Reply to links in comments from earlier posts

One reader posted three links from www.gotquestions.org, and my thoughts about them are long enough I'm going to devote one blog post to my response, rather than putting it all in the comment section. I have also posted a link to this blog entry in the comment section, so readers of the comments should be directed here.

In general, responding in detail to each argument in these links would amount to pulling texts that prove one way, against texts that prove the other claims, it all comes down to which lens of the entirety of Scripture are you going to use. So I’m not going to really engage in individual verse retorts, they exist for both sides, but will focus on several general thoughts I have in response.

1. I'm disappointed by the authors' judgments, in multiple locations, such as "yes, Catholicism is a false religion. If a person believes what the Catholic Church officially teaches, he/she will not be saved," found here. They have also made some nonsensical arguments; some are standard and reasonable arguments from the Protestant position, but others are severely lacking in substance and consistency of application. The authors should have stuck with the few credible/reasonable arguments, but by going to an extreme position, in my opinion, they undermine and diminish their credibility.
2. The answers on this website are the perfect example of the vitriolic response of Protestants to Catholics that I've alluded to in my personal/verbal conversations with my readers, and possibly in previous posts in this blog. Most Protestants don't simply chose to disagree with the Catholic position in the same way they disagree with other denominations they aren't a part of. Rather, they very publicly and adamantly claim Catholics are not true Christians, and it is this attitude of animosity that drives deep divisions and wounds in the Body of Christ. This is also an inconsistent reaction. Are these Protestants (e.g., from this website) acting this way toward Pentecostals/Vineyard Movement who require proof of salvation by tongues? No--they have entries (here and here) where they address these teachings, but they simply state disagreement without going to the extreme salvation judgments that they do with Catholics. I should also mention this website has two entries on Eastern Orthodoxy, in which they argue many of the same positions as against the Catholic church. So throughout my blog post, one could easily add Orthodoxy to it, but I'll just use the word Catholic for ease.
3. Their fundamental argument (e.g., here) seems to be “the teachings of Catholicism are unbiblical, therefore if you subscribe to them, you are not saved.” This makes no logical sense—the argument that subscribing to something that’s not in the Bible makes you not saved. Some churches teach that you shouldn’t partake of wine at all. That is not insisted upon in Scripture, but if a church wants to “bind the conscience” of its members to that, and their members are willing to submit to it, then I have no problem with it and won’t say they aren’t saved. But with the logic of these authors, they would need to say that.  Similarly, some churches don’t allow dancing. Or celebration of Halloween. Or eating meat. Or divorce, in order to serve in positions of leadership. These aren’t merely suggestions for increased spiritual disciplines, they are requirements to be faithful to and "in good standing with" those denominations. Simply proving that something is not made explicit in the Bible is not a suitable argument for a belief being so detrimental that those persons are not saved.
   That being said, Catholics would argue that Catholicism does not contradict scripture, it simply elaborates upon areas where Scripture is silent. Not that this makes Protestants any happier, but it does change the argument--Protestants can no longer argue that the Bible doesn't speak about doctrine X, but rather must show that doctrine X is contradictory to Scripture.
4. The authors frequently emphasize their literal interpretation of Scripture, as here. "Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally. This is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us. ...One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation...The disciples also took the demands of Christ (which are part of the Bible) literally." Yet these authors (and others in Protestant circles) are not consistent with this position--they pick and choose what is literal. For me, the most striking example is John 6. Yes, there are situations when Jesus is clearly speaking in a parable. However, in John 6, he isn't. I'm not going to paste the entire chapter here, but reading its entirety gives greater context and umph to the punchline, in my opinion. After quoting the Old Testament passage (which the authors of the website would say is indication that Jesus is about to speak literally) saying, "He gave them bread out of heaven to eat," Jesus says, "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Bible records, "Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”  If they had misinterpreted Jesus, he'd have corrected them. Instead, "Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.  He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.  For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.  He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.  As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.” Jesus doesn't merely give a one-liner pithy remark like he's done in other situations, instead he reiterates the claim, he doesn't back down but rather makes it more elaborate...and radical.  So of course, this causes more listeners to think he's nuts. "Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” And again, Jesus doesn't correct their misinterpretation. Instead, Jesus eggs them on, "Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore." 

If the disciples' literal interpretation of this was so wrong from the outset, causing people to leave out of a misunderstanding, then God would have corrected this, for the sake of the Church, the Body of Christ, for the many generations to come, and made such a foundational concept crystal clear. But He doesn't correct them, and instead elaborates, confirming their interpretation.  This literal/mystical view of the Eucharist is what the church believed from the time of the disciples, through the time of the Reformation, until sometime after that. (Even Luther believed in the mystical real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.) Okay, so if someone wants to take a figurative interpretation of John 6, fine, but please don't boast about an emphasis on the literal interpretation of Scripture. 

The authors of the website don't stop here, they then write, "Finally, when we make ourselves the final arbiters of which parts of the Bible are to be interpreted literally, we elevate ourselves above God. Who is to say, then, that one person's interpretation of a biblical event or truth is any more or less valid than another's? The confusion and distortions that would inevitably result in such a system would essentially render the Scriptures null and void. The Bible is God's Word to us and He meant it to be believed--literally and completely." I totally agree. This is my point, one of the catalysts in being on this journey! The Protestant tendency is to say it's up to each individual's interpretation and conscience about what is binding in Scripture and what should be taught and passed down. This position has left Christendom in a state of disarray. It's fascinating how they could write these four sentences so strongly, yet so adamantly perpetrate a system and behavior that fosters this very thing.

In order to determine the appropriate interpretation, how about looking at the other writings from that time period, to understand how the people and leaders were interpreting the teachings? How about reading the writings of the people who were discipled by the Apostles? Those 1-2 generations from Jesus, and seeing how they described the church and the discussions and decisions coming out of it, to get an understanding of how people understood the Scriptures to mean? For example, Polycarp was a disciple of John. And Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. So what did these guys believe and teach about the Eucharist? (And baptism and Mary and such). I'll approach matters in this way in future blog posts, examining their descriptions.  Actually, the authors of this website write, "Churches should strive to follow the model of the early church in Jerusalem." Yet they clearly haven't been reading the writings of the early church leaders (regarding theology as well as form/liturgy of the service), or they couldn't hold the position they do. They act as if it was 1500 years before we correctly realized what the Bible really consisted of (after all, they removed books of the Bible during the Reformation, without fear of this violating the notion of no "jot and jittle shall be removed.") and how it should be interpreted, and all those early thinkers had it wrong. It seems to me a Protestant would have to hold some version of this position--that the Reformers "saw the light" and the error of the early church's ways, or how else can they ignore the teachings of the earliest church fathers? Indeed, as John Henry Newman once wrote, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

In the end, the writers do say, "There is no infallible interpreter of Scripture, nor is there a need for one. There is no infallible denomination or church. Even after receiving Christ as Savior, we are all still tainted by sin. We all make mistakes. No denomination/church has absolutely perfect doctrine on every issue." Okay then.  Seeing all the disagreements among Christians inclines us to throw our hands in the air and conclude that each denomination/branch of Christianity has some error. 

So. If I take that position, then the bottom line when deciding where to worship each week, to me, comes down to the Eucharist. Christ commanded us to partake of it, saying, "Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you have no life in you." I want the life of Christ to permeate me. Even regardless of the extent to which one believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the emphasis of Christ's words in John 6 (and elsewhere in the New Testament) gives me the desire to partake more than once a quarter, as in many Protestant denominations.  So this element of weekly church services offering communion is for me a central criteria of where to regularly attend. I'll write my next post on this.

Authority

The authority issue is a fundamental one that has concerned me over the years. By this, I mean on both sides--looking at Catholics and wondering how they could submit to the authority of the Church/Pope (and what exactly does this mean? what are they really doing?), and looking at Protestants and wondering where is their authority to declare what we should be believing and teaching. Thinking of the Body of Christ: if the left arm teaches covenant theology, the right arm teaches dispensationalism, the eyes teach that you can't lose your salvation, the mouth teaches you must persevere until the end, the left leg teaches baptism as an adult, the right leg teaches baptism as an infant, etc., then the Body of Christ is inconsistent in its teaching. This is not God's design for the Body of Christ! It's not that I'm saying we aren't all in the Body because of the disagreement, simply that this fracturing wasn't God's desire.  Is there anything we can or should do to help in this situation?  God intends one body that is unified in purpose, without contradiction in teaching. Wouldn't God, in His wisdom (e.g., knowing man's sinful condition and inclinations), have instituted a mechanism from the beginning to preserve the core teaching? To preserve the Body of Christ, His Bride? Just as Moses (a sinful man) was leading the Israelites, and all the instructions that were given for them to remember what they were taught, to pass it down to their children, all the feast days to commemorate the core milestones in their salvation history, etc.--God had a mechanism in place for the transmission of the Old Covenant. With the coming of Christ, and the Church, wouldn't God do a similar thing? (Or at least, it's not totally foreign to think that He'd do such a thing, right?)

I listened to a talk by Ken Hensley, who was a Protestant pastor who became Roman Catholic, and he explains some of the questions and answers that accompanied his journey. Much of what I write below comes from his talk. He argues that the authority of the Church is necessary for:

• Leaders to speak with the authority that Christ commanded/commissioned/directed. ("All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations...and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." "As the Father sent me, so I send you" etc.). This was a command--but how can we be obedient to do so, with such confident authority, if there's so much disagreement? (Pastor Ken had found himself, as head pastor over a large congregation, no longer feeling he could speak with authority, because his denomination believed so differently than other genuine Bible-believing congregations. He could preach what he was supposed to, but it lacked a genuine authority behind it.)
• Unity in the church. Again, we were commanded to be unified as believers in the Body of Christ. But how can we be obedient to do so, if there's such disagreement and lack of authority in telling us what principles/teachings to be unified over?
• Individuals to have an understanding of what is true, what is to be believed. The "average farmer" doesn't know the details of theology and can't study all the arguments for each doctrine in order to decide which local church to join, or which Christian path to accept for his salvation and living a life pleasing to God? E.g., if miraculous healings no longer occur in today's "dispensation," then should he not be laying hands on his ailing daughter and asking for healing intervention, and if she was, is it a sign of a demonic presence (as John MacArthur would claim)?

These are interesting points to ponder...

Meanwhile, let's examine the authority of the church in Scripture a bit more...we see how disagreements are handled in Acts: Acts 15 shows that they called a council of the apostles to decide the matter (this instance was about whether circumcision was required for salvation). The individual congregations were not left to decide for themselves, rather they had to adhere to the authority of the council. Paul and Barnabas could not settle it alone (a la Pastor/Deacon of local congregation), they they to go all the way from Antioch to Jerusalem (over 300 miles) "to see the apostles and elders about this question." It wasn't that Paul and Barnabas just went to get some advice, rather there was an authoritative letter from the apostles and elders sent to the church in Antioch, with Judas and Silas also sent to confirm the decision in  person (as if Paul & Barnabas weren't enough?). The letter included "...not to burden you with anything beyond the following..." The idea being that they were laying down the requirements on this matter, since it wasn't already clear to the congregation in Antioch.

(Note also, for future reference, that it was Peter who first stood up in this council in Jerusalem: "The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them..." Then it was James (known as the first bishop of Jerusalem, as Peter was the first bishop of Rome), who gave the last/final word: "When they finished, James spoke up...'Simeon [Peter] has spoken....It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God...'" This is of note in discussions between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, but I won't go into that here.)

What about the passage when Christ gives the keys to Peter? Matt.16:18-19,

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Protestants would say Christ is saying it is on Peter's confession of faith that He will build His church. What do the keys and the binding/loosening have to do with this confession? Some would say it's something about opening the door for the Holy Spirit's work in different movements. Catholics would say it's on Peter's office/leadership upon which Christ builds the church. (This also makes sense with Christ later telling Peter to "shepherd my sheep/feed my sheep" three times in John 21, when Jesus reinstates Peter after Christ's resurrection.) Giving the keys is a reference to Isaiah 22:20-23,

“Then it will come about in that day, That I will summon My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, And I will clothe him with your tunic And tie your sash securely about him. I will entrust him with your authority, And he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. “Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, When he opens no one will shut, When he shuts no one will open. “I will drive him like a peg in a firm place, And he will become a throne of glory to his father’s house."
 
In Isaiah, the Prime Minister that is put into place is given the Key to the Kingdom and whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven, etc. So Catholics would say Peter is the Prime Minister of the Kingdom Christ established.  Peter was also given a name change when he was given the keys; in the Old Testament, God changed the name of Abram to Abraham and Jacob to Israel whenever He called them to a new higher purpose. These figures are regarded as Patriarchs of the Old Covenant. Catholics would say that here, Christ is establishing the Patriarch of the New Covenant and giving him a new name, Peter.

Now, I can see how one might have different interpretations, and call upon various other passages to support their view. But in light of the other broader/larger issues (e.g., the need for unity & authoritative interpretation), it's not totally crazy for Catholics to have this interpretation on this passage. There seems to be a valid argument for their interpretation and there exist other passages and such to back up such an interpretation. I.e., even we don't agree, can't we now understand/respect where they are coming from and not be so dismissive?

Let me interject to say I am not giving an exhaustive treatment of this issue by any means--there is much more thorough analysis at www.catholic.com. It's noteable that this site has answers, explaining the Scriptures and the history of thought, to every question you can imagine, and the answers are signed at the bottom with:

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004 

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

I love that--that there is an authoritative place one can go--whether Christian or Non--and know that what they are reading has the approval of the Church as being correct. In this day and age, where there are so many websites and individuals blogging and such, it's extremely easy for slightly erroneous ideas to get perpetrated...and then a slippery slope of more and more afield of the truth, perhaps totally innocently but without the knowledge and expertise to see the consequences of such an idea on other ideas within the larger system of belief. This way, the burden is off the individual to try to make sense of all the complex and conflicting doctrines he/she is exposed to in every direction. Here is the official, authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church. Individual parishes might have priests who are off (intentionally or not), just as in Protestant churches, but here is where one goes to find the official teaching.

Just a few more bullet points gleaned from these cd's I listened to (also taken from Tim Staples' talks)--these aren't meant to "prove" anything, but simply give more context for why a reader might be inclined to interpret Matt. 16:18-19 in the way the Roman Catholics have (i.e., it's consistent with other passages, it's not totally crazy).

E.g., Matt 14--Peter walks on water...he is given supernatural power and Jesus holds him up when he's failing, just as Christ will prevent the Pope from teaching error?

Luke 22:28-32 ,"You are those who have stood by me in my trials. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”   Here, it says Satan will sift all of you (plural), but Jesus prayed for Peter singular, that he would strengthen the brethren.

 ·    Mt 10:2—Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;" Why was Peter listed first?  Andrew had been the one who first called first chronologically, so this first means something different. In fact, the word, "the first" is "protos," and means principal, or most important. Peter was chief of the Apostles, which is also consistent with Acts chapters 1-15--Peter was the primary leader, having headship among the Apostles.

So there ya have it, just a few more things to ponder, or at least understand where Roman Catholics are coming from.

The Bible and Tradition...and Authority...and Infallibility?

Let us examine the evidence from Scripture that Catholics use regarding the authority of the Church for interpreting Scripture:

Peter in Acts 2, in his sermon in the Upper Room, and in other recorded sermons, gave an authoritative New Covenant interpretation of salvation history--basically, the first time to summarize all the events, now in hindsight, culminating with Christ. It was binding before it became "inscripturated," because it was from an apostle.

The Church had binding authority in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). Acts 15:28-29: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." At what point did the Church lose this? As soon as the last apostle died (John?), then the Church lost its authority to bind men to interpretations and laws; to "bind and to loose" (Matt. 16:19; 18:18)? That doesn't really make sense, and this idea can't be found in Scripture itself. There's not indication in Scriptures that this profound authority would later be lessened and that the Bible would be the sole infallible rule of faith...
 

In the next chapter, Acts 16, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4). This is Church authority. They simply proclaimed the decree as true and binding.

Hmmm. This naturally leads one to question the notion of the infallibility of the Church (again, a domino effect of questions...). Evangelical Protestants already believe the Bible is infallible.  But not the Pope or the Church. Why not? If God can use sinners to write an inspired Bible, certainly He can use sinful men to proclaim infallible teachings in Tradition?  Should one conclude that either Scripture was a merely human tradition (not authoritative, inspired, etc.) or else God must have ordained some sort of revelation outside of Scripture as the means by which we could know what Scripture was?

In fact, the Papal/Church infallibility is a lesser claim that the claims we hold of the Bible--infallibility of the Church/Pope is merely a protection from error, not a positive quality of inspiration.  Hmm.  How can we as Protestants explain how a random individual (led by the Holy Spirit) can trump a received Tradition and the authority of the Church? How is that individual in modern society somehow more free from error than educated, vocational theologians on committee and councils with a collective expertise of all Christian writings and thought for 2000 centuries?  For if we discount the Church's binding authority because individual men leading the church are sinners, then we obviously have to discount every individual's interpretation, as each person is a sinner, too.  Ugh. Again, how can we know the true interpretation unless God provided an authoritative/inspired/infallible agent to accompany His Scripture? (Holy Spirit is a great answer, but the Holy Spirit speaking to whom?)

We Protestants give the authority ultimately to the individual to decide, by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, what is true and what isn't. Yet we deny it to the Church. This doesn't really make sense. And it's starting to appear to not be totally consistent with passages in the Bible (which one could argue suggests there is a binding, authoritative Tradition passed down and preserved in the Church).

I knew that one single Catholic dogma or interpretation of Scripture on its own, without the broader context, could seem so totally off in my Protestant lens growing up. However, I was starting to see that if one considers the assumptions of the Catholic church regarding Scripture and Tradition, one can see how one sort of naturally and logically follows from the other, and leads them to interpret, for example, Matt. 16:18-19 in the way Catholics do. Even if you don't accept the assumptions, you can still see how if one does, then everything follows and makes sense/is natural in that paradigm, it's not such an off-the-wall-desperate-attempt-to-distort-Scriptures-to-obtain-power-and-deceive-the-masses.

Matt. 16:18-19, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”  The Catholic interpretation of Jesus giving the keys to Peter, building His church on this leadership (Catholics say the authority was to the seat of Peter, as Bishop of Rome; the Orthodox say the authority was to the Apostles, who ultimately govern by councils), and giving this leadership the authority to bind and loose, doesn't seem as off the wall and totally unlikely--given the context of all the other ideas we've discussed thus far and the concern for an authoritative voice and a unified Church and teaching that will never be in error (i.e., gates of Hades will not overcome it). But if one doesn't consider those assumptions and such, then that verse could easily be interpreted other ways, to conveniently fit the rest of one's theology that one wants to subscribe to.  So I'm not saying I subscribe to the Catholic/Orthodox way, but simply that this is yet another example (and a new one to me) of important passages in the Bible being interpreted in different ways by very serious, well-meaning, prayerful people. At this point, there was no way I could ever argue full-heartedly the Protestant version of this--I would have to concede that there is an alternative interpretation that some hold and it may be right, just as much as some interpret passages toward Calvinism and others toward Armenianism and we just have to agree to disagree. Basically, it's me saying, "I don't know, I see the arguments for both sides, let me present you with both and you can decide and I won't judge you either way." (An approach that obviously wouldn't be accepted in Protestant churches.) But golly, there were some major issues that were the root of significant division and fighting between Christians for centuries!!

Whoa boy.  I did not like the direction this is going. But I knew enough of the rules of logic from my math degrees that if one can disprove a logical conclusion, then that automatically disproves the hypothesis.  That is, if you have a logical IF  THEN statement, and you prove THEN can't occur, then you have proven that the IF can't occur.  So IF the church teaches something that is binding that is clearly against Scripture, then it it would prove that the church's teachings are not authoritative and infallible. Thus why my journey has continued and continued...it hasn't reached it's end yet.

Before I sign off on this post, I want to reiterate that all these considerations have not diminished my regard for the Bible--I still believe it is the authoritative, infallible and inerrant word of God. These have simply potentially elevated my regard for the Church, in its position to preserve the integrity and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, the Church being inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit in this responsibility.  Naturally, one must ask what "Church" is this having the ultimate leading of the Holy Spirit for interpretation. Protestants are only 500 years old and quite fractured in denominations, there is no consensus on the interpretation nor authority in declaring an interpretation to be the "official" way, and no single denomination, except from Church of Christ?, stakes a claim at being the authoritative interpretation--it's still always portrayed as categories of perspective that an individual can pick and choose which one sits the best with their individual conscience--a sort of relativism that is accepted once in the boundaries of Christianity. Only the Catholic (and in some sense, Orthodox) churches can claim continuity for 2000 years and have the rigorous system of councils and hierarchical structure for this authoritative interpretation to even be conceivable. Naturally this leads to the notion of Apostolic Succession and government, which will be addressed in a later post.

I also want to note that before the printing press, every single copy of the Bible was an original manuscript that a monk or friar had laboriously copied onto pages of parchment. During the Roman invasion, the Irish monks “saved civilization” by storing all the manuscripts in their high towers in the distant island of Ireland.  For 1500 years, when there were no Baptists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, non-denominations, etc., the Catholic Church preserved the Scriptures from error, saved them from destruction and extinction, multiplied them in every language under the sun, and conveyed the truths they contained to people everywhere.  It seems to me Protestants should be more careful about regarding Catholics with such disdain and antagonism, and take some time to truly listen to the reasoning for the beliefs Catholics hold. Even if not accepting all the teachings, perhaps at least one could understand where they are coming from, that it's not some absurd thing way out in left field (which is what I'd sort of always thought when reading the Protestant portrayal of the Catholic Church).

The Bible (Part II)...and Tradition

What did the Bible have to say about the Church's authority and this notion of "Tradition" (extra-biblical teaching) that we hear talked about in Catholic churches, in opposition to sola scriptura?  (Contrary to my assumption and implicit understanding in my Protestant upbringing, Tradition does not mean rituals and superstitious customs of the Catholic Church.) Tradition, to the Catholic Church, refers to the teaching of the Church that is passed down throughout time, beginning with the Apostles. It may not be explicitly stated in the Bible, but it is what the Church claims has always been understood by men everywhere and exists as a part of the "deposit of faith" (the Catholic Church defines the Deposit of Faith as the body of saving truth entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and handed on by them to be preserved and proclaimed). The claim of the Catholic Church is that they have a living voice that announces the life and teachings of Jesus Christ with Tradition in one hand and the Scriptures in the other.

There are many examples within the New Testament of the Apostles calling upon tradition (paradosis) as an authority:

2 Thess. 2:15 “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions [paradosis] which you were taught, whether by word of mouth [extra-biblical oral teaching] or by letter from us.”

2 Thess. 3:6 “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition [paradosis] which you received from us.”

Lk 1:3-4 “It seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught [that is, the oral paradosis]”

For Paul and Luke, the litmus test for authentic Christian teaching is not “Is this written?” (as Protestants would ask) but “Is this apostolic (i.e., taught by the Apostles)?” John also acknowledges that his mention of specific stories and teachings of Jesus is not meant to deny other extra-biblical traditions (Jn 20:30; 21:25), so long as these traditions do not oppose his teaching and that of the other apostles. (1 Jn 2:18-19; 4:1-3; 2 Jn 7-9)

Lk 10:16 Christ told the Twelve Apostles: “He who listens to you listens to me.”

 

1 Cor. 11:2 “Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions (paradosis), just as I delivered them to you.”

Paul twice tells the Corinthians “what I received I passed on to you” (1 Cor 11:23; 15:3)—what he received is the teaching concerning the events surrounding the Lord’s Supper and Resurrection, and this was via apostolic paradosis, the transmission of tradition (Paul was not one of the 12 Apostles, so what he received was passed down via extra-bilblical teaching, or tradition). Paul also refers to it as “from the Lord,” which gives the apostles’ teaching Christ’s authority.

1 Th 2:13 “we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God.”  These words have authority not because they are written but because they are apostolic; apostles knew that Christ had told them “He who listens to you listens to me.”

Acts 8:31 Ethiopian eunuch “How can I [understand the Scriptures] unless someone explains it to me?”  Oh wow. This seems to sum up the matter I'm wrestling with precisely...how can we know the right interpretation of the Scriptures? Would God provide that authority to some entity as a way to preserve all the teaching He inspired to be written and passed down? The Catholic church would say yes, and that the Bible and Tradition are two sides of one coin, that cannot be separated, and the "Magisterium" is the authoritative teaching body within the Catholic church. The Orthodox church also has a notion of tradition and particular loyalty and unity around to the teachings of the first seven councils (but after that, it becomes a bit less clear, where tradition and teaching depends on the region of the church). The Protestant church would say it's up to every individual's conscience and inner working of the Holy Spirit (I think--I'm not sure there actually is a consensus on that answer, as there is not much consensus about many things...)?

2 Tim. 3:14-15 “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which were able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”  Paul is writing this before the Bible as we know it was established ("Scriptures" refers to the Old Testament), and he's saying, “what you have learned and believed” is to be trusted “because you know those from whom you learned it”—that is, because the Body of Christ, the Church, is teaching it, then you know it is true and should be continued. The Scriptures are a part of and consistent with this, which reinforce what Timothy had been taught.

For Paul, the inspired Scriptures are trustworthy, not because they attest to themselves, but because they rest on the Church's teaching, for as he writes in 1 Tim. 3:15, "God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."  Hmm. The church is the foundation of truth?? What in the world?? I'd never heard this. The Bible is the foundation!  But this foundation as that of the apostles teaching (which is held in the Church) is referenced again in Eph. 2:19-20, "...members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." The foundation of the church (God's household) is not of paper and ink, but of the apostles and prophets (with Christ as the chief cornerstone). The books of the Bible are truthful because the group of people who wrote, edited and canonized the books is the Body of Christ.  Paul also writes in Eph. 3:10, "His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms." The pillar and foundation of their faith (1 Tim. 3:15)  is not first and foremost a sheet of papyrus, but a living community which Paul refers to again in 2 Cor. 3:2-3, "You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts."

So in summary, the claim of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is that New Testament believers did not come to trust the Church and its Head (Christ) through the book of Scriptures; they came to trust the book of Scriptures through the Church and its Head. So this issue of Scriptures and Tradition naturally leads to the issue of Authority (which I'll address in a later blog post).

Hmmm...this all just seemed too radical, ideas that I was not permitted to accept as a Protestant. Yet I couldn't deny that there seems to be something to this line of thought. If nothing else, even if I didn't embrace it, I could at least see where Catholics get their claims for Scripture and Tradition being part of one package.  If God would go to such lengths to give His people holy Scriptures, then it made sense that He'd also give the Body of Christ, the Church, the Bride, a means of correctly understanding and transmitting the Scriptures.  Yes, He gives the Holy Spirit to all believers--but whose version of what the Holy Spirit is telling them do we use?  It makes sense that God would give some part of the Body the ability to correctly discern the Holy Spirit and disseminate this message. Otherwise, what good is the Scriptures if we all have our individual (and conflicting) interpretations and there isn't unity but rather divisiveness in the face of non-believers?

So, even if I didn't embrace it, I could not call Catholics heretical for believing this idea of Scripture and Tradition.  That was a huge step for me.  But I couldn't just stop there in saying the Catholics have an argument for it, I needed to investigate further to see if I was going to embrace that one idea--not any of the others, mind you!

Perhaps allowing for the Bible and church history, or "Tradition" as the Catholic Church calls it, to go hand-in-hand would help to bolster all that I believed about the Bible (it's authority, inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy, etc.) and provide me a solid foundation for determining the appropriate interpretation of all the sticky/confusing aspects of my theology that I'd wrestled with for years (since entering college in 1997).  All of this was not diminishing my understanding of and reverence for the Bible's inspiration and authoritative revelation, it was simply bringing the possibility of the Catholic Church's version being a bit more legitimate.  As John Henry Newman (an Anglican priest who converted to Catholicism in 1845...and the founder of University College Dublin, where I worked in my post-doc) put it, “A revelation is not given, if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given.”  Hmm.

I then discovered this quote by one of my all-time favorite Christian thinkers and writers, and one of the highest regarded in Protestant circles: C.S. Lewis, in "Miracles," writes: “Nothing could be more unhistorical than to pick out selected sayings of Christ from the gospels and to regard those as the datum and the rest of the New Testament as a construction upon it.  The first fact in the history of Christendom is a number of people who say they have seen the Resurrection.  If they had died without making anyone else believe this “gospel,” no gospels would ever have been written.” What this seems to be saying is from the very beginning, the Gospel was transmitted and believed because of the witness and testimony of the Apostles and the first generation of believers...the transmission of the Gospel of Christianity was not due to the transmission of the Bible, but of the teaching of the early church/church members, so to speak.

Note also that the first three covenants are all passed on orally, not only from God to Adam, Noah, Abraham, but from them to their descendants. Genesis, etc. was not written until the time of Moses, yet God assumes Moses will know who God is talking about when He declares, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham,” etc.  That's a form of Tradition existing among the Israelites...why are we so opposed to it as Protestants?  I supposed Protestants would say they aren't opposed to it, as long as it's backed up by Scripture. But here we have hundreds of years, both in the Old Testament time, and in the first 400 years after Christ, when there were no Scriptures to back it up, so it had to be upheld with authority. 

There was starting to seem to be circular reasoning in the Protestant theory/approach to things, or at best cafeteria style pick-and-choose what you want to accept...based on what the Holy Spirit was showing you as an individual to be true, basically. In the Protestant world, it seems that ultimately, decisions are up to the individual's conscience, and far be it for anyone to "bind my conscience." But we've seen where that approach has gotten us--there are as many combinations of theories for theology as there are people! (Okay, that's a hyperbole, but you get the idea.) If every man is an island, just my Bible and me and the Holy Spirit, then there is vast room for distorted beliefs. There has got to be some sort of vetting process, some oversight about what can and should be taught...

Okay, so Protestants might argue that we should “Keep silent where Scripture is silent, and not bind the conscience of the believer to tradition on questions in which Scripture is ambiguous; extra-biblical may be useful, but not revelation.”  But there are issues accepted by Protestants and Catholics alike that are not explicitly defined in Scripture alone but by Scripture rightly understood in the context of a larger tradition (which Catholics argue is just as much from God as the Scripture it interprets):

• polygamy: not provable from Scripture alone
• Luther, “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture.  If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God.  In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in such a matter.”
• Paul mentions remarriage is forbidden while one’s spouse is still living (Rom 7:3, 1 Cor 7:39), but he only specifically mentions for women
• if we “let Scripture interpret Scripture” we are given biblical figures as Jacob, David, Solomon, who are spoken of with great approval by God, yet who are polygamous
• the problem, according to Scripture (1 Kgs 11:2-6), with Solomon’s wives is that they were pagan, not that they were many
• the command in Deut. 17:17 warning against having many wives also warns in previous verse against having many horses, so are we only allowed one horse?
• Paul command’s overseers to be a husband of but one wife (1 Tim 3:2, Ti 1:6); fact that Paul gives this command only to overseers (bishops) suggest (if we have no tradition outside Scripture) that other Christian men could have more than one if they liked (especially since in that culture embraced polygamy and there’s no specific teaching against it in Scripture)
• Basil the Great says the Church’s teachings on polygamy are “accepted as our usual practice, not from the canons but in conformity with our predecessors.”
• Jesus forbids divorce and remarriage (Mk 10:11-12), does not forbid multiple wives if you retain the previous ones.  But with Church Tradition of Monogamy, we understand the meaning of the passage--so we Protestants are deriving our belief from Scripture as it has always been understood by the mind of the Church
• Trinity-not explicitly in Scripture, but historic Christianity, twenty centuries of Christians, including people who had heard the apostles with their own ears and who clearly regarded Jesus as God, believed this
• when Evangelicals speak of absolute union of Father, Son, Holy Spirit, we are resting not on the Bible alone, but on the Bible in union with the interpretative tradition of the Church, just as we rested on its Tradition of the Table of Contents of Bible
• Note that the Church Councils formulated ("one in three persons") and promulgated the dogma years before the canonical books of the Bible assumed its present shape in 397 AD.    
• Protestants accept (and require) belief in this conventional understanding of the Trinity...yet we are never taught how it came to be established (for that would be giving credit to the Catholic Church Councils? During which the same councils decided upon books of the Bible that we are going to reject as divinely inspired?)
• the Closure of Public Revelation is unwritten tradition, which we all regard as crucial; nowhere in the New Testament does it say public revelation will close after the apostles (Rev. 22:18-19 refers to that book specifically)

Thus, we can see that we as Protestants are interpreting the Scriptures through the lens of the Church's historical teaching. To say Scripture is the sole source of revelation and must interpret itself, seems to say that some of the most basic dogmas and ethics of the Faith are up for grabs.

Again, this line of thought naturally leads one to the issue of Church authority--is Church Tradition (i.e., teaching that may not be explicitly found in the Bible) authoritative and binding for a Christian?? I somehow didn't see this question coming, when I asked my original questions at the beginning of the post. But such it has been with this journey--it's like a domino effect, when you answer one question, then the logical next question or implication has to be addressed, etc.

We will begin to comment on this issue in the next post...

The Bible, Part I

Recall one of the questions I mentioned facing in an earlier post was, "If the Bible is inspired and protected from error in transmission, then who's interpretation of it is correct?"  Given my Protestant upbringing, I felt the Bible was the ultimate authority, and in order for me to figure things out--which Protestant denomination I should belong to, such Baptist, Presbyterian, etc., what theology I'd hold such as Calvinism versus Armenianism, how best to evangelize to my non-believing friends and defend my use of the Bible in determining my position on social issues, etc.--then I needed to understand the origin of the Bible better (e.g., how did they decide which books to be included in this sacred text) and be better equipped to defend it.  This happened to also have relevance to the fact that folks I knew were converting to Catholicism, and I knew there was controversy there about sola scriptura (Scripture alone) on the Protestant side versus Scripture and Tradition on the Catholic side.

So when my friend had a book called, "By what authority?" by Mark P. Shea, I decided to read it. Whoa, was my mind blown by what I read and learned. And it actually made sense--it explained why I was finding myself in the predicament I was in when evangelizing and discerning what version of scriptural interpretation/theology I was going to embrace.

First, in terms of "which came first," the church or the Bible, it seems to be an indisputable fact that it is historically accurate to place the Church before the complete Bible—the church existed decades before it was all written and centuries before it was fully collated and canonized.  That was why there was a Thessalonian Church for Paul to write the earliest parts of the New Testament to!

It is also a fact that it was not until the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419) that the Church defined which books made it into the New Testament and which didn't.  So for the first 400 years, there were different sets of scriptures that folks were teaching from and finally at the councils, it was decided which set (canon) would be declared and deemed the authoritative and divinely inspired scriptures.  

So when we, as Christians, hold firmly to the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible, it is because the Church declared it to be so.  As Augustine wrote (“Against the Letter of Mani”): “I would not believe in the authority of the Gospel myself if the authority of the Church did not influence me to do so.”  Yes, 2 Timothy 3:16, says, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," but this was referring to the Old Testament Scriptures, and it was the Church's authority that canonized the additional New Testament Scriptures as a part of our authoritative Bible.  Protestants would probably say that we believe in the authority of the Bible because 2 Tim 3:16 refers to past and future Scriptures that God would give us. But this is not logical reasoning, to remove the inspiration of the Church from the loop--to say the Bible is inspired, inerrant, authoritative, but the Church who declared the books that would be in the Bible somehow is not.

Note that again at the Council of Trent in 1546, the Catholic Church reaffirmed the (same) canon, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, and the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) established the canon for the Orthodox Church. It was at this time that the Protestants removed the deuterocanonical books (the "Apocrypha") from the Old Testament canon (and Luther also wanted James removed, calling it "an epistle full of straw," and others wanted 2 Peter and Revelation removed, but they weren't). For 1500 years, these books had been included in the Bible and affirmed around the world as divinely inspired, but then a group of European reformers removed them.  Why? These books were set aside in part because they were not in the Hebrew Old Testament that the Jewish people used. However, they were in the Greek Old Testament--the Septuagint, which is the oldest manuscript of the Old Testament in existence, dated 2nd century BC, written in Greek. (Some of the Septuagint manuscripts are the oldest surviving nearly-complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in any language; the oldest still existing complete Hebrew texts date from around 1000 AD.)  The Apostles themselves were quoting from the Septuagint in the Gospels, and were teaching their congregations to use it as well. So the early, unified Church (and later the Catholic and Orthodox Churches) choose to include these books. This is an example of the church keeping with the apostolic (i.e., Christian) tradition, rather than the rabbinic (i.e. Jewish) tradition--the early Church had canonized books because they were attested by apostolic tradition, and the Catholic and Orthodox churches remained faithful to this, while the Protestant churches broke the consistency and continuity with the Scriptures that had been transcribed and transmitted for over 1500 years.

How did I not know this already?? It seems like foundational background knowledge for anyone putting such weighty stakes on the Bible in evangelical discourse. Protestants are so committed to the authority of Scripture, yet we aren't trained in knowledge about how they came to be? It seems like Protestants would be ready and equipped to defend their/our position against this narrative the Catholics and Orthodox have about the Bible's origins, but here I was blindsided. I was raised going to church and Bible studies 2-3 times a week and went to a Christian (Baptist) university, yet I was never taught about this history.  I do remember reading the intro to my NIV study Bible when I got it in high school, and it explained in very verbose/confusing language about the scholarship that went into various manuscripts and such to determine it. But this was all presented in a scholarly way with no context of what the Church throughout history had believed.  So now learning this, I actually felt somewhat deceived, like something was being hidden from me, and it seemed suspicious. I was taught to always give a reason for what I believed, and yet here was exposed an area where I hadn't been taught why and how we came to revere the Bible so--and to such an extent that we broke away from the historical church of 1500 years, proclaiming sola scriptura.

So I was compelled to keep investigating. What if those historical claims about the councils and such were somehow inaccurate? Why don't I go straight to the Bible and see what it says about the matter, what examples are there?