This blog page was originally a series of blog posts made during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity in 2009.
When Did Christ’s Church Lose The Authority He Gave Her?
The assumption in this question and the starting point for this article is that Christ gave His Authority to the Church in the first place. I have not heard any Christian reject this belief, perhaps because it seems quite clear from Scripture that Christ gave his apostles authority, and they were the leaders (under Him of course) of the Church.
I want to explore the different answers that Mormons, Protestants, and Catholics give to this question.
Protestants Beliefs on This Question
Most Protestants believe, some implicitly and some explicitly, that the Church lost this authority at some point in time; another way of saying it is that Christ revoked this authority, and then corruption entered (quickly or slowly) into the Church’s teachings of faith and morals. Some Protestants believe that this authority was reestablished in some form or fashion, but many do not think so. More on this later. Also, I am going to differentiate between fundamentalist Protestants and other Protestants in my timelines of their beliefs. Yes, this post has clever little timelines that I created using a basic paint program!
The first timeline is what many self-describing Fundamentalist Protestants believe, and the second is what Protestants in general believe (the greenish bar denotes time periods when the Church still had Christ’s authority):
Fundamentalist Protestant Authority Timeline
Protestant Authority Timeline
Mormon Beliefs on This Question
Mormons explicitly believe that the Church lost the authority Christ gave her sometime around 70 or 100 AD. I have heard from one Mormon that it was at the death of St. Peter (which would correspond to the earlier date) and from another that it was at the death of the last apostle, which would be St. John (corresponding to the later date). Then they believe that the Great Apostasy began and lasted for around 1700 years before Christ reestablished His authority to the (Mormon) Church in 1829 through Joseph Smith.
Mormon Authority Timeline
Catholics Belief on This Question
Catholics believe that Christ gave authority to his Church and that He has preserved it by grace up to the present time. One of the concrete fruits of this authority is the Catholic belief that the Church cannot err in her teachings on matters of faith and of morals.
Catholic Authority Timeline
So what, you might ask, is the big deal? What is the problem if Christ revoked His authority from the Church and did so at such and such a date?
The Canon of Scripture and Sola Scriptura
The central problem in the belief that the Church lost Christ’s authority and corruption entered her teachings is the canon of Scripture. Protestants believe in sola scriptura–the Bible alone is the final authority–but before we can think about sola scriptura we have to know what, exactly, comprises the scriptura part. What writings are inspired by God and thus must be included in the Bible? Which ones are not inspired by God and thus must NOT be included in the Bible? These decisions were made in the latter half of 300s by the Church when she determined the canon of Scripture.
But if the Church lost authority before she discerned and declared the canon of Scripture, that means that her decision cannot be trusted! Corruption had entered into her teachings as she had lost Christ’s authority; if this is the case, how do we know that the books she said were inspired by God actually were and the many, many more that she said were not indeed were not?
The canon of scripture was not given as a bolt out of the sky by God, which perhaps would have simplified things (or perhaps not, knowing us humans), but rather it was something the bishops of the Church prayerfully discussed and deliberated about for decades and decades. The Catholic encyclopedia has a comprehensive entry on the New Testament canon’s history; in particular look at the Period of Fixation from 367 – 405; this was the time that the most important synods and Church councils decided on the canon. Nonetheless, it was after Protestants and Mormons believe that the Church’s teachings had become corrupted.
Determining What Is the Truth and What Is Heresy
A related problem that must be faced is the fact that the Church, throughout her entire history, has had to judge the truth or falsehood of many theological and moral teachings; in short, to determine if a belief is heretical or not, and if not, what the actual truth is. If the Church lost Christ’s authority and corruption entered at X point in her history, then how do we know what beliefs she determined to be heresies are really heresies and those she determined to be true are actually true?
Heresies and Schisms
Protestant Christians take as a given (most of) the Nicene Creed and all that it asserts as true about God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Many other truths that the Church’s bishops and faithful tirelessly fought for against heretical attacks are taken as givens as well: Is it obvious that Christ is one Person who subsists in two natures: divine and human (the hypostatic union, definitively determined in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, refuting the Monophysites‘ heresy)?
The Burden of Proof
Upon whom does the burden of proof fall to demonstrate that the Church Christ established lost His authority, and if so, exactly when and why? Since the evidence from Scripture and from the writings of the early Christians recognize that the Church did have this authority, the burden of proof must fall to those who claim that she lost it.
At least three different dates or periods of time are given (see above) for when Christ revoked the Church’s authority, but where is the supporting evidence for it?
The Mormon Belief in the Great Apostasy
When I was an Evangelical Protestant going to a Southern Baptist Convention church, I spoke at length with Mormon missionaries who came to our door. They told me how the priesthood had left the Church at the death of the apostles and then the Great Apostasy began, which the Scriptures spoke about. Only in the 1800s did Christ reinstitute the priesthood with Joseph Smith. “So what about all the Christians who lived and were martyred and followed our Lord from 100 to 1829?” They answered, “Those people had ‘faith in Christ’” but it was not the true faith; it was deficient.
The missionaries presented no historical nor theological evidence to support the claim that the Church lost her authority; it was an assertion.
But let’s assume it is true for a moment. Does it make sense? The Word became flesh, and Christ lived on earth for 33 years, giving his life for all of us. Then, He did not leave us alone but gave us the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of power, of love, and of self-mastery, who He promised would lead the apostles (who led the Church) into all truth, and the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church.
But the Mormons assertion means that the Holy Spirit utterly failed to lead the Church into all truth–indeed, as soon as the last apostle died, the Church went belly-up for over 1700 years! The gates of Hell prevailed against the Church and overcame her. It means also that Christ failed to keep His Church together and pure from adultered teachings for even one generation beyond his life on earth.
What we actually see in history is that the apostles transmitted the faith to their followers, passing on by word of mouth and by letter all that Christ had taught them. They also consecrated men, by the authority Christ gave to them, as deacons, as priests, and as bishops, and the Church, rather than becoming corrupted in her teachings and losing her authority, instead shone before men with the light of Christ, and thousands upon thousands joined her to follow Christ, many giving their lives amidst hundreds of years of persecution at the hands of the Romans, pagans, and barbarians–all by the power and action of the Holy Spirit.
Certainly individual persons sometimes apostasized, that is, renounced their faith, especially when confronted with mutilation, torture, and execution, but the Church as a whole could not and will never apostasize.
Interestingly, as a Baptist, I rejected these Mormon claims of the Church losing her authority at the death of the apostles, but as I pondered and prayed, I realized that my beliefs were not so very different in fact. After all, when did I, a Baptist, think that corruption entered into the Church’s teachings? Because I certainly did. The truth was that I, like most Protestants, had never given it that much thought and didn’t know when I believed the Church lost authority. And so I believe that God used the Mormon missionaries in a way that neither I nor they ever would have imagined: To lead me to ask questions of my own Evangelical Protestant beliefs.
For a deeper treatment of the problem Protestants have when countering Mormon claims, see this post on Called to Communion that demonstrates there is no principled difference between Mormonism’s claims of the corruption of Christ’s Church after the death of the last Apostle and Protestantism’s claims of the corruption of the Church sometime within the first 4 centuries.
Martin Luther: By What Authority?
Martin Luther lived only about 500 years ago. That is, in time and in history he is closer to us than he was to Christ and the apostles. One of his boldest actions was to pass personal judgment on whether certain accepted books of the Biblical canon were truly inspired or not.
Not all of his assertions in this regard were ultimately accepted by Protestants, but his influence was and is tremendous. I want to examine one point in particular here: By what authority did Martin Luther, 1500 years after Christ, make a determination over the Church’s decision about which writings were and which were not inspired by God?
By what authority? Imagine if someone today made such an outrageous claim? What if I stood up and said: “The book of James is an epistle of straw–I can see nothing from the Gospel in it”? Or what if I recommended throwing out 10 books of the Bible based on my own opinions? I would be run out of town on a rail and well should be! What hubris to declare that I know what books should be in the Bible over the Church’s decision, yet that was what Martin Luther did.
Martin Luther
Protestants and Mormons are forced to maintain two curious positions with regard to the canon of Scripture:
1. The Church mostly got stuff right in the 300s, even though she had lost Christ’s authority and corruption had entered her teachings
2. Martin Luther and the reformers, building off what the corrupted Church mostly got right, figured out what they didn’t get right, removing the non-inspired books in the canon of Scripture in the 1500s (after 1200 years of Christians believing uninspired books to be inspired).
Mormons have additional beliefs in regard to writings inspired by God which are specific to them and which significantly differentiate them from Protestants, so I am not here saying that there is no difference between the two groups–there are stark and important differences, but for the purposes of the Church losing authority in the early centuries, they are quite similar.
The Fruit of the Reformation
What if Martin Luther was somehow right. Let’s assume that and look at the fruits of his actions. Are Protestants unified under one truth, in one church? No, quite the opposite is the case. From the very beginning of the Reformation and ever since, what we have instead seen is the consequence of many, many other Christians doing what Martin Luther did: They declare their own authority and break off to form their own new church, with its own particular set of beliefs, and then this process repeats anytime someone thinks that their interpretation of Scripture is correct and another person’s is in error. This first schism has led to countless more schisms.
No one knows how many different fractures there have been since that time; various people have attempted to make timelines with branches to show the major divisions of the largest Protestant ecclesial communities, but even just covering the big ones quickly becomes an exponential explosion.
An anecdote: Just down the street from our house there is a 1 mile stretch of road (Duval) that drives this point home to me: First comes the Covenant United Methodist Church, then right next door (literally) is Bethel Baptist Church, then a short way past that is Northwest Church of Christ; a few hundred yards later is the Imani Community Church, followed by the Austin Taiwanese Presbyterian Church; you then have only to cross the street to get to the First Church of God. All of these Christian communities exist along a single mile of road, and this is not a unique example but is duplicated with variations in every city and most towns in the United States.
Northwest Church of Christ's Statement
Do the Christians going to these communities know the origins of them? Do they know why they aren’t unified with one another? In my experience, probably not, for most of these things have been long forgotten or never known in the first place. Few Christians see a problem with it, even though it flies in the face of Christ and his commandment that we should be one as He and the Father are one.
An Analogy with the United States
“So what?” you may ask. Does it really help us to know all of this history–does it actually matter for how I live my faith here and now? Is there really a problem with the view of history that says: “There were the first century Christians and then later on at some point in time other Christians gave us the (mostly accurate) Bible and then a lot of stuff happened in between then and now but it doesn’t matter that much because here we are today with the Bible and our minds and the Holy Spirit”?
This attitude is akin to a United States citizen today saying that he doesn’t need to know his nation’s history in order to be a good American. He knows the Constitution exists, was written by people 200 years or so ago, and has even read part of it. What difference does it make to his life? After all, life is good in America and what’s the big deal about learning the foundations of my country?
The first problem with this idea is that we have no way of truly understanding who we are now as a citizen of our particular country if we don’t know how our country was founded and subsequently developed. Such a person has heard of George Washington and knows he did some good things, and he knows about George Bush and Barack Obama, but he doesn’t know how we got from one to the other. He doesn’t know about Teddy Roosevelt or FDR, the Great Depression or Truman, World War II, and the nuclear bomb. He doesn’t know about Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War and Dred Scott and Brown vs. Board of Education and Plessy vs. Ferguson and “separate but equal” nor about women’s suffrage and the Oklahoma Sooners (not the football team) and Prohibition and the 14th amendment, just to name a few highlights from our nation’s relatively short history. All of these persons and events have greatly contributed to the life every American person is now living, including all of the many great things about our country that make it a beautiful place to call patria. The freedoms enjoyed by the American today were fought tooth and nail for by our American forefathers and foremothers, and it is at best ungrateful to disdain to even learn about what they went through for us.
The third problem is that the barbarians are always at the gate of civilization. If you don’t know who you are, you do not know that you need to defend your gates against them (or even perhaps know how to recognize the barbarians–you may just let them in!), and so your civilization will fall before them. From John Courtney Murray, a Jesuit priest and philospher:
On both of these titles, as a heritage and as a public philosophy, the American consensus needs to be constantly argued. If the public argument dies from disinterest, or subsides into the angry mutterings of polemic, or rises to the shrillness of hysteria, or trails off into positivistic triviality, or gets lost in a morass of semantics, you may be sure that the barbarian is at the gates of the City. The barbarian need not appear in bearskins with a club in hand. He may wear a Brooks Brothers suit and carry a ball-point pen with which to write his advertising copy. In fact, even beneath the academic gown there may lurk a child of the wilderness, untutored in the high tradition of civility, who goes busily and happily about his work, a domesticated and law-abiding man, engaged in the construction of a philosophy to put an end to all philosophy, and thus put an end to the possibility of a vital consensus and to civility itself.
Can you imagine then forgetting or ignoring 1500 – 1700 years of the Church’s history? We remember Christ and Peter and John and Stephen and Paul but we say who? to Augustine, Aquinas, Francis, Dominic, Catherine of Siena, Pope St. Leo the Great, Ignatius Martyr, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Helen (not of Troy), and Theresa of Avila (and Lisieux, and Calcutta) and we say what? to the Arian heresy, Gnosticism, Rome and Constantinople, the Te Deum, the Rosary, the Battle of Lepanto, and the Church Councils, just to name a few from Christian history that is also the history that Christ entered into and redeemed.
We forget or ignore this history at our great peril, yet I maintain that is what most Christians do when they make the claim that the Church lost Christ’s authority–that it came to them more or less as-is from the first century and that they don’t need to know about anything in between. The history of the Church and of the Christian faith tell a different tale. Writings from Christians in the first centuries reveal a Church that involves the Eucharist, the Mass, the Sacraments, and the successors of the apostles, the Bishops, who had authority and were to be followed. Does this sound like the church or denomination you belong to?
Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, need to learn the origins and development of the Faith they believe in through reading and study, and then prayerfully discern the implications on where and how they worship.
Conclusion
The Scriptures say that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Christ founded a Church, gave the keys of the kingdom of Heaven to Peter, and declared that the gates of Hell would not prevail against her.
Perugino: The Giving of the Keys to St. Peter
If the Church has ever lost Christ’s authority, then there is no way of knowing what we believe is right and what is wrong for her teachings would have been corrupted. Only if the Holy Spirit has guided the Church into all truth throughout the centuries–for in every one of them she has been attacked–only then do we know the canon of Scripture, only then do we know what is heresy and what is not, and only then do we know moral from immoral behavior.
Christ wants us to know the truth in all of these things, and only He could guide a Church full of imperfect people into all truth, such that her teachings could be trustworthy! It is miraculous and beautiful. Thank you for exploring these ideas with me; I hope that you will seek the truth and find it in its fullness, by God’s grace.
For further reading about authority and Christ’s Church as it relates to Protestant and Catholic Christians today, read my posts on apologetics and ecumenism.
Recommend reading:
By What Authority, by Mark Shea, presents the most concise and logical explanation that I have found of how an Evangelical Protestant discovered and came to believe in Sacred Tradition.
Crossing the Tiber, by Steve Ray, covers a lot, but I find it most useful for its references to the writings of early Christians concerning doctrines that Catholics and Protestants differ on (e.g. Baptism, Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, etc.).
Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, by David Currie, explains his conversion to Catholicism from being a devout fundamentalist Protestant, and also covers how he came to believe in the Catholic Church’s teaching on many specific doctrines that Catholics and Protestants differ on.
Evangelical Is Not Enough, by Thomas Howard, is a unique book in that he contrasts his understanding and practice of the Faith as an Evangelical Protestant vs. a liturgical (Anglican) Christian with respect to prayer, worship, the Eucharist, the liturgical calendar year, etc. Howard entered full communion with the Catholic Church shortly after writing this book. I think it is a great book to help an Evangelical understand how a liturgical Christians understands and practices the Faith and vice versa to help a liturgical Christian understand how an Evangelical Protestant understands and practices the Faith.
Saturday, 24. January 2009
I think most people would classify me as a Protestant, and I do not intend to speak for the whole of Protestantism, but I do not believe that the Church has ever lost the authority or objectives issued by Christ (e.g., Matthew 16:16-19, 28:16-20, Acts 1:7-8). I think the Church has ignored His authority by splintering into a bunch of denominations, and I think that over the course of history the Church generally has not exercised His/Her authority, but I do not agree that She ever lost that authority. (Perhaps I am an exception within Protestantism.)
However, I do join you in praying for the unification of the Church under the Lordship of Christ. May the Bride be wholly captivated with the Groom and none with Herself!
Saturday, 24. January 2009
Excellent analysis- it agrees with my understanding of the situation as well. I would respond to a portion of your post with a Mormon perspective (it’s the only one I’m competent to speak on.
). My intent is not to be argumentative but to demonstrate how my beliefs are consistent.
You wrote:
“But if the Church lost authority before she discerned and declared the canon of Scripture, that means that her decision cannot be trusted!”
I have the utmost respect for the faithful clergy of the Catholic church who compiled the writings into what we call the Bible. The fact that they conscientiously sought direction from the Lord is evidenced by the wise methodology they used in their selection process. The compilation that they produced has been incalculably valuable to the world. I do not, however, believe those clergy to be infallible. They used the best information they had to determine which of the manuscripts in circulation were authentic and inspired.
Regardless of my belief on the state of the authority of the church at that time, I do not need to simply trust their compilation. I am capable of receiving confirmation directly from the Lord through His spirit that those books contain truth. It is from this source that I gain my faith in the truthfullness of the bible- not from any implicit faith in its compilers.
Saturday, 24. January 2009
There are so many troubling things, but…
Has God obviously and clearly worked in and been present in and born fruit in the lives of specific men and women who were not Catholic? I would submit He has. My family has read many books on such men and women.
Has God obviously and clearly worked in and been present in and born fruit in the lives of specific men and women who were Catholic? I would submit He has.
Devin has apparently read many books on such men and women.
I have no problem with this contradictory data. God can be found alive in some people who profess to be members of the Catholic Church and God can be found alive in some people who profess to be members of a non-Catholic Christian church.
In many senses, you could say, “We are the church – many who attend Catholic Churches and many who align with non-Catholic Christian churches.” You could say that each of us is too stubborn or apathetic or prideful or argumentative or anal to give an inch of doctrinal ground and dissolve our church to become part of another group of the church.
Personally, I am on a journey. That journey is to become more Christ-like everyday. To die to myself more every day. To follow God’s plan for me every single day as he reveals it. If the Catholic church is the one keeper of the ‘Way’, then I expect I will arrive there willingly as I become more Christ-like. Devin – you and I both ‘came alive’ from our journeys through darkness while in the Protestant church. What truth does the Protestant church have? Why did this happen? Is your trust and faith in the Catholic Church or in the Jesus who paid for our sins on the cross?
Saturday, 24. January 2009
It would be irresponsible of me not to comment on this post. At the same time I don’t feel it is appropriate to exhaustively address all of the issues that you raised considering that 1) This is your website and 2) I’m not eloquent enough to do it justice. Therefore, I will attempt to address the subjects that I think are the most important.
I will begin at the end:
“And so I believe that God used the Mormon missionaries in a way that neither I nor they ever would have imagined”
This is probably often going to be true- regardless of your beliefs. The Lord cares about our well being. If those missionaries succeeded in improving your life by causing you to think about God in ways you may not have before, then they were, in part, successful in their goals.
“the Holy Spirit utterly failed to lead the Church into all truth–indeed”
I don’t think that it would be appropriate to describe Mormon beliefs using this language. Any failure does not, of course, lie with the Holy Spirit but with men. The Holy Spirit was available to them after the day of Pentecost. The Lord will not force men to follow Him. The apostasy occurred because the church of Christ was rejected by men not because of any deficiency of the Holy Spirit.
““So what about all the Christians who lived and were martyred and followed our Lord from 100 to 1829?” They answered, “Those people had ‘faith in Christ’” but it was not the true faith; it was deficient.”
Again, I would start by saying that I don’t think it would be an accurate description of our beliefs to phrase it this way. The faith of those followers of Christ was pure. It was not deficient. What was deficient was the authority to receive revelation and perform ordinances. This deficiency does not, however, mean that those people were any less worthy or that their faith was somehow inadequate. We believe that people who would have accepted in mortality everything that Christ offered but did not have the opportunity will be given the opportunity to do so after they die. This would apply to people who lived during the apostasy or even people today who are not presented with the opportunity to learn or to choose.
And finally- the most important, or at least most relevant to our discussion here. It also may be the most difficult to properly communicate. I hope you will be gracious enough to overlook my personal deficiencies in language.
“The missionaries presented no historical nor theological evidence to support the claim that the Church lost her authority; it was an assertion.”
Consistent with our beliefs as Mormons, the authority of Christ was restored in modern times. Consequently we have a responsibility to proclaim that to others- to do otherwise would be incredibly hypocritical. Incident to that, with that same divine authority, those missionaries have been called to proclaim and to teach with the authority of the Spirit. Theirs is not a mission to convince or persuade people to belief. Missionaries who are effective at their work do not engage in any arguments and rely on testimony and the power of that same Spirit to bear witness that it is true to the hearts of the listeners.
It is only by the personal witness of the Holy Spirit that a person can know that this doctrine is true. There are hosts of evidences both historical and theological that support this position, however, it would have been irrelevant when those missionaries were speaking just as it would be irrelevant (or even harmful) in this forum. All the evidence in the world isn’t proof. Proof comes from the Spirit and so that is what you have to have first.
I have truly appreciated these blog posts and the spirit in which they have been written. They have given me valuable insight into the differences between our beliefs and that increases our ability to set them aside to be friends.
Saturday, 24. January 2009
Nathan: “I have truly appreciated these blog posts and the spirit in which they have been written. They have given me valuable insight into the differences between our beliefs and that increases our ability to set them aside to be friends.”
Jeff:
Mormonism and non-Mormon Christianity are fundamentally different. 1 or more of the 3 camps (Protestant, Catholic, Mormon) are incorrect. All 3 believe the consequences to be catastrophic, fatal, terrible, and awful.
Of course, we can all choose to be friends. I would choose that. We can be cordial. We can be kind. We can be patient. We can accept that someone else has asked us to shut up.
I can not set aside my beliefs on the topic of why we’re here, what we should do, and what happens when we die. I believe them to be too important. Setting them aside would be a disservice to a friend.
I imagine this to be part of Devin’s goals – to push the issues.
I do believe that only the Holy Spirit changes hearts and calls men to a saving knowledge of Jesus. I believe the Bible speaks plainly of that. The Bible is also clear that there are 3 sources of voices – our minds, the enemy (Satan and his demons), and the God/Jesus/the Holy Spirit. I am on a journey to learn the difference. I frankly am getting pretty good. It really isn’t that hard. If it leads me away from God’s truth in the Bible, it is not God. If it leads me to glorify myself, it is not God. If it makes me feel guilty, shameful, lustful, anxious, prideful, rude, bitter, malicioius, lazy, etc. it is not God. If it makes me doubt God’s existence or character, if it makes me believe in something that contradicts God’s truth, if it makes me want to give up my faith, then it is not God.
If it is humbling, it is often God. If it makes me kill part of my flesh, it is often God. If it loosens my desire on the things of the world, it is often God. If I have no desire to give glory to myself, it is often God. If it makes me repentent, it is often God. If it is consistent with God’s word, it is often God. You get the idea.
The enemy counterfeits what God does. This is clear in the Bible. The enemy twists the scriptures – even to the face of Jesus, God himself in flesh. From my understanding, it is clear that the Book of Mormon is contradictory of the Bible with itself, and has been changed significantly over time. Mormons believe in the Holy Spirit confirming to them the truth. I have never heard of a first hand account of this – I would be interested to hear one – but from what I know of our enemy and his wickedness (quite a bit of experience) and of the Bible, it seems clear to me that the sensation Mormons feel is not the Holy Spirit, but an imposter and deceptive being – Satan. If it is genuine, everything I know and believe is a lie. If it is not genuine, everything Mormons know and believe is a lie – and everything I know and believe may or may not be a lie and must be evaluated separately.
This disagreement is foundational and cannot be glossed over and set aside except at great peril. Life is too short and the stakes are too high. Jesus calls us to go and make disciples of all nations – this is a life long calling. We’re all in it now.
We can choose to stop debating with each deciding that the other is too hardhearted and deceived to accept the ‘obvious’ truth, but it is almost criminal to pretend fundamental, worldview differences do not exist.
Saturday, 24. January 2009
First, it is interesting that the quest for the spirit of Christian unity seems to imply: learn your history and become unified as Catholics.
Second, it is easy to attack any man who stands up, such as Luther.
Were any of Luther’s claims correct? That must be established independent of Luther himself. Luther was not a perfect man – none but Jesus can claim that. Luther gets no free pass – nor, in my opinion does anyone else – not even the head of a church. Any church.
Concerning his claims, what about:
relics?
indulgences?
purgatory?
Was there any merit to any of his complaints?
Attacks on a man are irrelevant.
e=mc^2 independent of Einstein’s shoe size or moral character.
Mozart produced beautiful music, yet Mozart appears to have been a vile character.
Fundamentally, what did Luther say and how do we determine whether he is correct or not? This is where things get interesting. What makes Luther different than a Pope?
Regarding determining if claims are correct, this also means Joseph Smith’s claims must be established as true or false, independent of his character – except to the extent that the claims require us to put our trust in Joseph Smith’s honesty, authenticity, etc., at which point we must examine Joseph Smith’s character, life, and subsequent teachings.
I do not think Martin Luther’s claims depend on Martin Luther’s credibility. Without a doubt, Joseph Smith’s claims depend on Joseph Smith’s credibility.
Any person who claims infallability (a Pope) does need to have their credibility checked. Anyone who claims personal revelation that contradicts what the Bible has to say (Smith) falls under this standard as well.
regarding there being multiple protestant churches:
1. I would submit that many catholics are ignorant of or disagree with their church’s teaching on their own combination of doctrines. For example, abortion. If there was a pro-abortion, catholic church, I wonder how many catholics would choose to attend there.
2. I think having many churches is more a result of human nature and our enemy. Some people like to make rules. Some people like to make things very black and white. People tend to focus on differences, get offended at others, and divide over pointless things. This is lamentable. As a protestant, I share so much with protestant brothers and sisters. I would feel at home in most protestant churches (though protestant is a big umbrella). I consider us unified enough. There are people that draw lines and defend castle walls. There are those that tend to move freely between castles, ignoring the differences. There is one entity that desires, encourages, and emphasizes this ‘disunity’ – Satan.
There are many mysteries of the teachings of Jesus. Great men with great brains and motives and prejudices all over the map have argued over these topics for 2000 years or more. It is puzzling to me whenever someone comes down on one side and says, ‘This is what we will believe for all time. This is truth.’ There are some things in scripture that are clear and of primary and utmost importance. There are others that are less important.
I believe Mormans and Christians diverge fundamentally on things that are of primary and utmost importance – divinity and nature of Jesus and innerency and supremecy of the Bible, for example. There can be no unity with such fundamental differences.
I believe Catholics and Protestants diverge on things that approach primary and utmost importance, but can at least be generally reconciled.
I believe Protestant churches generally diverge on things which are secondary in nature, though some are clearly heretical, IMHO.
Where Devman sees many protestant churches, I see many dead Catholic churches. Where does each faith end up? With people who must choose if they will follow Jesus’ command to love God and love others.
In rereading this the following morning, I’m not sure the last part of this was the most constructive thing I could’ve said. I wish to be more careful with the phrase ‘dead Catholic churches.’
This probably was not the best idea to communicate, though I wouldn’t be honest if I denied that my (biased and subjective and ignorant) observations were along these lines. I did not mean it defensively or even judgementally, though I’m sure it sounds like that.
Saturday, 24. January 2009
I don’t know to what extent you are specifically trying to establish differences here between Catholics and Protestants, but when you say “The majority of Protestants have not read any Christian writings between the book of Revelation in the first century and Luther in the 16th,” I would argue that the majority of Catholics have not read any Christian writings between the book of Revelation, if they’ve even read that, and… well, nothing since then.
I’ve never gotten the impression of the Catholic church really encouraging its members to spend time reading the bible, much less anything else. The feeling I get is more of a “don’t worry about reading up on things, we’ll do that for you and tell you about it.” Perhaps part of the whole authority thing.
Anyway, that sentence struck me as a bit holier-than-thou, which didn’t feel right in a series about Christian Unity. It may not be intended that way, but I just wanted to let you know that’s how it felt when read.
Saturday, 24. January 2009
This has been my perception of the Catholic church as well – that the church doesn’t encourage you to read the Bible.
Perhaps my perception or understanding are wrong. I would appreciate hearing Devman’s perspective on this.
I was in a Catholic Church downtown by UT in December. In the backs of the seats were not Bibles, but some type of church readings and perhaps songs. The kind lady in front of me informed me that the Bibles were kept elsewhere.
It seems odd to me that one might not be expected to desire a Bible during a service at a church.
Saturday, 24. January 2009
@ FCatholic: I apologize for the polemical way I came across in that passage. I have removed the paragraph and rewritten it to hopefully communicate what I intended in a more charitable way. Thank you for calling me on it.
@ Jeff W: Thank you for your comment! I have a few thoughts about this topic: A Catholic friend of ours brought one of her Protestant friends to Mass a week or so ago, and her friend was able to follow along and even make several responses at various points in the liturgy because, she explained, almost every part of the Mass was straight out of Scripture! I experienced this same familiarity when I was considering becoming Catholic; I recognized so much of the spoken content of the Mass because I was well-versed in Scripture.
Additionally, at every Mass there are two to three Bible readings, sometimes very lengthy, which was quite a bit more than the amount of Scripture read during my Baptist services. Oftentimes my Baptist pastor would spend 30 minutes on just one verse of Scripture! Of course he was applying it, interpreting it, etc., so it was very good, but the expectation was that you didn’t go to church expecting to hear much quantity of Scripture, if you will, but instead were expected to be reading it on your own.
That being said, I think that there is a significant lack of personal Scripture reading amongst Catholics. This has been changing for the better in the recent past, but it is a long way to go before we match our Protestant brothers in personal study of the Bible.
I have a baby who wants to help me type more right now, but in spite of his best efforts, his banging on the mouse buttons is not helping, so I will have to leave off any longer response until perhaps later.
Peace in Christ!
Saturday, 24. January 2009
@ Jeff W: Just to clarify for onlookers, the “song books” that you might have noticed in a Catholic church contain weekly readings as well (maybe an effort to save money- I don’t know). Most Catholic churches use the same book.
One really cool thing that I like about the Catholic Church is that our weekly readings are consistent across the world. That is, a schedule is adhered to containing each Sunday’s readings (regardless of what country/language/etc that you’re in). We have A, B, C rotations on readings such that within 3 years, you will have at least heard the entire Bible (as long as you’re paying attention). Not that this should serve as an excuse for not reading the Bible regularly outside of Mass, but it definitely helps those with 2 babies.
From my understanding, Mormons do something similar with the Bible and the book of Mormon being consistent across churches.
This kind of thing helps out on vacations. It’s like you don’t need a DVR for Mass; the same show is on wherever you’re at.
@ DevMan (now “Devin Rose”?): Thanks for clarifying something that I’ve been curious about. I could not get a straight answer from my Protestant friends how it’s possible to have faith in the Bible itself and not on the authority that compiled it. The idea that the Church’s authority was withdrawn gradually from ~400 AD at least seems more rationale than “I don’t know”.
@ Jeff W: On Martin Luther, I have to say at least one positive thing about the revolution. There WAS a lot of corruption in the Church at that time. While I believe that God’s true inspiration was revealed through the ordinary and Sacred Magisterium nonetheless, I think it has a positive influence that the corruption was explicitly called out.
That being said, the idea that he knew better than the original councils that compiled that Bible based on his personal philosophies is a bit troubling to me. How can you accept part of what the council authoritatively decided (as a collective catholic church), but not the whole thing? How do you know that your 66 (right?) books are the right ones? At some point, it has to be faith – perhaps faith in God that He would not let his church be led astray. Luther’s denial of this authority was like removing a foundation on a building.
As some comments have reflected, many Catholics still try to do the same thing where they deny the authority of the Church in the interest of their own personal opinions. In my mind, these people are not really Catholic. I used to be a cafeteria Catholic, but it was through this questioning about the historic authority of the Catholic church that I realized it’s kind of an all or nothing thing. While not everything that a bishop or priest says is authoritative, when everybody gets together (the Magisterium), they are. “Where 2 are gathered…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility_of_the_Church
Wednesday, 28. January 2009
@ Shane: Thanks for your comment! I apologize for taking forever to make any reply, but I am going to respond to the comments beginning from the first, which yours was.
I guess one question I would ask you is, if the Church never lost Christ’s authority but didn’t always exercise it, how do we know when the Church did and did not exercise it over the course of history? Specifically, how do we know if the Church exercised it in choosing the canon of Scripture in the 300s?
Secondly, now that there are many denominations with conflicting teachings on God, Christ, the canon of Scripture, etc., which of these still has the authority, if the Church never lost it? Some of them cannot have it if they teach false things about Christ.
Sunday, 1. February 2009
@ Nathan 1st comment: Thanks for giving us a Mormon’s perspective on this; you wrote:
“I have the utmost respect for the faithful clergy of the Catholic church who compiled the writings into what we call the Bible. The fact that they conscientiously sought direction from the Lord is evidenced by the wise methodology they used in their selection process. The compilation that they produced has been incalculably valuable to the world. I do not, however, believe those clergy to be infallible. They used the best information they had to determine which of the manuscripts in circulation were authentic and inspired.”
My questions are: if you do not believe that the Christians who discerned which books were inspired by God and which were not did so with God’s divine guidance (or authority) such that they did so without erring, why do you believe that they got all of the books right, or even half of them?
I understand that the Mormon Bible is the 73 books discerned and chosen by the early Church bishops in the 300s minus the 7 deuterocanonical books removed by the reformers in the 16th century. The Great Apostasy was going on throughout this entire span, so on what basis do Mormons believe that, first, the fallible bishops who did not have the authority from God (or “priesthood”) got things mostly right and second that the Protestant reformers 1200 years later, still without the priesthood, got the rest of it right?
Thank you for your consideration.
Sunday, 1. February 2009
@ Jeff W. 1st comment: Hi Jeff! We have privately corresponded about several of the points you bring up in this first comment, but very briefly for the sake of our blog readers who are not privy to our correspondence:
You wrote: “What truth does the Protestant church have? Why did this happen? Is your trust and faith in the Catholic Church or in the Jesus who paid for our sins on the cross?”
The Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit is alive in hundreds of millions of Protestant Christians throughout the world, in accordance with their valid baptisms, and He certainly works powerfully in their lives and even in the lives of those persons who have not yet heard the Gospel. This is in agreement with what you believe as far as God working in Catholic and Protestant believers lives, so we are not in disagreement here.
Is my faith and trust in Jesus Christ or in His spotless Bride, the Church, which is also His Mystical Body? It is in both because Christ has married His Church and cannot be divided from her. As we talked about, it is a “both-and” not “either-or”. Protestants and Catholics have different understandings of what the “Church” is, which I think leads to your comment about believing in Christ and not in the Church whereas I assert that it is both-and based on my understanding of what the Church is.
Sunday, 1. February 2009
@ Nathan, 2nd comment: You wrote (first quoting me): ““the Holy Spirit utterly failed to lead the Church into all truth–indeed”
I don’t think that it would be appropriate to describe Mormon beliefs using this language. Any failure does not, of course, lie with the Holy Spirit but with men. The Holy Spirit was available to them after the day of Pentecost. The Lord will not force men to follow Him. The apostasy occurred because the church of Christ was rejected by men not because of any deficiency of the Holy Spirit.”
What is the evidence that the immediate successors of the apostles, whom we have recorded writings of, apostasized and that these second-generation Christians rejected the Church of Christ? I would be interested in hearing and reading the historical and theological basis for this assertion.
You wrote later: “Consistent with our beliefs as Mormons, the authority of Christ was restored in modern times. Consequently we have a responsibility to proclaim that to others- to do otherwise would be incredibly hypocritical. Incident to that, with that same divine authority, those missionaries have been called to proclaim and to teach with the authority of the Spirit. Theirs is not a mission to convince or persuade people to belief. Missionaries who are effective at their work do not engage in any arguments and rely on testimony and the power of that same Spirit to bear witness that it is true to the hearts of the listeners.
It is only by the personal witness of the Holy Spirit that a person can know that this doctrine is true. There are hosts of evidences both historical and theological that support this position, however, it would have been irrelevant when those missionaries were speaking just as it would be irrelevant (or even harmful) in this forum. All the evidence in the world isn’t proof. Proof comes from the Spirit and so that is what you have to have first.”
Whether Christ restored authority in modern times and gave it to the Mormon church is based on whether you believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and also the prerequisite that the Church lost Christ’s authority in the first place at some point in history, which is the question that this blog page is hoping to explore. I agree that you as a Mormon must follow your conscience and beliefs in seeking to evangelize others; however, you also must endeavor to ensure your beliefs are true using faith and reason.
I would be interested in hearing the historical and theological evidences of the Mormon claims (as I mentioned in the above comment), which you alluded to but did not detail. It is vitally important to our discussion here, which is engaging both faith and reason, to learn what those are. Claiming that the way to come to believe that Mormonism is true is solely by the Holy Spirit personally witnessing it to you in your heart is a claim that can equally be made by Protestants and even by Catholics. But the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, and our beliefs cannot all be true, for we believe in mutually exclusive things in crucial matters of faith, like the nature of God Himself. That is why we must also engage in our reason to examine the claims made by Mormons, Protestants, and Catholics. Through faith and reason we can find the truth; using only faith, we risk falling into error through fideism.
The fact that so many religions and ecclesial communities make reference to the “inner witness of the Spirit” is what makes the employment of our God-given reason not only valuable but essential to discerning which religion or community in their teachings, if any, is actually following the Holy Spirit without error. Otherwise we deadlock, each asserting the Holy Spirit told “me” the truth.
Monday, 2. February 2009
@ Jeff W., 2nd comment:
You wrote in response to Nathan: “1 or more of the 3 camps (Protestant, Catholic, Mormon) are incorrect. All 3 believe the consequences to be catastrophic, fatal, terrible, and awful.
I can not set aside my beliefs on the topic of why we’re here, what we should do, and what happens when we die. I believe them to be too important. Setting them aside would be a disservice to a friend.
I imagine this to be part of Devin’s goals – to push the issues.”
Yes it is! I want us to recognize the fact that, though we all say we are following the Holy Spirit (and I do believe all of us are trying to, according to our faith and understanding), we all believe different things–to varying degrees–about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Church, what books are in the Bible, and so on.
Usually we don’t consider these differences in depth and seek to get to the heart of them because it is hard. It causes disagreements amongst people who are friends, and that can be uncomfortable. But God does not call us to be comfortable but to seek Him and live by the truth, and so I think it is imperative that we explore these matters.
Jeff, you referenced the content of the Bible as the standard by which you judge what is right and wrong, and I understand why this is so; the Bible is the word of God. However, as I mentioned above, my Bible, what I claim to be the inspired words of God Himself, has 73 books in it, and your Bible, which you also claim to be the inspired words of God, has 66 books in it. Something went wrong at some point in the past for us to both be Christians striving to follow God’s truth in the Bible and yet we don’t agree on what exactly makes up the Bible!
You mentioned Satan in your post, Jeff, and how much he hates us and wants us to be deceived. I would submit that Satan would love it if he could get a significant portion of Christians to either reject 7 of God’s inspired books or to accept 7 books not inspired by God. Clearly, God inspired certain books and did not inspire others, and He clearly would only go to the trouble of inspiring books if He wanted us, His children, to read them, take them to heart, and live by them. So the fact that we do not agree on which of the books make up the Bible means that someone against God is at work–the Evil One; I think you would agree.
The other thing I would mention is that, when you say “the Bible”, you actually mean “your interpretation of the Bible”. We think that the Bible is clear on many things, yet we differ on important matters of the faith like whether God washes away sin in baptism, whether there is a sacrament called confirmation, whether God instituted the sacrament of holy orders (the ministerial priesthood) and whether He gave authority to his apostles and their successors to forgive sins (cf. John 20, “Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained”).
It is true that your and my interpretations of the Bible are quite similar in many important areas, but what about President Barack Obama’s interpretation? He claims to be a Christian and has quoted the Bible in speeches; he goes to a Protestant church and takes his family. I bet he would say he strives to live by the Bible, too. But we know that it is his own interpretation of the Bible, which differs from ours on most important moral issues; by what authority do we say that his interpretation is wrong? Or that Jeremiah Wright, the Protestant pastor who was his spiritual director, is wrong?
My point is that the premise: “God ordained it so that the Holy Spirit inspires a person to be able to pick up the Bible and accurately interpret it to discern the truth on matters of the faith and of morals” is false. God could have ordained it that way, but He did not, and the proof is in the myriad schisms we have in the world today, each claiming that “they” have most accurately interpreted God’s truth in the Bible.
Instead, He must have done it differently. I propose that God gave us His Church to be the pillar and bulwark of the truth and that He ordained the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth, as Christ promised, through and in union with His Church. It was this way in the beginning, when Christ gave His apostles authority, and then those apostles, very simply, transmitted their God-given authority to their successors, by God’s grace and power.
Wednesday, 6. January 2010
One thing that occurred to me the other day is that the Catholic Church is the only Christian denomination that acts with confidence and authority. It names new saints every year (and by so doing declares “These people are in heaven and we are sure of it”). It performs exorcisms in which it orders demons around. It takes on powerful governments. It issues new teachings. It declares some things good and other things bad. It chooses new supreme leaders (Popes) when needed. In short, it still speaks and behaves like an authoritative institution. It leads, boldly.
No other church does these things. All the other churches say weak things like “Your relationship with God is between you and God.” The weak, splinter churches can’t get out of a position of authority fast enough. They have deferred on all the most important issues of the day. They don’t *want* to be in authority.
Now, go read where the part of the Gospels where Jesus says he is going to create a Church and the gates of Hell will not withstand it. Does that sound like a wimpy institution to you?
Wednesday, 6. January 2010
Good insight Freddy–I totally agree.