‍ 

Dialogue on the Doctrinal Diversity

of Protestantism

 

What Is the Significance of Protestant 

Divisiveness?

 

Gary Hoge

 

It is my belief that Roman Catholic apologists make far too much out of the doctrinal diversity within Protestantism as over against the (supposed) institutional unity of their own Church. For one thing, Rome’s visible doctrinal unity is roughly akin to any confessional Protestant body’s visible doctrinal unity.

 

It’s true that each of the thousands of confessional Protestant bodies has doctrinal unity, but they only maintain that unity until a doctrinal disagreement arises within that confessional body. Because there exists no mechanism within Protestantism for resolving such disagreements in a binding way, the end result is usually schism and the formation of a new confessional body alongside the original. I see this as a fundamental flaw within Protestant ecclesiology, because, in the case of a doctrinal dispute, one side or the other must be in error, obviously. Therefore, the schism results in the erroneous doctrine becoming institutionalized within one or the other of the confessional bodies, depending upon which one was wrong.

 

Now this is an interesting response, Gary. You seem to be offering yet another critique of individualistic “Bible fundamentalism” and then erroneously applying that critique to every church which calls itself “Protestant”.

 

I don’t think so. Division and the corresponding institutionalization of error are not unique to “Bible Fundamentalism,” but in fact are common to all churches that call themselves Protestant. How many Presbyterian denominations are there? How many Lutheran? Are these divisions the result of doctrinal disputes? I honestly hope so. I’d hate to think that men have become so cavalier about schism that they’re carving up the Body of Christ for merely aesthetic and political reasons.

 

But whatever the reasons, my point is that Protestantism has no way of authoritatively identifying false doctrines, and that by its very nature it incorporates false doctrines within itself every time a new denomination is formed (assuming the split is based on doctrinal differences). Obviously, the presence of false doctrines and the absence of any objective way of identifying those false doctrines is not a happy combination. In Catholicism, we don’t have that problem because we have an authoritative Magisterium, which, guided by the Holy Spirit, identifies false doctrines, and proclaims true doctrines. That way, even the simplest Christian, no matter how uneducated he may be, can know what to believe, and what not to believe. In your system, how is the faithful Christian supposed to know which denomination is teaching the truth? I don’t think he can, not for sure anyway, and that’s why I don’t think your system can be the system that Christ intended.

 

Haven’t you ever noticed that the vast majority of Christians throughout history were simple folk, uneducated and illiterate? They could not possibly understand such issues as infused vs. imputed justification, or grace vs. free-will, or whether Christ was of “like substance” or the “same substance” as the Father. Obviously, there was no way they could have known who was right when these issues divided the Church. Don’t you think Jesus would have taken this into account when he designed and built His Church? I believe he did. Not for nothing are Christians described in the New Testament as sheep, and the visible hierarchy of the Church as shepherds (Acts 20:28). In your system, every sheep has to be his own shepherd. Or else, he can blindly adhere to the doctrines of whatever denomination he happens to find himself in, and just hope that its founders got it right.

 

Then, you appear to overlook the fact that even your supposedly infallible Magisterium cannot prevent schism from occurring, but merely isolate the offenders from the visible institution. The schism still occurs, but each side in effect confines the offending teachings of the other to a separate visible institution. Rome is in the same boat as Protestants on this one.

 

An excellent observation, as usual, and so true, except that I would reverse it and say that after their rebellion, Protestants found themselves in the same boat as Rome. The Reformers thought they had rediscovered the true gospel, and that their new churches would stand as a unified alternative to corrupt Catholicism. But what they discovered was that rebellion begets rebellion. No sooner had they set up their new churches, than they had to face a new crop of reformers that rose up against them and set up yet further new churches. And within these, a new generation of reformers rose up to form even more new churches, and so on, and so on. Unfortunately, the original Reformers created a climate in which it was considered praiseworthy to reject ecclesiastical authority in favor of individual judgment, an attitude that today finds its full flower in Fundamentalism, which despises the very notion of ecclesiastical authority.

 

Granted that the Catholic Church has always had to deal with heresies, and that her condemnation of those heresies has often resulted in the formation of separate visible institutions (e.g., the Nestorians, Monophysites, etc.), the question remains whether schism is ever a valid option for a faithful Christian. I submit that it is not, because it is condemned repeatedly and in very strong terms in the Bible. God commanded us to obey His Church (Matt. 18:17; Heb. 13:17), and in return he promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18), and that it would always be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). The Catholic Church claims to be that Church, and she has the historical credentials to back it up. Also, unlike her newborn rivals, she wields the same apostolic authority to bind the conscience as the New Testament Church did (cf. Matt. 16:19, 18:18; Acts 15), of which she is the fruition.

 

Consider the Reformation, which you no doubt consider to be a schism within the Church …

 

Actually, I don’t consider any schism that results in the formation of new confessional bodies to be “within” the Church. Such a schism is always a break “from” the Church.

 

… What happened when the schism began? Rome moved in its official capacity to denounce it and “resolve” the disagreement. And yet, the end result was that the Reformers formed another confessional body, albeit one they believed to be a more properly biblical one.

 

This is the same thing that happened when the Monophysites, Arians, Pelagians, etc., began their schisms. The Catholic Church, through her popes and councils, denounced those heresies, and resolved the disagreement. When I say the Church “resolved” the disagreement, I don’t mean that there was no schism, I mean that the Church authoritatively defined the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine, so the faithful could know who was right.

 

Historically, the denunciation of heresies did not prevent their founders from establishing their own confessional bodies, which they no doubt believed to be more properly biblical than the Catholic Church, it simply branded those bodies as illegitimate, and their doctrines as heretical. Protestantism was no different. It was not the ground-breaking “rediscovery” of the long-lost “true gospel” that its adherents think it was; it was merely the latest in a long line of break-away sects whose founding “prophet” claimed to have the true Bible interpretation over against the “unbiblical” Catholic interpretation. In that case, the Catholic Church did what she has always done throughout her history: she defined Christian orthodoxy against the newly devised errors of a few self-appointed “reformers.”

 

Until that new body existed, there was only one visible institution. And that institution was unable to stop a split despite its (alleged) “infallibility”.

 

Why do you think that the Church’s infallibility should have been able to stop a split? You seem to have confused “infallibility” with “omnipotence.” The Church has no power to prevent people from rebelling against her, whether her teachings are true or not. Infallibility merely guarantees the truth of the Church’s doctrines, not the fidelity of her members. There are Protestants who refuse to obey some things in the Bible; does that mean the Bible is not infallible? Does its failure to secure universal obedience to its precepts undermine its objective truth? Of course not. Likewise, the failure of some Catholics (Luther, Calvin, et al.) to submit to the Church does not undermine the Church’s objective infallibility.

 

All it could do was excommunicate the offenders, who then went off and continued their course anyway.

 

Exactly. Just as the Monophysites, Arians, Docetists, Donatists, Monothelites, etc., had done before them. Protestantism was no new thing under the sun.

 

Now what is significant about this chain of events is that precisely the same thing would occur if a heretical faction rose up within the PCA [Presbyterian Church in America], for instance.

 

Yep. Protestant churches sometimes remind me of children who swear they won’t grow up to be like their Mother, then turn out exactly the same. Four hundred years ago, it was your founders who were the “heretical faction” in our church, and you no doubt consider it wrong for us to have branded these brave and noble men as heretics. But now you say you would do “precisely the same thing” if heretics rose up in your church.

 

How richly ironic it is to see how Protestant churches behave when the roles are reversed, and they find themselves in the same position Rome was in then, having to defend their version of the gospel against the “heretical factions” of the new reformers that rise up against them, but without even the pretense of infallibility to ensure that they are right, and all the while pretending that the Scriptures, to which the “heretics” also appeal, are their supreme authority.

 

While you are correct in saying that “the schism results in the erroneous doctrine becoming institutionalized within one or the other of the confessional bodies, depending upon which one was wrong”, I suspect that you are unwilling to apply this logic to Rome and really ask yourself, “Is it possible that doctrinal errors were already institutionalized within Rome and that the Reformers were reacting to that institutionalized error?”

 

Okay, let’s consider that possibility, but while we do, let’s remember that the gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church. Therefore, there must at all times be a “true church,” in which the true doctrines of Christianity are preserved, and that church must be a visible organization. Presbyterian author Kenneth Staples wrote,

 

Some try to sidestep this argument by reasoning that as long as there were even a few individuals who remained biblically orthodox apart from the institutional or organized church, then those select individuals constituted God’s authentic church (a remnant)—thus the church was never truly overcome. … [But] Scripture does not allow for the sharp distinction between the spiritual and organizational dimensions of the church that some would like to draw. (Kenneth R. Staples, “What Think Ye of Rome? An Evangelical Appraisal of Contemporary Catholicism (Part Two),” Christian Research Journal, Spring 1993, 32).

 

So which of the sects that broke away from the Catholic Church before the Reformation preserved the true doctrines, causing the erroneous doctrines to be institutionalized within the Catholic Church? Was it the Nestorians? The Monothelites? The Pelagians? You tell me.

 

* * * * * *

 

[When Protestant churches spilt, erroneous doctrine becomes institutionalized within one or the other of the new churches, depending upon which one was wrong.] And who’s to say which one was wrong? They both claim to be right, and they both claim to be following the “clear teachings” of the Bible. How can the average believer, who is not a theologian, know which one to believe?

 

[When you say this] you are indicting Rome as well (though you do not see that because the background to your question is the question-begging assumption that Rome is infallible in its teaching).

 

I don’t see how you can say that. I’ve cited many reasons, from both Scripture and reason, to show that the Church must be infallible. It is a conclusion, not a premise. The infallibility of the Church is shown, for example, by the fact that Jesus promised that whatever Peter and the other apostles (and by extension their successors) bound or loosed on earth would be ratified in Heaven. (Matt. 16:19, 18:18). Obviously, Jesus, who is truth itself, could not promise to ratify error as truth in Heaven. On the contrary, he was promising that the Church would be so guided by the Spirit that its followers could rest assured that its decisions on Earth were approved in Heaven, and thus trustworthy and true. So, when the apostles declared that the Gentile converts were not to be circumcised (Acts 15), that decision was ratified in Heaven, and when their successors declared that Jesus was of the same substance as the Father (Council of Nicaea), that decision was also ratified in Heaven, and so on, and so on.

 

If you want to talk about question-begging assumptions, I would say that your claim that the Bible alone is the supreme authority and the sole rule of faith and practice is a question-begging assumption, for which there is no proof whatsoever in the Bible itself. Every verse I’ve seen put forward in support of sola Scriptura only supports it if we presuppose that the doctrine is true, but there is no verse or combination of verses that teaches that it is true. Can you show me where in the Bible it claims the status that you claim for it?

 

Tell me, Gary: how many “average believers” within the Roman Catholic Church can follow the complex web of historical and theological arguments that are used to support Rome’s authority claims? How many even care to try? I suspect that the average Catholic does exactly what the average Protestant does: he picks which authority he will believe (for varying reasons) and then goes on about his life oblivious to the contrary claims of others.

 

Exactly my point. Since this is an undeniable fact of human nature, wouldn’t Christ have designed His Church accordingly? As you’ve observed, most Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant, lack the natural capacity, the training, and/or the inclination to be their own theologians. Thus, most of them simply accept the doctrines of whatever church they happen to be in. Now, if Jesus was at least as smart as we are, he must have known that most believers would behave this way. In fact, he seemed to encourage it when he commanded them to “listen to the Church” (Matt. 18:17) and “obey your leaders” (Heb. 13:17). I think that Jesus promised to guide the Church into all truth, and to be with it until the end of the age, because he knew that the majority of believers would follow the Church uncritically. Therefore, if he wanted Christianity to remain true, he knew he would have to protect the doctrines of the Church.

 

The Catholic who subordinates his own opinion to that of the Church is doing precisely as Christ intended and commanded. People who do not are being disobedient, not just to the Church, but to Christ himself (“He who listens to you listens to Me; he who rejects you rejects Me”—Luke 10:16). In fact, the Bible warns us against those who advocate their own opinions over against the doctrines of the Church. The apostle Paul tells us, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” (Rom. 16:17). Again, he writes, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” (2 Thess. 3:6).

 

* * * * * *

 

[The Catholic Church’s Magisterium preserves the doctrinal unity of Catholicism.] That is what I see as the advantage of the Catholic Church’s authority structure, over against the Protestant churches’ lack of such a structure. There are always dissenters in all churches, of course, but in the Catholic Church their views do not become institutionalized. Instead, they are explicitly rejected as error, and the faithful always know, or can know, what the truth is.

 

I can only reply, “Ditto for any confessional Protestant body.”

 

Except that you guys don’t claim infallibility, so the faithful can’t be sure that the dissenters are wrong. Indeed, they might well be right. Tell me, were the dissenters who broke away from the PCUSA back in 1974 and formed the PCA right? I assume you think they were, and I assume that those who remained behind in the PCUSA think they weren’t. But when schisms like that one occur, how can those among the faithful who lack the natural capacity, the training, and/or the inclination to understand the issues know whom to follow? In Protestantism, how can you tell who is a dissenter and who is a reformer? It seems that in every case, the parent body warns the faithful against the “dissenters and schismatics” in the newly formed body, and the newly formed body warns the faithful against the “apostasy and heresy” infecting the parent body. You guys have no authoritative voice to which the faithful must listen, except Scripture, which every group claims to be following, against the “apostates” in every other group. That leaves the unsophisticated, perhaps illiterate Christian out in the cold. He simply doesn’t have the ability to weigh the often complex arguments of the various groups. He is a sheep without a shepherd.

 

You cannot defeat this rejoinder without begging the very questions we are discussing by simply rendering your private judgement in favor of Rome.

 

The very fact that we are forced to “render our private judgment” in favor of one of the thousands of competing Christian groups is a sad legacy of the Reformation. I do not believe it is a decision that God ever intended for us to have to make.

 

However, I think there is a right way and a wrong way to go about making that decision. You seem to view the present situation in Christendom from the perspective of one newly arrived from Mars, who looks around and sees thousands of denominations, of which the Catholic Church is merely one among many, with no more claim to validity than the others; just another set of doctrines to evaluate by the light of our own private judgment.

 

But I look at it from a historical and biblical perspective. I see in the Bible that God promises to the Church His guidance, and that it will never fail. I also see that the Bible demands unity, and absolutely forbids schism. It even says that those who cause “factions” [Greek: αἱρέσεις (haireseis)--“a religious sect, faction”] “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Gal. 5:19-21).

 

I then note how this was carried out in history. Although there were many heresies that came and went, before the Reformation there was essentially only one set of beliefs that could be called Christian (the doctrines of the Eastern Orthodox are virtually identical to ours). Then the Reformers came along claiming that the Bible was so clear that anyone could understand it properly without the help of the Church, or at least that they could. On their own authority, they established their own churches, and they put their theories into practice. There followed a proliferation of beliefs such as the world had never seen, even within the lifetimes of the Reformers themselves. By now, Protestants have had 480 years to decide what the Christian faith is, yet they only become more divided as time passes.

 

Seen in this light, perhaps the choice is not so difficult after all. :-)

 

Doctrinal controversy and the schisms caused by them are simply a fact of the world God has put His Church in.

 

Which is precisely why Christ gave us an authoritative Church to serve as the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), an infallible teacher to guide the unsophisticated but faithful believers past the rocky shoals of heresy. But in the Protestant worldview, it would seem that God left us as orphans to fend for ourselves. Apparently we’re sheep who get to vote on whether we want to follow the shepherds that Christ placed over us. Unwilling to put up with sound doctrine, we can surround ourselves with teachers who say what we want to hear. (2 Tim. 4:3).

 

There is nowhere in Scripture where we are told that all Christians everywhere at all times will always agree on every conceivable issue, nor even that such a thing is what Christ meant in praying for the unity of His Church in John 17. Some divisions among brethren are expressly forbidden and unity of mind expressly commanded, as in 1 Cor. 1:10-13. Other issues are left up to one’s own conscience, such as certain dietary customs and the observance of special days in Romans 14.

 

This is true in Catholicism, too, of course. There are “doctrines,” which must be adhered to with the assent of faith, and then there are “customs and practices” (priestly celibacy, certain prayers, devotional practices, vestments, etc.), which are changeable, and can even be discarded if need be. Also, within the parameters of defined doctrine, there is still room for debate. Consider, for example, the differences between the Thomists and the Molinists.

 

Our motto is: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. But, you see, in our Church, the differences that we have within the parameters of defined doctrine don’t sinfully divide us into autonomous new churches. If a dispute flares up, the Church steps in to more narrowly define the parameters of Christian doctrine. In the case of the Thomists (who are very similar to Calvinists in their theories of predestination) and the Molinists (who approximate Arminians to some extent), they embrace each other as fellow Catholics. They share communion, and they maintain the unity of the Body of Christ. Also, being faithful to that Body, I’m sure that each of them would renounce their positions if the Church ever ruled against them (which it has not done, but has declared that both are acceptable interpretations of the biblical and historical data).

 

Still other divisions are denounced in the strongest terms, with the elders being commanded to shun those who teach them (Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 6:3, 20-21). Division is a fact of the Christian life (which means either Christ’s prayer has not been answered yet or that it means something entirely different from 100% visible institutional unity).

 

“Differences” (within the parameters of defined doctrine) are a fact of the Christian life, but “divisions” don’t have to be. For a thousand years there was 100% visible institutional unity. Those who, like the Monophysites, for example, left the Church and established their own churches simply ceased to be a part of it.

 

1 Cor. 11:19 tells us that divisions among the brethren are God’s way of showing what doctrines are approved.

 

Yes, exactly. Throughout Christian history, heresies have always forced the Church to define her doctrines more precisely, and to show which doctrines were approved, and which were heretical.

 

And yet, none of this division can be charged to the Scriptures themselves, as if it is somehow God’s fault, as if He made His Word so obtuse that nobody can understand it properly unless they possess infallibility.

 

It is certainly not God’s fault, even though he did give us a collection of Scriptures that can be interpreted in many ways, because he also gave us an authoritative Church to interpret them faithfully. In other words, he gave us everything we needed to know the truth with certainty, and to maintain unity. That unity was only destroyed when men sinfully arrogated to themselves the interpretational role that God had given to the Church.

 

I don’t see how you can say that everybody can interpret the Scriptures properly without the gift of infallibility, when the Scriptures themselves warn us that they are prone to misinterpretation (2 Pet. 3:16). But tell me, if God’s word is so clear that everybody can understand it properly without having either personal infallibility or recourse to an infallible external authority, how do you explain the abject failure of sincere Christians to agree on a single interpretation? There is fundamental disagreement even within the tiny branch of Protestantism that you claim as “true Protestantism.” How can that be if the Scriptures are so perspicuous? Why does sola Scriptura work when you Presbyterians practice it, but it doesn’t seem to work when anybody else does?

 

Sinful people are sinful people, and I submit that any one of us—even Pope John Paul II—could conceivably read things into Scripture that simply are not there. There is no guarantee that anyone will always get Scripture right, even on matters of ‘faith and morals’ (an ad hoc categorization of God’s truth, in my opinion).

 

I certainly grant you that Pope John Paul II is a sinner saved by grace, just like the rest of us, and that he is not inherently infallible. But neither were the authors of Scripture. Thus, if human sinfulness negates the possibility of papal infallibility, then it also negates the possibility of biblical infallibility, because the Bible was written by sinful men. But if God could render the sinful authors of Scripture infallible when they wrote it, he could likewise render a sinful Pope infallible when he interprets it. Papal/conciliar infallibility is a necessary attribute of the Church, if the Church is to maintain doctrinal unity (as the rampant disunity among those who deny this doctrine shows). Since God explicitly desired that His Church possess doctrinal unity, it stands to reason that he must have given it the attributes necessary to achieve that end.

 

Now, I should note at this point that I can provide evidence that the Church is infallible (by citing Scripture, history, and reason), but I can’t prove it. Neither can I prove that the Bible is infallible. There is an element of faith required in order to assent to both propositions. However, it is not an unreasonable faith (especially if one already accepts the testimony of the Bible). If God is an intelligent God, and if he wanted His people to know the undistorted truth, it stands to reason that he would have given them an infallible Bible. And if he wanted His people to know for certain what that Bible means, and to avoid the doctrinal anarchy that characterizes Protestantism, it stands to reason that he would have vested interpretational authority at a level above that of the individual. (Of course, he could have chosen to guide each sincere Christian to the proper interpretation of Scripture individually, but unless the PCA comprises the sum total of sincere Christians, you must acknowledge that this is something he has obviously not chosen to do).

 

What we are guaranteed is that the Church will never fall to the gates of Hades and that one day it will be presented to Christ as a spotless bride. What a blessed hope!

 

And yet, Protestantism presupposes that the gates of Hades did prevail against the Church! One can only believe that Protestantism is true if he first believes that the Church fell into flagrant heresy and apostasy, becoming, as Dr. Loraine Boettner put it, “more heathen than Christian,” and that for 1400 years, it taught the wrong plan of salvation, a false gospel deserving of the eternal anathema of God! If that’s not the gates of Hades prevailing against the Church, then I don’t know what is.

 

Apparently, the true gospel would still be lost to this day if Martin Luther hadn’t “rediscovered” it. (By the way, if the Scriptures are so clear, why didn’t somebody “rediscover” the true gospel long before Luther?) Ironically, this “restoration” mentality is typical of many pseudo-Christian cults and sects, but for some reason, Protestants, while they object to that mentality in others, don’t seem to recognize it in themselves. For example, Presbyterian writer Kenneth Staples wrote, “A frequent characteristic of cults is their emphasis on a ‘remnant identity’ — that is, they claim to be God’s exclusive agent or people who restore ‘authentic Christianity,’ which has been corrupted or lost.” (Kenneth R. Staples, “What Think Ye of Rome?,” Christian Research Institute Journal, Spring, 1993, 32). Isn’t that what Luther and Calvin claimed?

 

The usual Roman Catholic criticisms of Protestantism (e.g., that there are 23,000 or 30,000 different denominations) really do fail to take into account what I said in my last letter: that there are not 23,000 “versions” of how one gets saved, how one is to live the Christian life, etc. There is basic agreement on a number of issues, and basic disagreement on a number of issues. . . .

 

If you think the differences between various Protestant groups are largely trivial, then why are they so divided? Why aren’t you a Lutheran? Why aren’t they Calvinists? By pleading that you all have “basic agreement” on the core doctrines of the gospel (the five “solas”) aren’t you only implicating yourselves more deeply in the sin of schism? Given the extreme nature of the biblical condemnations against schism, I would think you would want to emphasize, rather than downplay, the differences between you, in order to show that your separation is justified. Since you must one day defend it at the judgment seat of Christ, I would think you would want to show that your schism is the result of profound doctrinal differences.

 

… Just like in the Roman communion.

 

There are not basic disagreements in the Catholic Church. We teach one set of doctrines, and everyone knows what they are. That some dissent from those doctrines is irrelevant, because one can only judge a group by its official positions. Consider the PCA, for example. Does the PCA lack doctrinal unity because some of its members reject its tenets, or refuse to abide by its teachings? No, of course not. I happily acknowledge the PCA’s doctrinal unity. You guys have a statement of what you believe (the Westminster Confession of Faith) and your denomination officially adheres to that. Until that changes, the presence of dissenters in your ranks does not undermine the unity of your doctrines, because the dissenters don’t define your doctrines, they are in rebellion against them.

 

When I speak of disunity, I’m speaking of Protestantism as a whole, not of individual denominations. I’m speaking of the institution of Protestantism, an institution that was supposed to be a credible alternative to Catholicism. Protestantism, in all its branches, claims sola Scriptura as its formal principle. It claims that the Bible is clear and that it is formally sufficient for doctrine and practice, without the need for an authoritative interpreter (i.e., the Catholic Magisterium) and without the need for the apostolic Tradition preserved in the Church.

 

Well, we’ve had 480 years to see whether these claims are true, and I submit that it is precisely the failure of these claims, the failure of Protestantism’s formal principle, that destroys its credibility as an alternative to Catholicism. Protestantism claimed that it did not need a Magisterium or Tradition, but only the Bible. However, as soon as it put that theory into practice, it disintegrated into thousands of sects that couldn’t agree with each other on what the “clear teachings” of the Bible are.

 

I don’t deny that your denomination has unity within itself, but with only about 200,000 members, your denomination is a tiny drop in the sea of Protestantism. All those other Protestant denominations out there also follow sola Scriptura, and although they too have unity within themselves, they disagree with you, and with each other on fundamental issues. I think this proves that Christians do need an authoritative interpreter for the Bible, and they do need recourse to the apostolic Tradition preserved in the Church. Protestantism’s formal principle doesn’t work, it’s a prescription for anarchy and chaos, and therefore Protestantism is not a credible alternative to Catholicism, in my opinion.

 

You’re really not in a better position than I am, Gary. You just think you are because your particular communion is so much bigger than mine and makes so many grandiose claims about itself. In the final analysis, your choice to follow Rome is every bit as much a “private judgement” as is my choice to follow the Reformers. And because you are fallible, you could be wrong.

 

A very insightful argument. Very good. It’s certainly true that my decision to follow Rome was my own decision. But as I said before, I don’t think it is a decision that God intended for his people to have to make. It is an unhappy fact of the shattering of Christendom at the hands of the Reformers.

 

I’m intrigued, though, by the underlying assumption of your statement, which appears to be that because I am fallible, I can never be objectively certain of anything, even divine revelation. But it is precisely because I am fallible that I stand in need of divine revelation. So God gave me an infallible Bible. But it is precisely because I am fallible that I need an infallible interpreter to keep me from misinterpreting it. That makes sense, doesn’t it?

 

I think that God intended Christianity to be a matter of certainty, not of conjecture. I know what I believe, and I know why I believe it, and I know why the alternatives fall short. As I see it, if I am right to be a Christian, then I am right to be a Catholic. In both cases I made my decision in the light of a great body of evidence, some of which we are now debating so amiably. It requires faith to be a Catholic, no less than it does to be a Christian of any kind, but God has been pleased to give us evidence for our faith. Having examined that evidence very carefully, I am convinced that Protestantism is not a valid alternative to Catholicism. Thus, in my opinion, if Catholicism is untrue, then Christianity is untrue.

 

So your infallible Church has not really helped you find the truth at all; it has merely removed the need in your mind for a critical approach to disputed issues. Is there a dispute about baptismal regeneration? Just take it to the Magisterium. They’ll decide it for you. End of story.

 

Kind of like the Church in Acts 15, eh? Is there a dispute about Gentile circumcision? Just take it to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. They’ll decide it for you. End of story.

 

Perhaps in a world where everyone was college educated, where they were fluent in the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages, where they were experts in the ancient cultures of the Near East, and where they were trained in theology from the cradle, Christians could afford to take a “critical approach to disputed issues.” But in the real world, the one in which Christianity actually has to function, the vast majority of Christians are uneducated peasants and farmers, shepherds and fishermen. They are quite simply incapable of subjecting the “disputed issues” to the kind of critical theological analysis that your system requires them to perform.

 

Do you really think that God designed a theological system that only works for the most educated believers, and then only in theory? Do you see Christianity as a kind of quasi-Gnostic religion for the enlightened few, or is it a family and a kingdom, in which each member of the Body can be certain of his faith? Simply put, did Christ leave us as orphans to fend for ourselves, and to individually sort out the disputed issues, or did he leave us shepherds to guide us all, even the simple and uneducated, through the bewildering array of false teachings, and to keep us safe from the ravenous wolves that the Lord warned would come?

 

And if you accept their judgement on the grounds that they say they are infallible (remember, only they can tell you what Matthew 16 means, and they have said it means they are infallible), you are quite simply begging the question.

 

“Begging the question,” technically known as petitio principii, is where the truth of a conclusion is assumed in the premises. It would indeed be begging the question if I said, “We know that the Church is infallible because it claims to be, and being infallible, it cannot be wrong in that claim.” But I have never said that. None of the arguments from Scripture or reason that I have advanced assume the infallibility of the Church, but I believe that together they all lead to that conclusion.

 

If you want to see “begging the question,” read any Protestant argument for the inspiration of the Bible. They usually go like this: “We know that the Bible is inspired because 2 Tim. 3:16 says, ‘All Scripture is God-breathed.’ Therefore, God’s own Word tells us that it is inspired.” This is obviously faulty because we must agree beforehand that the Bible is God’s Word in order to accept the divine authority of its self-testimony that it is God-breathed. Of course, you can use this very same argument to prove that the Koran and the Book of Mormon are also inspired.

 

Can you demonstrate the inspiration of the Bible without begging the question? If so, I’d like to see it.

 

Now, I am all for taking disputed matters to the whole Church for adjudication. I believe that the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon, for instance, rendered correct judgements about the deity of Christ and His two natures. But you don’t really take disputed matters to the whole Church, Gary. You only take them to your local communion, which then presumes (on the basis of question-begging exegesis of Matthew 16:18-19, which, it can be proven, was never the ‘unanimous consent of the Fathers’) that it can pass a judgement that is binding on all communions everywhere. That is quite interesting, since Vatican II apparently places ‘separated’ churches within Christ’s Church. Why doesn’t your Magisterium consult with the PCA or the LCMS [Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod] or the UMC [United Methodist Church]? Quite simply, because it does not believe it can err, and that it therefore does not [need] anyone else’s input. And again, it believes this on the basis of question-begging exegesis of certain passages.

 

I think you’ve misunderstood the teaching of Vatican II with regard to non-Catholic churches. Again, I think a quote from Karl Adam’s book, The Spirit of Catholicism, will help you understand our position:

 

The Church would belie her own deepest essence and her most outstanding quality, namely her inexhaustible fulness and that which guarantees and supports this fulness, her vocation to be the Body of Christ, if she were ever to recognize some collateral and antagonistic Christian church as her sister and as possessing equal rights with herself. … One God, one Christ, one Baptism, one Church. There can never be a second Christ, and in the same way there cannot be a second Body of Christ . . .

‍ 

But non-Catholic communions are not merely non-Catholic and anti-Catholic. When they set themselves up against the original Church of Christ, they took over and maintained a considerable amount of the Catholic inheritance, and also certain Catholic means of grace, in particular the sacrament of Baptism. They are therefore, if we regard them as a whole, not mere antithesis and negation, but also to a large extent thesis and affirmation of the ancient treasure of truth and grace that has come down to us from Christ and the apostles . . . And in so far as they are genuinely Catholic in their faith and worship, it can and will and must happen that there should be, even outside the visible Church, a real growth and progress in union with Christ. (Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1924), 169-175).

 

We couldn’t consult with the PCA at our last ecumenical council because the PCA didn’t exist at the time! :-) But more generally speaking, we don’t consult with the PCA or the LCMS or the UMC for the same reason we didn’t consult with the Arians at Nicaea, or the Nestorians at Ephesus, or the Monophysites at Chalcedon. We do acknowledge that you guys are Christians, and we thank God for you, but we believe that your visible institutions are man-made, and not a part of the visible Church, which subsists only in the Catholic Church.

 

* * * * * *

 

A good example [of the self-correcting nature of the Catholic Magisterium] is the case of Fr. Leonard Feeney, who, in the 1940s, misinterpreted the doctrine, “no salvation outside the Church” (and Pope Bonifice VIII’s bull Unam Sanctum, which you mentioned before [see our Dialogue on anathema and excommunication]), and started teaching that anyone who is not a formal member of the Catholic Church is automatically damned to hell. The pope, Pius XII, personally condemned that teaching (and excommunicated Fr. Feeney for disobedience when he repeatedly refused to come to Rome and explain himself). The Vatican II Ecumenical Council also condemned this erroneous interpretation, as I discussed previously. Thus, on any issue, the faithful can always know the true teaching of the Church, because the Church is a living teacher, and can always correct the errant interpretations of its members, if they are willing to be corrected. And they had better be, because Jesus said, “If he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” (Matt 18:17, KJV). Jesus knew that there would be many conflicts and disputes over the centuries, and that’s why he left us a mechanism (an authoritative Church) to settle such disputes in a binding way (as, for example, in Acts 15). As the Bible says, the “Church of the living God [is] the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

 

I’m glad you told me about the Father Feeney issue; I had heard his name mentioned in one of the resources I have used, but no background to the situation was given. Now I at least know what the problem was. At any rate, everything you said about the disciplinary process Feeney was subjected to could just as easily have occurred within the PCA, as it has a clear confessional standard and a living voice of correction for erring members. I fail to see how Rome is superior to the PCA on this point.

 

As I see it, the advantage that we have is that our ecclesiastical system is consistent and harmonious, whereas yours is inherently contradictory. I say that because of your twin affirmations that Scripture is your supreme authority, but that the Church is a “living voice of correction for erring members.” It would be fine to claim Scripture as your supreme authority, if you denied the authority of the Church. It would even be fine to affirm both the supremacy of Scripture and the authority of the Church, if you claimed that the Church was infallible in its interpretation of the Scriptures. (Of course, if you claimed that, you would be Catholic :-) But since you deny that your church is infallible, you must acknowledge that its interpretation of Scripture could be wrong. And since Scripture, not the church, is your supreme authority, it follows that if you, or any other Presbyterian, conclude that your Church, in its fallible way, has misinterpreted Scripture, you would have to reject the interpretation of the Church.

 

But, of course, that undermines the idea that the Church is a “living voice of correction for erring members.” Nobody ever thinks he’s an “erring member” when he disagrees with his church. Luther didn’t think he was an erring member of the Catholic Church, and neither did Calvin. Rather, every Protestant who disagrees with his church thinks he’s a reformer following in the grand tradition of Luther et al., and if the Church tries to exercise its “living voice” and correct him, he will place the authority of the Scriptures, as he interprets them, above the fallible, man-made determinations of his Church. “Here I stand,” he will say, “I can do no other. God help me.” Thus, your whole system is founded on a Catch-22.

 

The only qualification I would give this statement of yours [that Jesus left us a mechanism (an authoritative Church) to settle doctrinal disputes in a binding way] is that the authority of the Church is derivative, depending for its validity on its conformance with what God Himself has said in Scripture.

 

As I said, a vicious little Catch-22. You say the Church’s authority depends on “its conformance with what God himself has said in Scripture,” and, as always, there is the unspoken caveat, “as interpreted by me.” If I’m wrong about that, then tell me, who determines when your church is teaching in conformance with Scripture? If your submission to your church is contingent upon your evaluation of the extent to which it is teaching in conformance with Scripture, then I really don’t see how you can call that church an authority. It seems to me that an organization that cannot bind its followers to accept its decrees is not an authority, but an advisor.

 

Remember, Paul told us that false teachers would rise up from within the elders (Acts 20:30), . . .

 

Yes, their names were Arius, Donatus, Pelagius, Nestorius, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Cranmer, etc., etc. :-)

 

… So it is just not enough to hold forth some elders and say, “The elders have spoken; so be it.”

 

You raise a good point. How can we know, when some elders (e.g., Martin Luther) rise up and start teaching new things, whether they are teaching the truth? Let me quote to you again from St. Vincent of Lerins, from the fifth century:

 

How are they to distinguish truth from falsehood in the sacred Scriptures? They must be very careful to … interpret the sacred Canon according to the traditions of the Universal Church and in keeping with the rules of Catholic doctrine, in which Catholic and Universal Church, moreover, they must follow universality, antiquity, consent. And if at any time a part opposes itself to the whole, novelty to antiquity, the dissent of one or a few who are in error to the consent of all or at all events of the great majority of Catholics, then they must prefer the soundness of the whole to the corruption of a part; in which same whole they must prefer the religion of antiquity to the profaneness of novelty; and in antiquity itself in like manner, to the temerity of one or of a very few they must prefer, first of all, the general decrees, if such there be, of a Universal Council, or if there be no such, then, what is next best, they must follow the consentient belief of many and great masters. Which rule having been faithfully, soberly, and scrupulously observed, we shall with little difficulty detect the noxious errors of heretics as they arise. (Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, 70).

 

I’m afraid Luther doesn’t fare too well by that test. Neither does Calvin.

 

In the modern Catholic Church, the bishops must teach in conformance with what has been taught before, and they must teach in union with the pope. If one of them flies off on his own and starts teaching that Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead, or that the Bible is not the Word of God, then he is no longer teaching in union with the pope, or with the continuity of the ancient faith.

 

While I am on that verse, let me direct your attention to the fact that the solution Paul gave for this problem of false elders was not, “Go ask Peter who is right,” but rather, God and His word (vs. 32). This seems strange to me if Peter really was the universal bishop to whom everyone else was answerable. But I digress. :)

 

First of all, verse 32 was not the “solution Paul gave for this problem of false elders,” it was simply a word of blessing as he left the Ephesian elders. Surely that is obvious, isn’t it? At any rate, I don’t see how committing the elders to the grace of God can be morphed into a refutation of Peter’s preeminent role in the Church. You’ll have to explain that one to me. Also, I don’t think “word of His grace” here refers to written Scripture (since most of the New Testament hadn’t been written yet), but to the orally proclaimed gospel message. This is the meaning the phrase “word of God” almost always has in the New Testament.

 

I think you might benefit from re-reading the context of this passage. Paul was telling the Ephesian elders to “keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [Greek- ἐπισκόπους (episcopous), i.e., bishops]. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” He warned them that false teachers would arise, therefore they should be on their guard. Paul had just spent three years training the Ephesians (Acts 20:31), and now he was warning them to keep careful watch over their flock. This is the same duty that Catholic bishops retain to this day. Each bishop has the “offices of teaching and ruling.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1558) and “as Christ’s vicar, each bishop has the pastoral care of the particular Church entrusted to him.” (CCC, 1560). Does this mean that they are not answerable to the pope? (By the way, who is your bishop?)

 

However, just to enlighten you a bit, let me quote from two Protestant sources regarding Peter’s role in the early church:

 

And what about the keys of the kingdom? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or major domo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. . . . So in the new community which Jesus was to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward. (F. F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1983), 143-144.)

 

This [the word “Peter”] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. . . . Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence (cp. Gal 2:11 ff.). (W.F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1971), 195.)

 

I would also like you to note that I have no problem accepting the truth of 1 Tim. 3:15. But also please note that the verse does NOT say that the Church IS truth, but that it is merely the support of the truth.

 

How can a church that teaches error be the support of the truth? Wouldn’t such a church be the “pillar and foundation of error”? Considering that the Bible says the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, 1 Tim. 3:15 must always be true. But I don’t see how the Church before the Reformation could have been the pillar and foundation of the truth if it was teaching a false gospel. Tell me, is this verse true now? In what sense? What church is it describing?

 

As you pointed out, no one claims that the Church is truth. The Church is the guardian of the truth (which, as I said, necessitates its infallibility). According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” (CCC, 86).

 

We all know what is truth, for Jesus told us in John 17 as He spoke to the Father, “…Thy Word is truth.”

 

I can’t help but smile and shake my head a bit. It seems that whenever a Protestant sees the phrase “word of God,” he automatically thinks “Bible.” Do yourself a favor, break out a concordance, and see what the real biblical meaning of this phrase is. You’ll see that it almost invariably refers to the oral proclamation of the gospel. If you think all of that message was inscripturated in the New Testament, then I challenge you to show me where in the New Testament it says that. On the contrary, I believe that the “truth” is the whole of the apostolic deposit of faith, of the which Bible is a part (the central part, in fact).

 

* * * * * *

 

The lack of a binding authority is why Protestantism is, and always has been, and always will be, divisive by its very nature. This is manifestly obvious. The only time it maintains any confessional unity is when it approximates Catholicism by swearing allegiance to extra-biblical definitions of faith like the Westminster Confession. As you said, “My denomination, the PCA, holds its official positions based on the Westminster Confession . . . the visible hierarchy holds to the Confession in unity.” That is very similar to the way the Catholic Church holds to the definitions of the councils, and you can see that such extra-biblical definitions are indeed necessary for maintaining confessional unity for any period of time. But the difference between the PCA and the Catholic Church is that your hierarchy holds to this confession voluntarily, and only because it currently agrees with it. But that could easily change. Adherence to the Westminster Confession could be modified, or even discarded outright by a simple majority vote.

 

So the PCA holds to the WCF voluntarily, but the Roman Catholic Church does not hold to the Council of Nicea voluntarily? I fail to see the point you are making here.

 

Simply that the popes and subsequent councils are bound by the previous decisions of the Church. We still hold to the Council of Nicaea, not because each subsequent generation of Catholics has reevaluated it and approved it (as if we could take a vote and reject it if we felt like it), but because we believe that it is through the popes and councils that Christ guides His Church. We could no more reject Nicaea than we could reject the New Testament. It is absolutely binding on us, like it or not. Anyone who would reject it would simply cease to be Catholic.

 

In theory, could not another “ecumenical” (term used lightly since Rome is not the sum total of the visible Church and therefore cannot truthfully say that anything it does unilaterally is “ecumenical”) council be called which would (God forbid!) overturn Nicea? It has happened before (see Athanasius’ De Synodis).

 

First of all, would you deny that Nicaea was an ecumenical council on the grounds that, by excluding the Arians, it did not represent “the sum total of the visible church”? Was Ephesus not ecumenical because it excluded the Nestorians? We believe that the visible Church is the Catholic Church, to which all true Christians are in some way joined. We believe in ONE holy Catholic and apostolic Church. If we had to include heretical communions whenever we held an ecumenical council, we never could have held one.

 

Secondly, no, it is not possible for an ecumenical council to overturn a previous ecumenical council. We hold all of them to be infallible. Regarding Athanasius’s De Synodis, that is a very long document. Could you direct me to where in that document Athanasius says that an ecumenical council has overturned a previous ecumenical council? I’m quite certain that you have misunderstood whatever Athanasius said in that document, because in his lifetime there was only one ecumenical council, that of Nicaea. Athanasius died on May 2, 373, which was eight years before the second ecumenical council, Constantinople I. Therefore, it would have been impossible for him to say that an ecumenical council had overturned a previous ecumenical council, because even if it happened, he did not live to see it.

 

If we are going to judge the unity of a body by the criterion of 100% agreement on every conceivable issue, then Rome is just as divide doctrinally as is Protestantism!

 

If you mean agreement among the laity, then I agree, there is never 100% agreement. But I am referring to creedal unity, the official statements of the various confessional bodies. The people within those bodies may dissent from the official teachings of those bodies, but that does not undermine the institutional unity therein. In the case of Catholicism, there is, and always has been, institutional, doctrinal unity. As I mentioned above, there are always dissenters, but their dissent, and their heretical ideas do not become institutionalized. That is not so in Protestantism. Dissent and new theologies become institutionalized all the time. Even within Presbyterianism, there have been splits and there are now several sub-denominations.

 

The first sentence is simply untrue, Gary. The Church Fathers were certainly not unanimous on doctrines like the papacy and the canonical status of the Apocrypha, and both Pope Gelasius and Pope Hormisdas condemned as heretical books containing the idea of the bodily assumption of Mary, specifically listing the Assumption as a heretical teaching. These are merely a few examples.

 

I’ve already discussed the meaning of the phrase “unanimous consent” elsewhere, so I won’t repeat myself. But here I was not talking about unanimity on an individual level, as if no Catholic has ever disagreed with another. I was talking about unanimity on an “institutional” level. In other words, that institution known as Catholicism teaches only a single set of doctrines, and always has. That institution known as Protestantism, which was supposed to be a credible alternative to Catholicism has shattered itself into a thousand little pieces, and it cannot tell the world what it believes. Its assertion of the perspicuity of Scripture has been disproved just about as thoroughly as history can disprove something, and its foundational doctrinal methodology, sola Scriptura, has been an abject failure, and is the direct cause of its aforementioned shattering.

 

The second sentence relies upon the assumption of Rome’s infallibility, and so ignores the possibility that heretical ideas have been institutionalized within Rome already.

 

Not really. I was simply pointing out that in Catholicism it is impossible for dissenters to have their ideas institutionalized. That has nothing to do directly with the question of whether the Church is infallible. But if the Church is infallible, then its doctrines remain forever protected, because dissenters cannot change them.

 

When there is a doctrinal dispute, whether in Catholicism or Protestantism, someone must be wrong, and because in Protestantism, such disputes usually end in the formation of a new confessional body, error must necessarily be incorporated into one or the other of the resulting confessional bodies. In other words, if the split between the PCA and the PCUSA was doctrinal in nature, then false doctrines must be incorporated into one or the other of these denominations. Catholicism at least retains the possibility of complete doctrinal verity, which if it existed at all in Protestantism, would be impossible to identify.

 

And as for multiple denominations within Presbyterianism, that is so. However, I am not aware that the others, such as the OPC and the PRC reject the Westminster Confession of Faith. In fact, all Presbyterian denominations (excepting the apostate liberal ones, of course) . . .

 

Of course. :-)

 

… hold to the “Three Forms of Unity”--the WCF, the Belgic Confession, and the Heidelberg Catechism.

 

I can just see St. Augustine saying, “The three what?” What did Christians do before they had the “Three Forms of Unity”? 1500 years seems like a long time to wait to establish the creedal identity of the Christian faith. :-)

 

Hence, what we have with these multiple institutions is roughly akin to Roman Catholicism’s local parishes. I see no problem here.

 

If you’re referring to Presbyterianism, as opposed to Protestantism as a whole, then I must admit my ignorance of your governmental structures. But I assume by the name “presbyterian” that your church is not episcopal in nature (i.e., ruled by bishops), and if so, I would say it is nothing like our local parishes. In Catholicism, our parishes are all under the jurisdiction of a local bishop, who in turn, is under the jurisdiction of the Pope. Are your individual churches, including the PCA, PCUSA, OPC, PRC, etc., all under the jurisdiction of the same hierarchical authority? If not, then as I said, they are nothing like our parishes. Also, if you truly don’t see the problem with denominationalism, you might benefit from a Bible study on the subjects of division, schism, and unity. :-)

 

* * * * * *

 

You may say that your own denomination maintains doctrinal unity, and I would answer that I’m sure it does, but only by the biblically condemned mechanism of schism and division, whereby doctrinal disputes are not actually resolved, but instead the people simply take sides and form new denominations. Jesus wanted all of Christendom to be united, not just your denomination. But the practice of sola Scriptura apart from the authority of the Church has caused Christendom to be shattered into thousands of squabbling sects, in direct defiance of the Lord’s will.

 

I must point out to you that you are again merely assuming that Christian unity is chiefly a matter of visible institutions rather than of conformity to apostolic teaching. This begs the question at hand.

 

Actually, unity is a matter of both visible institutions and conformity to apostolic teaching. Jesus said that the Church would be like a city on a hill that cannot be hidden. That speaks of a visible institution. Likewise, he endowed that institution with a “chief steward” (cf. Matt. 16:19 with Isa. 22:22), and with apostles ruling in union with him. Again, a visible hierarchy requires a visible institution. But that institution must also conform to apostolic teaching, which Protestantism, as a whole, does not. Ironically, by dichotomizing between visible unity and doctrinal unity, Protestants have lost both.

 

You are also ignoring the fact that I pointed out above--that Rome’s “infallible” judgement doesn’t do anything more than what Protestant churches do in the event of doctrinal conflict: isolate the offending teachings in a separate body.

 

Which I addressed above.

 

There are basically only two divisions in “Protestantism”: classical and modern, with the former breaking down into Lutheran, Calvinist, and Zwinglian divisions, and the latter breaking down into a spectrum of gradually declining orthodoxy.

 

How, then do you explain the fundamental doctrinal disunity among Lutheran, Calvinist, and Zwinglian divisions? You say they are unified with regard to the “Solas,” but the problem is, those groups understand the “Solas” in different ways. Lutherans and Calvinists may both say, sola fide, for example, but they disagree on what that means. When the Lutherans say, “faith alone,” they mean that faith causes justification, and combined with the water of baptism, it causes regeneration. When Calvinists say, “faith alone,” they mean that regeneration comes first and leads to faith and justification. That seems like a pretty significant division, and at the very heart of the gospel, no less. How is one justified and regenerated, according to “classical Protestantism”? There is no consistent answer.

 

Unfortunately, what makes this question work is a conflation of regeneration and justification. Both Lutherans and Calvinists believe that the instrument of justification is faith alone. That is all that sola fide means; it doesn’t extend to conceptions of regeneration.

 

Okay, I see what you’re saying here. I’m surprised how quickly I’ve forgotten the Protestant tendency to dichotomize everything. I sometimes wish that Protestants would take as their motto, “what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Mark 19:6) :-) It sometimes seems that everything that God has put together: faith and works, baptism and regeneration, a visible and invisible church, justification and sanctification, Scripture and Tradition, etc., Protestants have torn apart with all of their “solas.”

 

We Catholics see justification, sanctification, and regeneration as different aspects of the same process, a process whose instrumental cause is baptism. Thus, when we are baptized, we are sanctified, justified, and regenerated. Didn’t Paul say that very thing in 1 Cor 6:11? “But you were washed [i.e., baptized], you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

 

Nevertheless, don’t you find it troubling that Protestants don’t have a consistent answer to the question: “How can I be born again”? Don’t you also find it troubling that Protestants don’t have a consistent Eucharistic theology either? Jesus seemed to think that was a very important subject. The early Christians considered baptism and the Eucharist to be the very centerpieces of the Christian faith, and yet Lutherans and Calvinists have very different baptismal and eucharistic doctrines. Remember what St. Augustine said:

 

The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than “salvation,” and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than “life.” Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? . . . If, therefore, as so many and such divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lord’s body and blood. (A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, 1:34, [A.D. 412]).

 

For the early Christians, the heart of the gospel was baptism and the Eucharist, not a list of “solas,” and yet Lutherans and Calvinists find themselves at opposite ends of the spectrum regarding both baptism and the Eucharist. So much for perspicuity!

 

I am not thoroughly conversant with the Lutheran theology of baptism, so I can’t really go into that part of it. I will have to add that to my ever-growing list of things I need to study! (I’m sure you have such a list, too, right?) :)

 

Yes, and thanks to you it’s getting longer! :-)

 

* * * * * *

 

Certainly it is true that today’s evangelical Christians do not deny the cardinal doctrines as do the liberals. Rather, they consistently rally around a set of non-negotiable doctrines such as the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, the deity of Christ, His atoning death on the cross for their sins, His bodily resurrection, and His future second coming...

 

But those are all doctrines that Catholics “rally around” too! If these are the “cardinal doctrines,” why are we separated?

 

We are separated because of Rome’s unbiblical insistence on the supremacy of the Pope, . . .

 

Unbiblical? You may not agree with our exegesis, but we do have one. In fact, there is a growing consensus among Protestant scholars that the “Rock” in Matt. 16:18 does refer to Peter himself, not to his confession or to Christ. Also, verse 19 clearly echoes Isaiah 22:22, which describes the role of the chief steward in the Davidic kingdom. That kingdom is a type of Christ, the Son of David, and the chief steward is a type of Peter. This is rather obvious from a comparison of the two passages, and Protestant scholars have acknowledged that the meaning of this verse is that Peter was to be the chief steward over the Christian Church. I would say that it is your denial of the supremacy of Peter that is unbiblical.

 

… the infallibility of the Magisterium, its denial of sola fide, . . .

 

Do you reject the biblical book of James because of its denial of sola fide (vs. 2:24), as Luther did? Do you say, as he did, that it has “nothing of the nature of the gospel about it”?

 

… and its exaltation of human traditions to the level of divine truth.

 

We do not exalt human traditions to the level of divine truth. What we call Tradition (with a capital “t”) is nothing other than the teaching of the apostles, preserved and handed down in the Church. The Scriptures form a part of that Tradition. Apostolic Tradition is no more a “human tradition” than the Bible is a “human book.”

 

* * * * * *

 

In your paper, “Impractical Practicality”, you wrote that the idea that Protestants agree on the fundamentals of their faith is “demonstrably false.” I agree with that completely. Be glad that you only have to study one set of doctrines when you’re studying Catholicism.

 

Actually, I did not say “Protestants” do not agree on the fundamentals of their faith; what I said was that “we”--meaning the broad landscape of American Christians I am analyzing in the essay--do not agree on the fundamentals of “our” faith. … My point was that American “evangelicals” do not agree with classical Protestants (whom my essay is favoring, even though I don’t use the actual term) on the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Both groups identify themselves as “evangelicals” and sometimes even as “Protestants”, but they mean different things by the terms. … Hence, they [American “evangelicals”] can multiply “versions” all they like and it doesn’t affect real Protestantism one bit. Real Protestantism is united on the five “Solas” and on several logical implications of those “Solas”. I would submit that this unity is, in a sense, institutional (despite the multiplicity of institutional “forms”), and that it is every bit the equal of Rome’s.

 

I would say that the founders of “classical Protestantism,” as you’ve defined it, did not agree with each other. Not by a long-shot. For example, Martin Luther maintained many Catholic doctrines, such as regenerational baptism, regenerational infant baptism, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the adoration of the Eucharist, etc. He emphatically rejected Calvin and Zwingli. In fact, he said, “Oecolampadius, Calvin . . . and the other heretics have in-deviled, through-deviled, over-deviled, corrupt hearts and lying mouths, and no one should pray for them.” (Quoted in Will Durant, “The Reformation,” vol. 6 of 10-vol. The Story of Civilization, (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1957), 448). Of Zwingli, Luther said, “Zwingli was an offspring of hell, an associate of Arius, a man who did not deserve to be prayed for . . . He is dead and damned, having desired like a thief and a rebel, to compel others to follow his error.” (Quoted in Martin J. Spalding, The History of the Protestant Reformation, (Baltimore: John Murphy, 1876), vol. 1, 466).

 

Likewise, Zwingli rejected Luther and Lutheranism. He wrote, “The devil has made himself master of Luther, to such a degree, as to make one believe he wishes to gain entire possession of him.” (Quoted in Spalding, Reformation, 463). Zwingli’s Zurich church was also quite emphatic: “[Luther] will not and can not associate himself with those who confess Christ . . . He wrote all his works by the impulse and the dictation of the devil.” (Quoted in Spalding, Reformation, 464).

 

As I mentioned, Martn Luther rejected John Calvin as a heretic, and for his part, Calvin returned the favor: “Luther had done nothing to any purpose . . . people ought not to let themselves be duped by following his steps and being half-papist; it is much better to build a church entirely afresh.” (Quoted in Spalding, Reformation, 465). And he also wrote, “I am carefully on the watch that Lutheranism gain no ground, nor be introduced into France. The best means . . . for checking the evil would be that the confession written by me . . . should be published.” (Quoted in John Dillenberger, John Calvin: Selections From His Writings, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1971), 76/22).

 

If you think there was agreement among classical Protestants, as you’ve defined them, that is not what they themselves thought. In a letter to Luther’s colleague Philip Melanchthon, John Calvin wrote, “It is indeed important that posterity should not know of our differences; for it is indescribably ridiculous that we, who are in opposition to the whole world, should be, at the very beginning of the Reformation, at issue among ourselves.” (Quoted in Patrick F. O’Hare, The Facts About Luther, (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, rev. ed., 1987), 293). So, if you disavow the disunity that exists among those who call themselves Protestant, and say, “they can multiply ‘versions’ all they like and it doesn’t affect real Protestantism one bit,” how do you explain the fundamental disunity that existed among those whom you call “classical Protestants,” and who, according to you, define “real Protestantism”?

 

I have seen quotes from Luther and Calvin which are contrary to the ones you presented, so I really don’t believe that the two men never changed their minds (assuming the quotes are accurate on both counts). And whatever their disagreements, your quotes did not disprove my original contention that they were united on the Five Solas.

 

What good is this alleged unity on the five man-made “solas” if you still have doctrinal disagreements that are so profound you feel you cannot worship together as part of the same communion? Also, where in the early Church do you find a defense of the “five solas”?

 

I do admit that I am in need of further reading on the history of the Reformation, and I acknowledge that it had its fair share of warts. But that is what happens when you recognize along with the Bible that human teachers are fallible and sinful. :)

 

Amen to that. My own study of the Reformation has shown me that the Catholic Church of that era was plagued with moral corruption, even at the highest levels. There can be no question that it was badly in need of real reform. But that doesn’t mean that it was necessarily corrupted doctrinally. You see, there is a difference between “infallibility” (the inability to err doctrinally) and “impeccability” (the inability to sin). The Church is gifted with the charism of infallibility, in order to safeguard the gospel message for all generations, but it has never been granted impeccability. On the contrary, the Church is full of sinners, from the pope on down, and it always has been. (Sinners were all God had to work with when he decided to build a church, after all.) But what’s truly miraculous is the way God has preserved the teaching of the Church, despite the sometimes less-than-stellar caliber of its human leaders.

 

However, I will say that in speaking of the large degree of agreement between Luther and Calvin, I never intended to portray classical Protestantism itself as some kind of mirror-image of the way Rome likes to think of herself—as a completely unified visible hierarchy. This way of viewing the visible church lies behind every criticism you can make of differences between classical Protestants, but you should be able to see that the mere presence of differences is neither an argument against Sola Scriptura (since the doctrine doesn’t teach that Scripture will produce total unanimity among believers all at once) nor an argument for Rome’s authority. You can’t overthrow your opponent’s arguments and establish your own by begging the questions.

 

I don’t think that the doctrine of sola Scriptura and its counterpart, the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, are disproved just because Protestants can’t agree on every nit-picky little thing; I think that sola Scriptura is disproved because the Bible doesn’t teach it, and in fact teaches against it, and I think that the alleged perspicuity of Scripture is disproved by Protestants’ abject failure to agree on substantive issues. You guys all claim that the Bible is so clear, and then you go and formulate radically contradictory doctrines, even on essential issues, and you all claim that your various doctrines represent the “clear teachings” of the Bible.

 

The Westminster Confession states, “Those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” (WC, Chapter 1, VII). As I said before, we’ve had 480 years now to test whether that statement is true. If the Scriptures were as perspicuous as the Westminster Confession says they are, I would expect that all Christians who read the Bible in good faith, both the scholarly and the “unlearned,” being guided by the Holy Spirit, would agree on “those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation,” seeing as how they are “so clearly propounded.” However, the observed data is just the opposite. Those Christians who rely on Scripture alone have radically different ideas about what is “necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation.” I have to wonder how much evidence it would take to disprove the assertion of perspicuity. Would Protestantism look any different if the Scriptures weren’t perspicuous? Would it be even more divided? Is that even possible?

 

It seems to me that either most Protestants are wicked and blind, and willfully suppressing the “plain truth” of the perspicuous Bible, or this doctrine just isn’t true. And it won’t do to say, “Well, most of these guys aren’t really Protestants,” because that should be irrelevant. I don’t see anything in the Westminster Confession that indicates that only “true Protestants” will attain to a sufficient understanding of the key doctrines “so clearly propounded” in the Bible. Yet, you seem to think that the Bible is proved to be perspicuous simply because Presbyterians generally agree among themselves what it means, and you conveniently ignore the massive numbers of other equally sincere, equally intelligent, equally devoted Christians who also rely on the Bible as their supreme authority, but who disagree with you on many points of doctrine. We Catholics regard that as a self-evident disproof of perspicuity, and I have not yet heard an adequate counter-reply from Protestants.

 

Protestantism, as an entity, claims that it does not need our Magisterium, because the Scriptures are perspicuous. Okay, we Catholics have called your bluff: If they are so perspicuous, then show us your common understanding of their meaning. I don’t see how you can escape the obvious conclusions of your inability to do that, unless you deny to other Protestants their good faith as well as their Protestantism.