This talk was going to be on the Sacraments but an opportunity arose to discuss Catholic-Protestant issues with a very knowledgeable person who goes Hill Country Bible Church, so the talk became a discussion between us about various doctrines and interpretations of Scripture.
Richard Lawson of Hill Country Bible Church gave a talk last Sunday at his church on the Catholic Church and its beliefs. I originally just planned to listen to his talk and then discuss it with my class, but Mr. Lawson heard about the class and decided to personally attend!
He thought it was covering the Sacraments, which it had been, so he was extremely gracious in accepting my invitation near the beginning of my talk to come up to the front and engage in an informal discussion, focusing on some of the things he had mentioned in his talk the previous Sunday (baptism, justification, interpretation of Scripture, Ecumenical Councils, and many more!). We had a nice discussion, and I’m happy to say it was very amicable.
Regarding justification, I would point our readers for the excellent article by Bryan Cross on Called to Communion that describes the differences between the Catholic and Protestant teachings.
You can also subscribe to all the podcasts via iTunes or subscribe with Google reader or another feed service.
You can listen to the podcast here as well:
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
As the \evangelical\ dialogue partner in this podcast, I want to thank Devin and his class for their graciousness in inviting me, an “outsider,” into their conversation.
As noted, this was an informal (and unexpected) evening conversation / interview ranging across multiple issues of diverging opinions, and, as such, could not be a meticulous presentation by either side of the issues addressed… As a \casual\ conversation, there are definitely statements that I made which could be stated with more precision on my part. After listening to the recording, the following are a few minor clarifications I would make upon further reflection (more of tone and word choice than of substance):
1. I make the statement that the Society of Friends (aka, Quakers) are “anti-sacramentalist”… The emphasis here is on “sacramentalism” (i.e., a mechanical reliance on institutionalized ritual). I don’t think my Quaker friends (or any other Protestants) would say they oppose a proper (Biblical) understanding of the sacraments;
2. I mention that for most Protestants the sacraments “are not necessary”… I hope it was clear from my over-all discussion that I meant that they are not necessary for a believer to be deemed in right-standing before God (i.e., “justification”)… Protestants definitely hold that obedience to the injunctions of Scripture is a consequence of the Holy Spirit’s process of “sanctification” (i.e., renewing the believer into the image of our Savior). Obedience to these injunctions (which, in my view as well as that of most Protestants, includes administration of the Biblical sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist) is not optional, and, believers, though saved, will suffer consequences in this life for failing to obey any Biblical injunctions…(May God be merciful to us all!);
3. On a similar point, at the beginning of the dialogue (while I was still off microphone), I mentioned that the (Protestant) Heidelberg Catechism defines good works as the “fruits of gratitude.” This, again, is not to say that good works and love are optional. “We are saved by faith alone, but saving faith is never alone.” A regenerated believer will work acts of love because “a good tree cannot bear bad fruit.” However, our works can never “merit” heaven because we cannot add anything to the finished, perfect work of Christ by our feeble strivings?
4. Early in the conversation, I agreed with Devin’s statement that, when it comes to Scripture, “for Protestants, the individual retains ultimate interpretive authority” … I still think that this is a good summary of the Protestant position but wish to clarify (and repeat) that the individual believer is never in isolation… The Bible only knows believers as they are in community with the Body of Christ, and it is this body that the Holy Spirit instructs, leads, and illumines. Perhaps a better description would be: “For Protestants, every individual shares equally in the interpretive responsibility of the Body of Christ;”
5. Finally, we briefly engaged in exegesis of Mark 16:15-18; John 3:3-21; and Acts 2:38-47 relative to the Roman Catholic view of “baptismal regeneration.” Our discussion was woefully brief and much more should be said as to these and other passages as well as to the evolution of thought across the church fathers.
I’m sure there are other clarifications that could be made, but I think these are the primary ones from my perspective.
Again, I want to thank Devin and his class for their hospitality, and I look forward to future opportunities for further dialogue.
In the name of our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,
Richard Lawson
Hi Richard,
Thanks for adding those clarifications. I wished that I would have explained the Catholic view of justification better as well, which is why I linked in the post to the one article about it.
You were very gracious to enter an impromptu conversation about these topics, without any preparation, and I appreciated your irenic tone.
Regarding #4, I would argue that solA Scriptura reduces to solO Scriptura with respect to final interpretive authority, which means that you as the individual and not this “body of believers” has final interpretive authority.
This is a big statement, and if you would like to read the full argument for it, see this article: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/
That article includes 800+ comments of Protestants trying to rebut the article’s arguments.
I’ll email you back regarding the possibility of a more formal discussion between us, and thank you again for your desire to fairly represent the Catholic Church’s teachings.
Thanks, Devin…
Two more clarifications from the podcast (and then I’ll post later today a brief response to the article you cited above):
6. When speaking about Roman Catholic belief about Mary’s “perpetual virginity,” I believe I said “Peter and Paul use other terms for near-kin”… That should be Luke and Paul… Along with the other Gospel writers, both speak of Jesus’ “brothers” (Gk: adelphos, “of the same womb” — but can sometimes mean near kin) but both also use words that specifically mean “cousin” (Col. 4:10) and “kinsman” (Luke 1:36)… This is just a minor clarification (as stated, her perpetual virginity is not a huge issue between us… unlike her claimed “sinlessness”);
7. Devin speaks of “a thousand Protestant denominations” (probably echoing my hyperbole from the Sunday seminar). I did not “clarify” in the discussion with Devin, so I will do so here just because my Roman Catholic friends keep returning to this concern. In fairness to Protestantism, there are about 10 “families” of Protestant tradition and I would suggest that none of them differ in essential matters of faith (i.e., the “Gospel”)… Indeed, in the churches of the approximately 70% of Protestants who assume a “low” or “middle” church ecclesiology (i.e., all but Lutherans and Anglicans/Episcopalians), I would doubt if you would find much disagreement except in manners of worship and the question of our role in faith (predestinarian Reformed vs. free will Arminian)… the latter distinction being present in Roman Catholic theological “schools” as well. That’s not to say that individuals and small sectarian groups may not claim exclusivity for their specific faith tradition (as I sometimes hear from my more passionate Roman Catholic friends), but that is by far not the norm; and we often worship, minister, and evangelize together. Like I said in the podcast, “diversity is not (necessarily) disunity” and can, in my opinion, be a benefit to ministering to a lost, but diverse, world. (I made this point in the Sunday seminar but they ran out of recording space at that point so it’s not on that original podcast).
God’s blessings…
Well, here is the promised reflection on the article cited above (sorry for the length)…
First, let me say that I have not read Mr. Mathison’s book so I cannot comment on the accuracy of its portrayal by Cross and Judisch. However, as he is “Reformed,” their discussion would appear to be an accurate representation of the “high church” Protestant view of the matter.
I also do not disagree with the conclusions that Sola Scriptura as presented by the Magisterial Reformers naturally morphs into what Mathison characterizes as Solo Scriptura. This is actually what we see shortly after the beginning of the Reformation with the robust expressions of faith that did not always totally agree with either the Roman Church or the Reformers (e.g., Anabaptism). I also agree that both Sola and Solo Scriptura make appeals to ultimate authority that are generally “circular.”
However, the incredible statement in the article from my perspective is the authors’ claim that “The Catholic position does not suffer from this circularity, because ‘Church’ is not defined in terms of the ‘gospel,’ but in terms of apostolic succession, involving an unbroken line of authorizations extending down from the Apostles.” (P. 13 on my printout). The Roman position may not suffer from “this” circularity but it is every bit as circular (as all appeals to ultimate authority must be, including my own).
Two examples will suffice:
1. The authors cite Tertullian dealing with heretics. I will abridge for the sake of time (but the full quote can be found pages 30-31, according to my print out):
“Our appeal [in debating with the heretics], therefore, must not be made from Scriptures… For a resort to the Scriptures would but result in placing both parties on an equal footing…[but] from what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule by which men become Christian?…[W]e without scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures… Thus not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures…”
2. In defending against the objection to Magisterial infallibility that it removes the possibility of a court of appeals for such doctrines, the authors say (my p. 34):
“[I]f the Church’s definitive rulings are infallible, then there is no reason to challenge them by appealing to some higher authority. It makes no sense to appeal an infallible decision. So, Mathison’s autonomy charge against the Catholic doctrine of Magisterial infallibility only applies if the Catholic doctrine of Magisterial infallibility is false. Hence in that respect Mathison’s charge begs the question (i.e., presumes precisely what is in question).”
Well, yes… but the assertion that the definitive rulings don’t need a higher court of appeal, also begs the question!
I think the Roman Catholic circularity goes something like the following:
The teaching Magisterium of the Church is infallible. Well, we have it through apostolic succession. Well, we see it affirmed in Scripture, tradition, and history. Well, you’re not interpreting them rightly. Only through the interpretation of the teaching Magisterium. Because of apostolic succession.
This is the logical circularity that ALL appeals to ultimate authority (even my own) must own up to. The problem for Roman Catholics is that the Bible (which we both hold to be God’s word to man) claims full sufficiency for itself (e.g., 2 Tim. 3:15-17, but many more passages could be provided) while an argument for apostolic succession has to be carefully crafted out of limited (I would say “no”) scriptural attestations. I would rather rest my circularity in God’s Word and God’s Spirit being faithful to His people and His purpose than on an institutionalized hierarchy.
The other “argument” against Sola Scriptura is not based on logic but is rather “consequentialist:” If we accept that the magisterial teaching office is fallible, “hermeneutical solipsism,” (p. 6) “chaos and anarchy,” (p. 35) and the “multiplication of schisms” (p. 35) will ensue! However, that does not necessarily follow nor has it followed in the centuries since the Reformation (see my clarification # 7 in the post above).
My call to Protestants is to do a better job in valuing history and tradition as a guide to interpretation of Scripture (including understanding Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox interpretations on their own terms). My call to Roman Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) is to recognize that not all diversity need be disunifying and that the Spirit may be working through all the fallible manifestations of the Body of Christ in the world today.
(The circularity paragraph above didn’t print the intervening questions… let’s try this):
The teaching Magisterium of the Church is infallible….How do you know that?… Well, we have it through apostolic succession.… How do you know that ordination of successors provides infallibility in teaching?… Well, we see it affirmed in Scripture, tradition, and history… But when I look at Scripture, tradition, and history I see a lot of evidence that contradicts that claim… Well, you’re not interpreting them rightly… How does one interpret them rightly?… Only through the interpretation of the teaching Magisterium… Well, how do you know the teaching Magisterium’s interpretation is infallible?… Because of apostolic succession……… I see……
Richard,
Ah, if those are your reasons for remaining Protestant, then I am happy to provide the solution to the problem in your understanding (that we are all, both Protestants and Catholics, circular in our reasoning).
Christ founded his Church in the 1st century. We are living in 2010 AD, so we must look back to the 1st century and trace that Church forward to discover it.
We do have writings from Christians in the first few centuries, and when we read them we discover that they speak of the Church–not as some unknowable, invisible set of all believers (whether holding heretical beliefs or not) in the world–but as a specific, visible, hierarchically governed institution that teaches the one Faith wherever she is.
Leave aside the question of infallibility with all of this for the time being: this Church was given _rightful_ authority from Christ himself to the Apostles to their successors. We see this rightful authority explicitly taught or assumed all over the Bible, the writings of the early Christians, the fact that _the Church_ met in Ecumenical Councils and decreed binding decisions upon all the faithful, etc. etc.
The books of the Bible itself were discerned in Christ’s Church by her rightfully appointed leaders. A Catholic has reason to trust that their discernment was guided by the Holy Spirit throughout those first four hundred years when the canon was distilled, but the Protestant does not trust the Church during that time with even moderate certainty, so the Protestant cannot have more certainty in the books of the Bible which the Church discerned were inspired than he has in the Church.
The Church proclaimed the gospel, proclaimed Christ, and made these claims about herself (that, for instance, she is the pillar and foundation of the truth, as St. Paul wrote). If a merely man-made institution made such claims, we would be right to laugh, but if God himself established the Church and imbued it with his authority, then we should not laugh but join ourselves to it.
So while Protestantism is indeed circular or ad hoc in its reasoning in accepting the particular 66 books it does as inerrant, the Catholic Church’s claims are not ad hoc or circular. That doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church is _necessarily_ the Church that Christ established–we would have more to discuss there–but given history accepted by everyone, the Catholic or Orthodox Churches have the most credible claim to being in organic continuity with _that_ Church.
Christ bless!
Ahhh… “That’s the rub”… I do believe ALL appeals to ultimate authority (including my own) are necessarily “circular” (although, that does not mean that they cannot make more or less persuasive cases for the probability of their assertions from the “evidence”)… I still maintain the Roman circularity is basically as I presented in my previous post…
We obviously do not deny as Protestants that Christ established His church in the 1st century (a Spirit-infused body of those who believed and trusted in His gospel message); nor we deny that elders and bishops were early recognized as especially gifted to shepherd local bodies of believers (and still are); nor do we deny that there is a record of “church fathers” that increasingly rely on these shepherds (especially when the “sheep” were often poor and illiterate) to provide wisdom in settling disputes (of course, given who selected which documents of the “church fathers” would be passed on to posterity, we cannot simply assume the remaining documents represent all valid opinions of the early centuries); and, finally, we do not deny that the “structure” in the early centuries of the church was helpful in hammering out the boundaries of belief that the Apostolic witness/rule of faith required.
What we do deny (relative to the “Roman circularity” above) are the middle terms, namely, that the ordination of successors provides the grace of infallibility for those successors or that Scripture, the documents of the earliest church, or the Roman Catholic church’s own history substantiates this claim. We also will not agree that “the books of the Bible itself were discerned in Christ’s Church by her rightfully appointed leaders” if that is intended to say that the leadership in the 4th century “gave us” (my words) the Bible. The faithful in the church maintained the writings of apostolic witness to Christ, and the leadership “recognized” (or your well-chosen word, “discerned”) that God-breathed (“in-spired”) witness. The leadership could not make what was God’s word, not God’s word simply by dictate, nor conversely could they make what was not God’s word, God’s word simply by dictate. They “recognized” (or “discerned”) that word, but God’s word had no more “authority” the day after this endorsement than it had in the intervening 4 centuries… “God’s word will not return to Him void”…Had the leadership failed in this task of discernment, the Spirit would have replaced them with faithful ministers (indeed, Protestants believe that the “official” leadership increasingly did fail in the task of ministering faithfully to God’s word and were ultimately “replaced”… not by new “infallible” leaders [a la Mathison] but by the now-literate, Spirit-guided readers of that same Apostolic witness).
As for “organic continuity,” that is not compelling in the least unless you assume apostolic succession (again, the Roman circularity)… You could just as easily have (logically speaking) a continuity of increasing error… We want “Spirit continuity” and the Roman Catholic church needs to show how this and apostolic succession are one and the same… I don’t believe it can do so from Scripture, earliest tradition, or the Roman Catholic church’s own history.
Hi Richard,
we cannot simply assume the remaining documents represent all valid opinions of the early centuries
We know of many “opinions” from the earliest days of the Church, like the Ebionites, Gnostics, Sabellians, Novations, Montanists, Donatists, Arians, Pelagians, Monophysites, and so on.
You’re right that we don’t have a yearly poll of all members of the early Church on what they believed about XYZ doctrines, but what would that gain us? We know what the Church taught through several means; let’s take up baptism again briefly.
We talked about baptism in our discussion. Your beliefs on baptism are contrary to every Church Father who talked about it. You would say, “but those Fathers’ writings are selective–who knows whether they were representative?” Let’s look then at the Ecumenical Councils. You believe in the Nicene Creed, yet it says “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” So we have 1) no Church Father which taught your doctrine of baptism, 2) all who mention it teach baptismal regeneration (including even interpreting John 3 “water and the Spirit” as baptism), 3) the Ecumenical Councils where the Church’s bishops met decreeing baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
Either you are right on baptism or the Church went off the rails from the beginning. I have corresponded with and read the works of several Protestant apologists who concede this reality (and who choose to believe that their interpretation of Scripture on baptism is right while the Church went off the rails from the beginning on an important issue of the Faith). It won’t do to say that “we don’t know what ‘the Church’ [== set of all believers] really taught about baptism” because history was manipulated by the Church leaders or the writings we have are not a large enough sampling of the set of all believers, etc.
We also will not agree that “the books of the Bible itself were discerned in Christ’s Church by her rightfully appointed leaders” if that is intended to say that the leadership in the 4th century “gave us” (my words) the Bible.
We agree that the Church didn’t “give us” the Bible (a strawman argument that Calvin attacked in his Institutes as if that were the Catholic teaching), in the sense that the Church makes the books inspired.
Had the leadership failed in this task of discernment, the Spirit would have replaced them with faithful ministers
Here’s the problem: you do believe that the Church failed in this task of discernment by wrongly accepting the 7 deuterocanonical books as inspired.
Further, even just focusing on the 27 books of the New Testament which we agree on, you must give the principled reason for believing the Church of the first 400 years _correctly_ discerned the Spirit in selecting those books (and rejecting others) while _incorrectly_ discerning the Spirit in accepting baptismal regeneration.
You cannot have more certainty in your New Testament books than you do in the agent that discerned the New Testament books, and that agent was the Church of the first four centuries.
You do not have conscience-binding certainty in the Church of the first four centuries (which was already teaching many doctrines you would say are false in addition to baptismal regeneration), so you do not have conscience-binding certainty for your New Testament. Your doctrine of sola Scriptura, that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith, crumbles without conscience-binding certainty as to what books, exactly, make up the Scriptura.
God bless!
Devin
Hey Devin:
I’m in California for a short vacation, so a longer post will have to await my return (happily for us all)…
However, a quick thumbnail response (I can’t resist!):
1. We know the “heretics” through the writings maintained by the “orthodox” defenders, and we have these documents because they were selected to be maintained by the institutional church… I’m not arguing that the documents are not valuable, but I give this caveat in response to your repeated question in our “interview” (“When did the church go wrong?”)… I’m not a patristics scholar so I would have to read more in the early documents, but I don’t think that we can say that the statements by the “Fathers” necessarily give us “what the church believes” (a point I think you would concede given the multitude of Fathers who contradict each other and subsequent councilar decisions);
2. Baptism in the early church: This is my “homework” as you said in the interview…
As I noted to my Evangelical students in my original seminar, the early church as reflected in the documents we have is very “Catholic” in many respects… This is something we have to address as Protestants; but early continuity does not guarantee truth (as witnessed by Paul’s epistles to the churches he founded in Corinth and Galatia…”I marvel that you are turning away so soon”);
3. Canon: As I noted in the previous post, you chose your words well when you said that the church leadership “discerned” (not “gave” us) the canon… However, I still hear Calvin’s “strawman” repeated by Roman Catholics today (including a couple of days ago in another dialogue), and I think it undercuts your argument generally — Protestants can be consistent in “discerning” the same word of their Lord in the canon while still rejecting statements of the Roman Church leadership which violate that word…(unless you assume infallibility of the teaching magisterium… again the “Roman circularity”);
4. Therefore, I have conscience-binding certainty in God’s word because it is God’s word, not because others discerned that as well. Your discussion of “agency” is very helpful in clarifying our differences here: Did the church leadership discern God’s word because they were God’s agents (your position) or were they God’s agents (for this purpose) because they discerned that word (my position)? You want to maintain that 1. As they were God’s agents, what they declared was correct; and 2. All they declared was equally as discerning as when they recognized God’s word. I reject both positions and, again, assert that they rely on the Roman circularity previously discussed.
(Maybe this wasn’t so “brief” after all)…
…. (and, in case it isn’t apparent in the heat of dialogue, I appreciate this discussion as helpful in clarifying our differences but, hopefully, also helpful in recognizing new avenues for unity!)
May God, the Father of our Risen Lord Jesus Christ, bless you and keep you this day!
Richard