Scot McKnight, a popular Evangelical author and one of the most Catholic-friendly Protestants, writes about a new book called The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture.
(Biblicism is a belief in the Bible, and the Bible alone, as the anchor of faith. It stems from the philosophy of "sola Scriptura", the famous Reformation rallying cry.)
Scot's post and the upcoming book hit right at the heart of two major flaws in Protestantism:
- In order to trust the Bible you need to trust the Bible's origin. If you say the Catholic Church wasn't given the authority to define doctrines, then neither did she have the authority to define the books of the Bible back in the fourth century. How can Protestants be sure that the books that make up their Bible--and only those books--are the inspired Word of God? They can't accept them unless they take for granted the authority of Church.
- Any appeal to Scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of Scripture. Biblical interpretation is really not a question of "what does the Bible say?" but "what do I or my community think the Bible says?" But what happens when two people think the same Bible verse means two different things? Why should someone believe the interpretation of this teacher, or that writer, or that church instead of others? It really boils down to the question of authority--who has the authority to ultimately explain the meaning of the text? The Catholic Church holds that her interpretation is the true one since she alone was given the authority of Christ (Matthew 16:19), an authority which has been passed down through the centuries. She alone was promised the protection of the Holy Spirit.
Upon finishing the book, however, he converted to Catholicism.
(I don't mean to sound triumphant about someone leaving Evangelicalism for the Catholic Church, though it does bring me joy. I just think the two points above are essentially unanswerable by Protestants and form two of the strongest cases for the Catholic Church.
If you want more information on topics like this, check out the writings of Devin Rose, Brent Stubbs, and Patrick Vandapool. I also recommend Devin's new book, "If Protestantism Is True")
I'd love to hear your comments!
38 comments:
I read the comments over at McKnight's blog--very interesting.
I wonder if the focus of the whole book is on showing how biblicism is unworkable? Or does he include other topics as well?
Yeah, what I find interesting is that Scot and many of his commenters find this issue "challenging" or "a problem" but then brush it off, never going further.
I don't think you can leave it as a problem. If it's false, then you can move on (though I haven't seen an argument proving it false.) However if it's true, or even if there's a possibility that it's true, it's crippling to the Protestant framework.
It's the same thing with the Eucharist or the divinity or Christ. A reasonable person can't be satisfied thinking "well, it may be true and it may not."
These are exciting times. The information age is revealing how a lot of Protestantism has no clothes.
I wonder how many times I've pointed this out with a genuine interest in benefiting the other (love) rather than to show them how silly their religion is or how awesome mine seems to be (pride) ...
Brandon,
I had read about Notre Dame professor Christian Smith converting--good stuff. I find one statement from the Biblicalist/sola/solo scriptura camp to be the most self-defeating:
"The Bible interprets itself"
My Bible is still on my coffee table and has yet to interpret even one passage. Chesterton said as much regarding the "witness" of the Scripture when he recommended putting a Bible on a witness stand and asking it questions.
@Brent's post: Sarcasm in relation to another's view is rather immature regardless of the prophet's credentials. "THE BIBLE INTERPRETS ITSELF" in your context is nonsense. The point is normally referring to 1 Cor 2:6-16 when Paul is admonishing a misguided church.
And the revered Mr. Chesteron's quip about it being a witness on the witness stand is nothing but folly. Those 2 remarks can be "funny" in a way; however, the point has eternal consequences. So, the standard Catholic response is who determined what the Bible is must therefore be the sole interpreters.
The universal church made those decisions not the current representative institution found in a conclave within Rome. As long as evangelicals like those who "cross over" or "come home" hold to such low opinions of justification and faith proffer such arguments, then may they find a soothing refuge for their souls. But payday is coming. Do read carefully Paul's words in Corinthians...unless you need a Magesterium Master looking over your shoulder (oh, was that sarcasm)?
Lagniappe: But that's the point of my entire argument. It *was* a Church council of Church officials that decided on the official canon of Scripture. See the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).
It couldn't have been the "universal church" deciding for many reasons. First, how could you possibly hold a vote in which everybody decided which books made up Scripture? Second, how much of a majority would be needed to decide? 51%? 75%? 95%?
There were plenty of people offering different lists, which is exactly why the Spirit-guided council was needed to settle the debate.
Read here for more:
http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm
@Lagniappe
One thing I like to point out is that, while anyone is free to interpret the biblical books, a practice which the Catholic Church readily encourages, it's akin to a poet letting the masses interpret his poetry. Anyone can say something about the poem, and much of what people say will be true, and in some cases, help others understand the poetry better than the poet can. But, only the poet really knows the fullest, truest meaning. Only the humble know that it takes years of interpretation, questioning, and guidance for the reader to grasp the essence of the poem, something which is beyond the ability of the poet to communicate directly. Hence, he compiled a poem--or in the case of the Church, an authoritative library of books that hint at the essence of its message, received from Christ.
Lagniappe,
Sarcasm is a form of hyperbole. Calling someone immature is an ad hominem. One is a small gift you might get when you go to Louisiana (lagniappe), the other one finds commonly in a combox. What Chesterton and I are gesturing at is the reality that the Bible is the record of the witnesses. Christians are people of the Word Incarnate not the Word written. The later leads us to the former, but Biblicalism can border on bibliolatry which is always against Christ.
I would love to dialogue with you regarding the illogic of the phrase "the Bible interprets itself". Since I was protestant, I know what it means first-hand since I taught theology to adults and high schoolers. It is not in reference to a particular passage of scripture (btw, 1 Cor 2 assumes Galatians 2 which was written before 1 Cor), but to the notion that we bring nothing outside of the Bible to the text. A modern redacted form of solo/sola scriptura.
So, for starters, let me know which verse should be the starting point for all other Biblical exegesis. After you tell me that, I'll conclude that the Bible + your decision is true Christianity. That's fine. I can live with that conclusion, just not the conclusion "The Bible must interpret itself". Now, if what you mean by the phrase is something like the Bible should be understood as an organic whole: anticipating, revealing, and reflecting upon the person of Jesus Christ, then we agree. Or if you mean something as benign as, when St. Paul interprets Isaiah, or St. Peter interprets Joel we should attend to that interpretation, we are on the same team. However, if you mean that we can interpret the entire Scripture through lexical analysis and verse-by-verse comparison and obtain the entire deposit of faith--a part from the Church Christ gave us and Sacred Tradition--then we part ways. The history of exegesis on 1 Peter 3:21 is to evidence just one example of the debacle.
Peace in Christ
@Brent
Sarcasm may be linguistically identified as hyperbole, but it's neurologically identified as anger. (Anger necessarily inhibits rational thought by literally drawing blood and energy away from your rational brain, by the way.) So, while hyperbole can communicate importance or grandiosity, it is very distinct from sarcasm, which is meant to communicate your anger/hatred about else's ignorance, stupidity, etc..
Just sayin' ... :)
eh hem ... *someone else's* ...
I'll also add that despite this, I have seen a good number of priests defend "just anger." Sarcasm, while always an expression of anger and always at the expense of another, may very well be warranted (by which I really mean good and appropriate) to communicate precisely that: your anger at your "opponents's" apparent opposition to "obvious truths."
Some folks just don't listen until you get a little angry and insult them a little. And that's ok. It's not necessarily immature.
Jesus actually got angry and insulted folks quite a bit ...
@JohnWire,
"neurologically identified as anger"--I get what you mean but I'm not sure where you are coming from
sarcasm: from Late Latin sarcasmus < Greek sarkasmós, derivative of sarkázein; to rend (flesh). Sarcasm is a way, when used appropriately to draw blood from your otherwise indocile or flaccid interlocutor.
it worked by the way...
@Brent
The point was very simply that it is a disingenuous oversimplification to call sarcasm "a form of hyperbole."
Why not just call it what it is? It's angry joke at someone's expense. It's a communication of anger or hatred, even if it's very mild. It's a way of saying, "You're an idiot! And, even though I can't think of an intelligent way to communicate your mistake (or maybe I can, but I'd prefer to express my anger and hatred), I know you're wrong! And I want you to know how stupid and wrong you are!"
@John Wire
How is it not a disingenuous oversimplification to reduce sarcasm to hate or a lack of being able to speak directly? (which clearly, after Lagniappe engaged, I proved)
Since in the definition and within the linguistic tools, sarcasm does not necessarily have to derive from hate/anger, but could possibly derive from the sincere desire to have one's interlocutor engage a particular conversation that he or she otherwise simply ignores (which is what Brandon pointed out in his post), why could one not employ it without hate/anger in their heart? Further, I have no hate or anger for protestants who believe the "bible can interpret itself"...for I was one of them.
I get your point, my question was "I don't know where you are coming from". In other words, I don't know what motivated the comment that assumed my motivation.
Since sarcasm is a form of satire--think Colbert--this quote from Chesterton is a propos: “A man is angry at a libel because it is false, but at a satire because it is true.”
Peace in Christ
back to the regularly scheduled program (<---see sarcasm with no hate/anger just a little tongue and cheek humor)
@Brent
You're still missing the point. Sarcasm is neurologically identical to anger--not a neurologically a distant cousin of anger, but anger itself. And in our defense, from a neurological standpoint, a lot of us are totally desensitized to this anger. So, for you to say, "I"m not angry" is largely meaningless when you're doing things that neuroscience has shown us is equivalent to anger. And whether your nearly undetectable anger was intentional is irrelevant.
Sarcasm is certainly as you said it is (hyperbole). However, it is misleading to say that sarcasm is just hyperbole. To hyperbolize the point, it's akin to saying, "Genocide is a form of hunting." And, while one could certainly validate that claim, it's not just hunting. It's also mass murder and racism. But, by leaving those details out, the speaker, wittingly or not, communicates a tainted notion of genocide, which, in this case, is an outrageous and disingenuous oversimplification.
Now, you may not have known that sarcasm is anger, because you may not feel any anger. And that's fine. As the studies show, a lot of folks have no idea that many of their actions are forms of anger and hate that we've desensitized ourself to. But, as the good Christian you are, having been informed that sarcasm is, in addition to being hyperbole, also anger, I suspect you'll introspect a little. Be aware that sarcasm is an expression anger (and hatred) that you (our society/culture) is largely insensitive to, but which still can have very strong, often very negative neurological and social effects.
I encourage you to read How God Changes Your Brain: http://www.amazon.com/How-Changes-Your-Brain-Neuroscientist/dp/0345503414
And don't be defensive about it! Anger has negative effects--sure. But as I said, Jesus got angry too. And He expressed it very openly and vividly. We just need to be careful when we get angry. Whereas Jesus had all the facts, we're working with very limited knowledge/justifications for our anger. And we shouldn't deny our anger (and other ... feelings): doing so really only discredits you!
@Jon Wire
After much reflection, I will withdraw the notion that I was being sarcastic, but rather ironic. Yes, I may have over-justified the use of sarcasm, over-simplistically looking at what it means to be sarcastic, and for that I apologize.
Irony, unlike sarcasm, doesn't imply on any level bitterness or anger (which fits with my purpose and employ), and is a great tool in the art of satire. Something I enjoy quite a bit, as I can see you do as well.
God bless
Fair enough, Brent Stubbs. Fair enough.
Sola Scriptura is fatal to the virtue of faith because faith consists in submitting and private interpretation consists in judging. In faith by hearing, the last word rests with the teacher where as in private judgment it rests with the reader.
Well, did I get a head full of blogger mush today or what!!! Let's see, sarcasm is somehow neurologically attached to emotions like anger or hate; stating that I used an ad hominem as if I wanted to ignore the debate by maligning the speaker [never my intent], and not being smart enough to follow church history and all the mystical visions that pass for truth.
Immature--okay, I surrender; did not mean to pierce a nerve or anything. I are from Alarbama but I did brush my tooth today. Even let my wife wear shoes to fetch some grub from the chicken coopsezzz. I prayed a blessing, added 3 mea culpas [with one maxima just to be sure] and got back to the 'pooter to learn how to be more perspicacious.
Let us be clear about a few things: bibliolatry is not in question for believers only worship, with understanding, the Word (Jesus). The written Word is the proclamation that, as ya'll rightly pointed out, requires much study. No one bows to a Bible but to the doctrinal truths it sets forth. Next, anger is not a sin unless it is unjustified (as all of you point out in Christ himself). I am not angry, nor sarcastic, I do like some hyperbole [as Jesus used it most often to teach such as, "if thy right hand offend the..." You get the point.
Well, boys, oh, uhm, I mean, your doctorships, next time try to analyze a Bible believing mental midget with a clearer perspective so that you actually capture the imagination of your opponent. The picture you impart to me is one who is smug (oops, no no -- that be sarcasm) empowered by a superior intellectual insight that overwhelms instead of trying 1 Cor 13:1-3. But it is good to know that there are good godly people who are clearly educated beyond their intelligence (quote by Jerry Clower, a comedian). Ya'll come back now, ya 'hear? And I will read the website on Catholics defense of the faith.
@Lagniappe
That's for clearing it all up, your worship! I'll let you all decide for yourselves whether that was sarcasm or irony.
I have one lingering question for your lordship though: If there's a dispute over the interpretation of scripture, as unlikely as that may be, does the bible tell us to resolve it?
Lagniappe,
You are a funny man, and beinz that mies peeples r frum Georguh, I fell wher u comin frum.
By the way, you don't hide a good education well yourself. I do, though, appreciate the long-time southern grace of the euphemistic "bless your heart" in the other choice words you deployed.
I hope you do look at the link and check out Galatians 2 regarding Paul's "checking in" with those pillars, who apparently could have discredited his ministry (v. 2) but who gave them the right hand of fellowship so that he could preach to the Gentiles licitly (v.9).
Smugness? Hmm...I'll have to chew me some tabaker on that one. I've been called many things, but smug ain't one of them. I guess you will just have to come over to my front porch for a nice, tall, glass of ice-tea (sun cooked and sweet of course) so we can dispel these awful blogger myths.
Peace in Christ,
Brent
missed a word above:
.. does the bible tell us how to resolve it.
The RCC determined what was in the bible. Yea, well, Balaam was a prophet. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
@ Anonymous: Don't follow your point but it appears in Numbers 22 that the Lord spoke through a jackass; therefore is the RCC full of jackasses? (A little levity mi amigos). Guess there still may be hope for me!! LOL
@Brent Stubbs: You stated: "I hope you do look at the link and check out Galatians 2 regarding Paul's "checking in" with those pillars, who apparently could have discredited his ministry (v. 2) but who gave them the right hand of fellowship so that he could preach to the Gentiles licitly (v.9)."
RESPONSE: I read Gal 2 earlier but space was an issue. So, let's see what it really says. Begin with Acts 13 where Paul had the Antioch church lay hands upon signifying their calling. Acts 15:2 states that Paul was appointed to debate the discord taking place. Peter stands and rebukes the Jews who want to keep the law upon the Gentiles. Then Paul speaks!!! Then, James made a pronouncement (not Cephas) in verse 15. What is most interesting here is that through Paul and Peter, they interpreted the OT prophets and James confirmed it. Note, we have seen 2 churches so far. Now to Galatians. This is a "rehash" of what I just explained. Note in vs 2 Paul looked for those who seemed influential -- my guess is that the head gear and special designer robes were not present. Vs 9 names 3 of these fellows but it was not a matter of whether they agreed with Paul or not. He had the proof of an uncircumcised witness (Titus) [I wonder who was peeking at the urinal?] But Brent, just keep reading, Peter is exposed as the great hypocrite!! And Paul let it be known. Looks like the Rock just got rolled!!!
I appreciated this blog for I learned much, probably got a chuckle out of some of you, but the "smug" was never to taken seriously --(that's why the parenthetic note). I admit that you are all way out of my league but I study diligently, with a deep appreciation to RCC methods, ways, etc., with respect (as I was a cradle Catholic, K-12 education [best around}, aunt who live her life as a nun BVM, and still am blown away whenever I enter a Gothic type RCC because of the architecture and the reverence and the symbols that explain so much. Stain glass, stations of the cross, the smell of incense of an earlier time, Mass in Latin, an altar boy, and so on. There are few issues I have with present day Catholicism but they are Everest's to me. Who knows, maybe I will bring you home from Rome [not GA] into the splendor and grace of knowing that the offense of the cross is the source of all I need (1 Cor 1:29-30). Oh, and "lagniappe' is Cajun for a "little bit extra" not merely a gift. Lagniappe is going the second mile, it is the doing something without expecting recognition, it is about walking in the fear of God with humility. Peace to all.
Lagniappe,
Catholics are very comfortable with human frailty. St. Peter denied Christ thrice, and so the history of Catholicism starts with a thrice bang of humanity.
Nonetheless, I encourage you to re-read Acts 15:6-8:
"The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, (this is important since they were all seated) “Brethren, you know that [fn] in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us…”
What happens after verse 8 is explication and then the rest confirming their agreement with St. Peter.
Do we expect to see a full-blown papacy in the 1st century like we do today? No way. Just like we don't see a completely formulated Trinitarian theology, Christology, or Pneumetology (the doctrine of original sin is to be found even less prevalent in the early church than say purgatory). However, this doesn't negate our Lord's multiple special promises to St. Peter in the Gospels. Remember, as Catholics we don't hold that the Pope is preserved from sinning (being a hypocrite is one of those), but rather that he cannot teach error concerning faith and morals when operating under the charismatic gift of the holy spirit ("I pray your faith won't fail" (Lk 22:32) "feed my sheep" (Jn 21), "bind/loose" (Mt 18:18). It is what makes the Catholic Church the only Church that can claim, as St. Paul claims the church is (1 Tim 3:15), to be the ground and pillar of truth. No other church (except the Mormons) claim to be authoritative in this biblical sense.
Anyways, a long and early comment from me (5:20am here). I wish you the best and will keep you in my prayers. Thank you for your lively and heart-felt comments.
In Christ,
Brent
Hi Brandon,
This is an interesting post, but, I need help understanding a couple of these things. Does Christian Smith discuss the Orthodox church? It would seem misleading to trace the origins of the Bible to the contemporary Catholic Church. The reason is because the composition of the contemporary Catholic Church is quite different than it was during canonization. This difference cuts to the essential question of authority. The Great Schism was fundamentally about authority and who had correct interpretations.
The next two points I am going to make are debatable and need further research. The first is about interpretation. The second is historical but also has roots in organizational behavior.
There is no doubt Rome played an important role in the formation of the Christian doctrines and spreading the Christian faith. Yet, it seems a legitimate interpretation that Jesus calling Peter the rock of the church was a prophetic word about the significant role Rome would play, and, not necessarily a lifetime license for authority over the whole church.
To other points, Christian Smith seems to point to a hierarchical approach to understanding the Bible. This is not necessarily bad. The benefit of hierarchies is that things are often slow-moving. That is actually preferable to many of the mainline protestant churches that seem to be placing the cultural cart before the horse so-to-speak. On the other hand, when there are serious problems internal to a hierarchy the results can be devastating due to a lack of checks and balances. For example, consider the Protestant Reformation which occurred not because of Luther's burning desire to break away from the church but because decision-makers in the hierarchy of the Catholic church were restricting innovations and also differed with Luther on his understanding of grace and how one received such grace (if you look at the 95 Theses this seems to be the greatest difference).
Doug: Thanks for the comment! It's great to hear from you.
In regards to whether Smith discusses the Orthodox church, I can't say since I haven't read the book (it's not out yet.)
As for your next point, I'm not tracing the contemporary Catholic Church to the origin of the Bible. In fact I'm doing just the opposite--tracing the contemporary Bible to the ancient Catholic Church.
Also, I would agree with your interpretation about Peter if not for one thing: history.
We know the early Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as the prime authority of the Church, as the earthly mouthpiece of Christ. In the first and second centuries Peter and his successors were recognized as the ultimate arbiters of divine truth.
You see this all through Acts, but it also covers the writings of the early church fathers. Read some of these quotes to see what I mean:
http://www.churchfathers.org/category/the-church-and-the-papacy/authority-of-the-pope/
As for Luther, I think you're missing the most crucial reason for his split from Rome. It was his refusal to submit his personal interpretations and teachings to the Church that caused the blow-up.
Later on, the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church have come to a pretty close agreement on grace and justification, so the problem wasn't so much the doctrine as much as Luther's attitude that "if you don't agree *right now* with my interpretation then the Church is in error and I'm leaving."
(That's way, way overly-simplistic but it really is the core of what happened. The Church reformed many of her practices and better articulated many of her beliefs in ways that paralleled Luther's teachings, but it was his staunch individualism that spurred his exodus--and that also created the Protestant interpretative mindset.)
Finally, we should be careful not to confuse a normal hierarchy with that of the Church. The one missing piece in your paragraph is that the Catholic Church claims--and I think she is right--to have Divine guidance, that the Holy Spirit prevents her from teaching error.
She isn't a democracy like our government full of checks and balances to prevent her from going astray.
The Holy Spirit *is* her ultimate check and balance (though plenty of earthly checks and balances exist, too.)
One more thing: I'd love to hear your thoughts on this article regarding "the canon question". It deals with the Orthodox question as well, so it can probably help you more than I can:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/
Grace and peace! Again, it's so great to hear from you!
Your brother,
Brandon
I'd like to add one additional notion to ponder--not an argument--just a thought. Consider the following (from http://new.usccb.org/bible/understanding-the-bible/)
"You do not read alone. By reading and reflecting on Sacred Scripture, Catholics join those faithful men and women who have taken God's Word to heart and put it into practice in their lives. We read the Bible within the tradition of the Church to benefit from the holiness and wisdom of all the faithful."
Personally, I find this to be a highly inspiring and benevolent notion, not a Papal grasp for power or authority. Even if we pretent for a minute that the Catholic Church had no role at all in the compilation of the bible, we still cannot deny that its tradition and scriptural interpretation have produced copious notable saints. And as an aspiring saint, why would I deviate from the path known to bear fruit?
Likewise, what matter of arrogance would I have needed to turn to my calc teacher in high school to say, "Now wait right there, sir! No need for you to teach me. I'll just answer these questions however I see fit."
Whether your old calc teacher wrote the book on calc is totally irrelevant. He knows calc. He knows (or can figure out) when you've got the right answer. He knows when you've got the wrong answer. And he knows when you're completely missing the point.
@Lagniappe: What I was saying was that if the Lord could use a diviner as a prophet, then He could use a church that has fallen away to bring the canon.
John: Great point! Even if the history of the canon and biblical interpretation doesn't convince you, the fruit of it can.
Throw me in with Chrysostom, Augustine, Aquinas, and Bonventure.
Hi Brandon,
Thank you for the kind response. There are some points on which I am not educated enough to respond; however, on others I do have some thoughts.
First, it would be somewhat difficult to know whether or not the Catholic Church would have reformed some of its practices without Luther breaking away from the church. We would need a time machine to go back and tell Luther as well as others that they needn't worry, many of the church's perceived shortcomings would be reformed in due time. Then, we could sit back and watch and see if the changes came to fruition. If you know of a good conjectural history that argues the church would have reformed anyway let me know.
The Holy Spirit is the best guide and a wonderful gift. My doubt is not with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit but my realization of how capable humans are of deception (not even intentionally). I think there is no realm of human action in which our sinful nature does not interact. Thus, I find great wisdom in using many checks and balances. I think a blog post regarding checks and balances would be very interesting.
There is no doubt that the ancient church played a crucial role in the formation of Scripture. Yet, my argument was only that it was not a one-to-one mapping. In fact, in that grouping of leaders there were likely people with Orthodox or Protestant like interpretations over the scripture.
These things and others require more thought and more study --- more depth than I'm likely to delve into when classes start in two weeks.
I really enjoy reading your blog Brandon and I believe it bears fruit in my life.
With Appreciation,
Doug
Doug: I'm loving the dialogue!
First, I completely agree with your intial point. There's obviously no way to know "for sure" whether the Church would have reformed the corruption, the lax spirituality, and the rampant abuses found throughout her halls.
But I'd like to make two points. Again, trusting in the Holy Spirit's protection of the Church and Jesus' promise never to leave his Bride, I think he would have reformed her without Luther. The Catholic counter-reformation healed almost all of the abuses chastised by Luther. And it was led by faithful saints like Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, and Francis of De Sales.
Each of these saints called out the Church, demanded repentance, and corrected many abuses. But they did so from within. They never left the Church, and they never threatened to leave. There is a monumental difference between schism and reform--Luther chose the former, the saints chose the latter.
Second, we must remember that most of the abuses pointed out by Luther were either practical violations or misapplications of Church teaching. For instance, priests living opulently wasn't prescribed by Church teaching. It shouldn't be a knock on Catholicism but on those specific priests.
The same holds true with the selling of indulgences--"Catholic teaching" didn't (and doesn't) allow the selling of indulgences, though a number of priests did so anyways. But that doesn't mean the Church--in her structure, doctrines, and teachings--needs to be reformed. It means that individual Catholics need to be reformed. Nevertheless, Luther, by rejecting the Church as a whole, threw the ecclesial baby out with the bath water.
As for your comment regarding what is essentially total depravity, if there was no area that is not skewed by sinful nature--and therefore vulnerable to error--then we could not trust anything that has been passed down to us. Which is *precisely* why God promised to give and protect a Church to guide us. "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13).
As for the formation of Scripture, check out this fantastic article (warning: it's long, but good) at Called to Communion:
http://tinyurl.com/5t2zft7
Or this great one-hour talk by my friend Devin Rose:
http://tinyurl.com/6j47raw
You're questions and thought-process are both really great. I think you would find a lot of relevant information--and maybe be tossed and turned little--by a good book by Devin titled "If Protestantism Is True". It's only $2.99 for the eBook and he goes over a lot of the topics we're discussing.
Grace and peace, my good friend! keep wrestling with the questions.
Your brother,
Brandon
I had a much longer comment but the comment did not save so let me try to re-create it briefly here. First, thank you for all of the links. I currently have not read them, but, give me some time and it will happen.
Second, and (quite condensed from my earlier comment) I'm reluctant to call the Catholic church "the church" especially since at the time Luther parted company the Great Schism already had occurred and there was no true universal church. Moreover, there is an argument to be made that the West broke away from the East ---not the other way around (I'll post a link or article up later on this). So, submission to which authority?
Next condensed comment on the frailty of human judgement which was essentially a "total depravity" argument. There is a funny dance between the Spirit as our guide and our desire to guide ourselves. I believe that this is true of everyone, especially those with a so-called "independent spirit" like myself. We have trouble remembering that to need God is perfection.
Also, this confusion and inability to discern is not only and individual thing, this confusion can happen en-masse ---just consider the example of slavery.
That's about all the comments I can remember. I really appreciate your thoughts on all these matters and like I said, I will read up on those links you posted.
Your brother,
Doug
Doug,
I take issue with your statement that "at the time Luther parted company, the Great Schism already had occurred and there was no true universal church."
If a long branch breaks away from a tree, it becomes a broken branch. But that doesn't necessitate that the tree becomes a broken branch, too. It still remains a tree.
I think the Roman Catholic Church was the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church before the Great Schism. And I think she remained so afterward, as well.
When the Eastern Church split from the Roman Catholic Church, she split from the one true Church established by Christ. Most importantly, she split from the apostolic succession which finds its base in Rome (as attested by the early Church and the earliest writings we have.)
Also, I agree with you that people, especially in mass, can be completely sidetracked and confused morally, doctrinally, and spiritually. But this is the precise reason God *gave* us the inerrant magisterium of the Church. Otherwise we too would be left to sway with the times and the majority.
Within just one century, the majority of Christians have changed their minds on homosexual marriage, contraception, and abortion. Yet the Catholic remains the lone voice in the wilderness proclaiming God's beautiful, life-giving plan for sexuality and marriage.
Without the God-given assurance that the Church will never veer when it comes to doctrine or morals, we have no firm foundation to stand.
The Church, as St. Timothy says, is the "pillar and ground of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). The further you stand apart from this pillar, the rockier the ground.
Your brother,
Brandon
Take a step back from your Catholic self, for a moment though.
The concern is that the Roman Catholic Church believes that it's traces all the way back to the Peter, while the Eastern Orthodox Church believes precisely the same thing. (Or am I mistaken?) So, for an appeal to tradition and apostolic succession, we need to make a clear-cut statement indicating why one lineage is "better" or show some evidence that one tradition more closely resembles that of the early Church. Or, we need to admit that it's not clear-cut: we each simply follow the one we think is best, which may boil down to location.
One other option, we could cede the notion that each has a relatively equal claim: acknowledge that we have wrongly interpreted the emergence of these two branches as a split. In realty, perhaps they are simply branches of the same tree.
It's easy for a Catholic like me to forget about Eastern Orthodoxy when I go about my daily routine. It's easy for me to say, "our tradition and apostolic succession validate our beliefs!" But, it's just as easy for an Orthodox Christian to say the same thing.
You will know a tree by the fruit it bears. What if both "trees" appear to bear good fruit?
Jon: I'm definitely not an expert on Catholic-Orthodox history, but I will say a few things:
The Eastern Orthodox churches, as far as I understand them, don't have a central authority figure in the mold of the Pope (or St. Peter, for that matter). This is the biggest different between Catholicism and Orthodoxy: they don't recognize the supremacy of Peter among the other apostles, and therefore the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) over other bishops.
The Orthodox are led by a group of geographical patriachs rather then one figure, which has produced an interesting problem:
They have no Church councils.
Down through history, when a certain doctrine needed to be defined (or redefined) or a decision needed to be made, the Pope would typically call an ecclesial council of bishops. And he would ratify the decisions made by groupings of bishops when he was not present (this same dynamic can be seen with St. Peter throughout the book of Acts).
But without papal primacy, the Orthodox church has not had a council in their 1,000 years of existence. Why? No Orthodox authority figures seem to know the criteria for an ecumenical council.
Who can define (or redefine) truth and morals in the Orthodox church? if there's a disagreement among the bishops, who is the ultimate arbiter? If many people hold the "keys to the kingdom of heaven", then nobody really does.
All of that said, the Orthodox Church is much, much closer to Catholicism than any Protestant church. The Orthodox split was a schism. In practice, doctrine, and teaching the Orthodox Church is almost identical to Catholicism.
The Protestant split was pure heresy. Protestant communities are almost completely different than both the Catholic and Orthodox churches in all the ways mentioned above.
Regardless of the apologetical strength of Catholicism or Orthodoxy, though, they both hold claims to authority that should disturb the conscience of any serious-minded Protestant.
Likewise, a Protestant can't say "well, since I can't decide between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I will remain Protestant." If nothing else, the apostolic succession claimed by both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is a double-thorn in the Protestant sole.
So overall, the reason I am Catholic and not Orthodox is that I believe Jesus established his Church on the rock that is Peter. I believe he ordained him the first Pope, the rest of the apostles the first bishops, and that he charged them to pass their authority down through the laying on of hands. I believe, along with the early Church and church fathers, that the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) is the final arbiter of truth, and that Jesus promised him the protection of the Holy Spirit.
Hope this helps!
Your brother,
Brandon
Ah yes. And, I just checked the wiki article, which agrees with you:
Thus, despite widely held popular belief outside the Orthodox cultures, there is not one bishop at the head of the Orthodox Church; references to the Patriarch of Constantinople as a leader equivalent or comparable to a pope in the Roman Catholic Church are mistaken. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church
And one of the cited resources (which I only skimmed): http://www.antiochian.org/node/17076
Very interesting. I do recall being taught the misconception (at some point) that the Orthodox Church had a single patriarch with ultimately jurisdiction (a pope). But, if that's not the case, it's a very important distinction, as you indicated.
Thanks!
Post a Comment