to Christ as the head of the body, the Church. Somewhere I recall Christ Himself identifying Himself with His Church, whom Paul was persecuting. How do you have a relationship with someone’s head, but not with his body? Not only is that impossible, it’s gross! I think that’s what you sola scriptura guys are attempting: a necessary relationship with Christ, but an optional relationship with His body. You think you can have a relationship with Christ on His terms, but a relationship with His body on your terms. At heart, you think the Church is only the Church when the Church is faithful to Christ. Talk about a works theology! In truth, the Church is not the Church because the Church is faithful to Christ. The Church is the Church because Christ is faithful. Christ will never abandon His bride, just as Yahweh never abandoned Israel.
I doubt that Catholics and sola scriptura Christians will ever agree on an understanding of the Church and an understanding of the relationship between the Church and the Scriptures.
Regarding your remarks on justification: I can discern no meaningful difference between what you describe as the requirement of a “living faith” and the Catholic teaching on progressive justification by faith and works. What is the difference? Can anyone help me out here? I see no difference. I think you sola fide guys are playing word games. There is no difference. As such, it should not be a matter that divides us.
Pax et bonum,
Bob Hunt
Knoxville, TN
Comment by Bob Hunt — May 26, 2007 @ 7:27 am
Hi Bob,
Thanks for your feedback. I am somewhat amazed that you take the sola scriptura position to mean that the Church isn’t all that important. This is a parody of my belief and I am distressed that my words could be interpreted in such a way.
When Paul says that the Church is the pillar of truth, you automatically assume that this means the Church is the final arbiter in matters of faith. Where does Paul say this? Isn’t the Church as the pillar and buttress of truth the place that witnesses to the Truth of God’s Word? If this is so, then the Church upholds the Word – and the Word has primacy, not the Church.
Regarding the importance of the church, I am surprised that you would think that for a Baptist, church doesn’t matter all that much. I don’t mean to be harsh here, but take a look at the statistics, my friend. Regular church attendance among evangelicals is considerably higher than those of Roman Catholic persuasion. I’m not using that as an argument for sola scriptura; I’m simply putting it forth as evidence against your view that sola scriptura necessarily leads to a deflated view of the Church.
And the idea that the faith/works paradigm is ultimately a moot issue means that the soteriological doctrines of the Reformation are actually the same thing? If this is so, why did the Council of Trent anathematize anyone who believes in justification by faith alone on account of Christ alone? Seems like a lot of bloodshed for something so similar.
I’m sorry I do not have the time to respond to the rest of your letter. Responding to Brian alone keeps me busy. Brian and I enjoy the lively discussion and the ecumenical sparring… so please know that our disagreements are not attacks on each other.
This is what ecumenical discussion should look like. We lay out our theology, find things in common, debate over disagreements, and in all things, love.
Comment by trevinwax — May 26, 2007 @ 9:56 am
Trevin,
Greetings! Thank you for your response. I really do appreciate it.
I understand that your disagreements with Brian are not attacks on each other. I didn’t take them as such. My concern is that your comments betray a serious misunderstanding of Catholic culture, as well as Catholic teaching on papal infallibility and the Catholic Mass. The charges you made, you must know, are not dissimilar from those made by others who are hostile to Catholicism and who employ them, not to engage in ecumenical sparring, but to discredit the Catholic Church. I only ask that the discussion remain at a level that respects the sincerity of each other’s deeply held beliefs. I’ll try to do the same, and I hope I’ve not falled short already.
My suspicions that sola scriptura Christians regard the Church as essentially optional were based partly on your remarks, but also on my experience of such Christians that I’ve met and with whom I’ve conversed over the years, including close family members. That’s why I included the example of the woman struggling with a moral issue who was confused by the idea that the Church had any part to play in her discerning the right thing to do.
The bottom line is this: in the Catholic tradition, the highest authority on matters of faith and morals is the magisterium of the Church. In the sola scriptura tradition, the highest authority on matters of faith and morals is the individual believer. Now, I’m sure you’ll say, “NO, Bob! Haven’t you been reading my posts? The highest authority on matters of faith and morals is the Scriptures.” Ah, yes, but that begs the question — a question, incidentally, that you’ve not yet answered — “Whose interpretation of the Scriptures?” The final authority rests in the hands of the one who interprets Scripture with authority. Who does that in the sola scriptura tradition? Ultimately, it is left to the individual believer to discern for him or herself the proper interpretation of Scripture. In the Catholic tradition, this role belongs to the teaching authority of the Church. Theologians and Scripture scholars and, yes, individual Catholics can read, pray, reflect on and consider the meaning of the Scriptures. But the final authority for interpreting Scripture belongs to the magisterium of the Church.
I read Saturday morning of a Presbyterian Church that was leaving the PCUSA and joining the Evangelical Pres. Church. The cause of the split was a disagreement on the correct interpretation of Scripture. Some churches, for instance, interpret Scripture to exclude gay marriage and women ministers. Others interpret Scripture to exclude gay marriage but include women ministers. Still others interpret Scripture to include gay marriage and women ministers. Who’s right? And who’s to say who’s right? Are there no less than three correct interpretations of Scripture? Did our Lord intend such chaos? No, He didn’t. That’s why He provided for a Church with a teaching authority in which we can have confidence.
You ask, where does Paul say that the Church is the final arbiter in matters of faith? Well, I suppose I could ask, where do the Scriptures say that the Scriptures are the final arbiter in matters of faith? The Scriptures do say that the Church is the body of Christ, that Christ is the head of the body, that the Church is pillar and foundation of truth and the instrument by which the wisdom of God (that is, Christ) is made known. The Scriptures provide a model of Church governance and teaching when the apostles gathered around Peter to decide the matter of whether gentile converts would be required to be circumcized. “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit, and ours too…” they wrote to Antioch. Wow! What a claim to make! Certainly the apostles must have consulted the Gospels and Epistles for guidance on the matter, except that the Gospels and Epistles hadn’t been written yet. What did they have? They had the gospel: the good news of Jesus. And they had the promised Holy Spirit to guide them in all truth.
The Church did not precede the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel, as you say, gave birth to the Church. But the Church did precede the NT. The Church was God’s instrument to give birth to the NT: the instrument by which the wisdom of God is made known. Certainly the Church upholds the Word of God. But even more precisely, the Church upholds the gospel of Jesus Christ, of which the written Word of God is one font, and Holy Tradition another. The Church and Scripture do not stand against each other. I know you know that.
Pick up your Church history book and re-read the story of Arius. Arius based his heresy on his interpretation of Scripture. But the magisterium of the Church is the final authority on the interpretation of Scripture.
Don’t worry about being harsh. I’m a grown up and I can take it. My beard isn’t gray because I dyed it. Do be concerned with being respectful, as I think your response to me was. I would caution, however, about using church attendance stats as evidence against my view that sola scriptura necessarily leads to a deflated view of the Church. That is my view. But we both know that people go to church for all kinds of reasons. The Catholic Church could have used that same evidence fifty years ago to support the idea of Catholics having a greater devotion to the Church. Who knows what fifty years will bring for evangelicals. Also, evangelicals are hardly the only Christians in the Reformation tradition. In fact, evangelicalism is more of a movement within Protestantism and, to a lesser extent, Catholicism, that encourages deep devotion to Scripture, fellowship, family values, etc… So it’s not much of a surprise that evangelicals, of any brand, go to church pretty regularly. What’s up with Lutherans, Presbyterians and Episcopalians? Last I heard, these churches were losing numbers. The Catholic Church is suffering, too, though by the numbers we’re still growing (and it’s not all due to immigration). Too many Catholics, however, have adopted the notion that the Church is essentially optional. That’s one of the reasons they’ve stopped going to church. Yes, I do regard that as a Protestant notion. Sola scriptura gave birth to the idea that I don’t need a Church to interpret Scripture for me. Disaffected modern Catholics and Protestant have taken it one step further, insisting that I don’t need anything but my own feelings and inclinations to reveal to me my truth about God. Alas!
Regarding faith and works, you seem to remain confused that it is Catholic faith that works contribute to our initial justification. They don’t, of course. Initial justification is free gift from God, and cannot in any way be merited. However, in your most recent post, you said that James contrasts “dead faith (no works) to living faith (faith that is expressed in good works). Yes, it is living faith in Christ that justifies …” If living faith = faith that is expressed in good works, and it is living faith that justifies, then I see no meaningful difference in what you claim about the requirement of a living faith and Catholic teaching on progressive justification by faith and works. I could be wrong, but there’s nothing you’ve said so far that suggests any meaningful difference to me.
In any case, I’ll need to take a break from the internet for the next week because of a work commitment. Keep up the good work, you and Brian both. God’s peace to you and yours.
Bob
Comment by Bob Hunt — May 28, 2007 @ 7:26 am
Trevin,
Well, I had put in a response to your response, but it looks like it didn’t go through. Oh, well. I’m not much of a computer geek. I have to take the next week off the internet for a work commitment, but I’ll try again when I can get back.
Or, maybe it did go through and it’s just taking a while. Who knows?
You and Brian keep up the good work. God’s peace to you and yours.
Bob
Comment by Bob Hunt — May 28, 2007 @ 7:35 am