Called to Communion

Please visit a new website project in which I am enthusiastically engaged: Called to Communion: Reformation Meets Rome.

We have just launched, choosing Ash Wednesday as our kick-off. Spread the word with all those who may be interested in engaging in the discussion. The contributors are all Catholics who converted from Reformed protestantism (plus me). Among them are several seminary graduates, notable Reformed seminaries at that.

I can attest to the group's sincere desire to have a charitable discussion in the pursuit of Truth, for the sake of our obedience to God's will. Our aim is to write in a more thoughtful, more carefully edited way than blogs typically allow. This is our small contribution to the pursuit of unity among Christ's followers, that we may be truly one body, one vine. I believe this to be the end of properly oriented ecumenism.

Protestant Conversions Critique: Church Envy

[This will conclude my previous two posts, here and here, discussing Mr. David Hagopian's article analyzing Protestant conversions to Catholicism.] Mr. Hagopian wraps up his analysis of why Protestants convert by pointing out instances from conversion stories where converts appear to have been taken in by glimmer over theology.

Church Envy. Under his heading "Liturgical Longings", Mr. Hagopian describes the converts' "hysteria" over what they perceive to be beauty (even sublimity) in the mass. A liturgy-is-beautiful claim fails to be a persuasive ground for conversion in several ways.

First, for many people taken in by this liturgical luster, "it is the kind of worship with which they have grown up." But "just because we are accustomed to something, just because we have a fondness for something, or just because we may long for the good ol' days, doesn't mean that what we are accustomed to, fond of, or long for is necessarily right." I completely agree, but this was not the claim of the converts (that they were seeking to return to the familiar). Rather, the claim was that the liturgy and the mass have inherent beauty, and as Mr. Hagopian does not deny this here, I presume the point remains unmoved.

Second, he observes, Neocatholics claim to be drawn to the liturgy because "the liturgy, for the most part, is the same no matter which Catholic church a parishioner attends." But "[s]ameness, however, is no guarantor of propriety. After all, something can be the same and yet be erroneous...". I completely agree, but I doubt that any converts were arguing that the liturgy is true because it is the same everywhere. My observation has been that converts claim, rather, that the Catholic Church's liturgical practices are beautiful in part because they are consistent across the Church. That there is a laudable quality to Christians worshipping in unity remains unmoved.

One argument briefly noted, and a decent one, is that love of liturgy is no reason for conversion, because other churches have liturgy too (he noted the Orthodox, Episcopals and Lutherans). I wonder though how Mr. Hagopian feels about those other bodies, or why he would be more opposed to a brother converting to Catholicism over Orthodoxy (or Episcopalianism!).



Under the heading "All That Glimmers", Mr. Hagopian describes how several converts were taken in by the physical beauty of Catholic church buildings (columns, stained glass, candlelight and all). He notes a common claim of metaphysical experiences along the road to conversion. But these experiences "do not prove that Catholicism is true". Also, they do not prove Protestantism false, as the liturgical Protestant denominations have qualities of physical beauty as well.

This argument confuses the burdens of proof. Indeed the claimed beauty of Catholic services or buildings does not prove it to be true, but I have never heard any convert claim that is was such a proof. I have heard them say that this beauty drew them in enough to consider the Catholic theological claims of truth. Those claims are what should be weighed when deciding whether Catholicism is true or false. When tracing the Church from the time of Christ and the Apostles to the present, the burden is on the believer to prove the point at which Catholicism became false, and not the opposite. If one must prove Catholicism remained true at each moment in history, then one is facing a perpetual presumption that it is false. Such a standard both leads to fallacy and is uncharitable.

Mr. Hagopian considers other reasons for conversion, but I will stop here to mitigate the risk of going on for too long. I believe we can learn from his discussion of conversions (which is implicitly a portion of a larger discussion on ecumenicity) that default positions and burdens of proof can wreak havoc on the goal of unity. It is so easy to lay waste to an opponent by setting a high bar of proof against his position, and asserting that he has not met it (in our own judgment). I believe that this does not meet the charitable standard of fraternal conduct by which we are bound to treat one another in the Body of Christ. I see this failure on all fronts, and pray that I could avoid this myself in the future (for I have certainly failed in the past).

Protestant Conversions Critique: Sola Scriptura

[This continues a previous post.] Mr. Hagopian continues his efforts at helping "Protestants to come to grips with the reasons why [ ] Neocatholics have set their compasses toward Rome" (internal citations omitted), by turning to the relation of tradition to Scripture.

Sola scriptura. Mr. Hagopian's says that "Neocatholics not only appeal to apostolic succession and to the antiquity of the Roman Catholic Church; they also claim that Scripture was never intended to be the believer's sole guide for all of faith and practice"; they claim they need Scripture and tradition. Christ left a church, not a book, their argument goes, and the very act of defining a canon "requires and presupposes an infallible church."

While the Canon Question shook me from my Sola Scriptura upbringing more than any other, Hagopian dismisses it in two sentences which each repeat the same thought: "The church didn't create Scripture; it simply recognized" its divine character. The Neocatholics are guilty of failing to distinguish between recognition of Holy Writ and its creation.

Frustratingly, he offers no explanation of why this distinction is relevant. It is not evident why an infallible church, which would be required to produce infallible Writ, would not also be required to produce an infallible identification of Holy Writ. Would Mr. Hagopian agree with Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul's conclusion that the Bible is a "fallible collection of infallible books"? Would he agree with Protestant Keith Mathison's view that the church was authoritative to define canon, but only until the 4th century (see The Shape of Sola Scriptura)? In terms of needing an infallible authority, I think writing Scripture and recognizing it is a 'distinction without a difference.' I discussed various Protestant views on the Canon Question here.

Having summarily dismissed that the Church was needed to identify canon infallibly, he turns to the need for the church as an interpretive authority. A Neocatholic analogy here, that the church is needed to interpret something as complex as the Bible because even our simple Constitution needs a Supreme Court to interpret it, is also summarily dismissed. The Supreme Court has "arrogated" (assumed without justification) powers to itself, and become a judicial tyrant. He then implies that the Catholic Church has done the some, and become an ecclesial tyrant. Besides his curt dismissal of one analogy, he does not take up the Neocatholic belief that the Church is somehow needed to interpret Scripture. This is unfortunate. What is one to do when one's interpretation of a biblical text, say on a matter like divorce, does not line up with that of his church? Change churches? Sit unhappily in dissent?

Finally, he takes up the charge of the Neocatholic that "the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura leads necessarily to an "incipient subjectivism"" (citation omitted) because each man becomes his own individual interpretive authority. This position "is riddled with error", I am reassured, because it relies on the "fallacious assumption that a plurality of interpretations necessarily entails subjectivism." The "many interpretations competing in the Protestant marketplace of ideas" are not all false. Indeed, "[t]hey can't all be false, since we know that Christianity is true."

Mr. Hagopian is certainly right that some individual Protestants' interpretations of Scripture are objectively true, even if subjectively derived. I believe his implication is that a group of people (in this democracy of ideas) will be able to corporately identify an objective truth. But this is of little moral comfort for the millions of Protestants whose individual interpretations of Scripture lead them, say, to use contraception or have themselves sterilized. Does the open marketplace of ideas excuse their morally erroneous conclusions? (Note: I am assuming ex arguendo that contraception is objectively immoral.)

He next denies that there is objectivity in Tradition. Rather, he says, Catholicism is at best a system of replacing the individual's subjective views with the subjective views of one man, the Pope, or perhaps a few men, the Magisterium. This, of course, presupposes that the Catholic claims of receiving infallible direction and guidance from the Holy Spirit are false. With the likes of John 14:26 in mind ("But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you"), I wonder if this is a completely fair denial to make.

Mr. Hagopian's discussion on Sola Scriptura continues, but I will wrap it up by noting that without his admitting the possibility that the Holy Spirit could preserve a visible, actual Church, the conversation is a bust. He rejects the Sacred Tradition of Catholicism because it invariably tends to displace Scripture. By displacing Scripture with Tradition, the Neocatholics have accepted that Scripture is not necessary. But this position falls apart if one accepts that the Holy Spirit may work within a Church in ways other than through Scripture alone, if one accepts that Christ's authority could have passed to a visible, actual Church, and not to certain preserved writings alone.

This serves as yet another reminder to me of how vital it is that ecumenical discussions burrow down into the foundational layers of dispute. To bash our opponent-brothers over our surface differences may be to aggravate our divisions, and further offend the will of Christ expressed in John 17: "I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."

Conversion Ratios

Awhile back I inquired whether there were any reliable statistics of Christian conversions between Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism. This was prompted by my wondering if there were many Protestants who had made the move, or instead just a few isolated but well publicized such moves.

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus of First Things, in his Public Square section of the August/September 2008 edition, shares some news of a possible answer (here, subscription required):

"That “U.S. Religious Landscape Survey” issued by the Pew Research Center last February continues to be sliced and diced by various analysts [Thos.: I recently discussed some of its information here], including Robert Benne, who writes in The Cresset, a magazine published by Valparaiso University. “Continuing the list of surprises about Catholicism,” Benne writes, “ten percent of all Protestants are former Catholics but eight percent of Catholics are former Protestants. That eight percent represents a considerable number, around five million. Converts to Catholicism usually are far more intense about their faith than cradle Catholics, so I suspect that this eight percent injects new vigor into the Church.” He also notes that a striking number of Catholic converts are prominent intellectuals. A young man who is active in Catholic ministries at an Ivy League university speaks warmly of their cooperation with evangelical ministries such as Campus Crusade for Christ. Ecumenical cordiality, however, does not preclude an element of evangelistic rivalry. “The big difference,” he says, “is that they aim at the weakest Catholics while we aim at the strongest evangelicals.” The claim is that evangelicals who are more theologically versed and religiously committed are more open to Catholicism, while Catholics who become evangelicals were, for whatever reason, alienated from Christianity. Put differently, religiously serious evangelicals are more likely to become Catholic, while religiously lapsed Catholics are more likely to become evangelicals" (emphasis added).

I, for one, was surprised that the "delta" between conversions to X and conversions to Y was only 2%. It would be interesting to compare fertility rates of these two pools of Christians (and perhaps other factors that a statistically savvy person could hammer out) to make some forecasts if present patterns were to continue. I mean, it is not a given that a +2% in favor of Protestants = long term Protestant growth. I'd still like to know the Orthodox rates, though they are a much smaller pool for statistical purposes.

Protestant Conversions Critique: Tradition

Pardon my being nearly two decades late, but a loved one recently brought to my attention an article by David Hagopian, Esq., entitled Romeward Bound: Evaluating Why Protestants Convert to Catholicism. It was originally published in an OPC church's magazine Antithesis, and is available here (at 11), and here. I would like to comment on this article; as near as I can Google, no one else has.

Mr. Hagopian analyzes, and asserts the fallacy of, a plethora of conversions from Protestantism to Catholicism. His goal is to help "Protestants to come to grips with the reasons why these Neocatholics [(his term)] have set their compasses toward Rome, because only then will Protestants be able to see some of the shortcomings of their espoused faith..." (internal citations omitted).

Tradition. Hagopian cites tradition as that which Neocatholics embrace "above all else". They think Catholicism is far "richer" because of its unique claims to living tradition and the teaching authority of the Apostles' successors.

He attempts to show the fallacy of this reason for conversion by first taking up the Catholic claim that the Church was founded on Peter, the rock. While conceding that "some Protestants" handle Matthew 16 ("for thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church") poorly, he addresses the Neocatholic's "unconvincing", question-begging interpretation of this passage. Even if Peter is the "rock" to which Christ referred, "Neocatholics simply assume that Christ thereby gave Peter papal authority" (emphasis in original). They "also assume that this passage grants a right of succession". Finally, "[u]ntil and unless Neocatholics can prove that Christ, in Matthew 16, specifically granted Peter papal authority and that Christ thereby intended to establish an unbroken chain of apostolic succession from Peter onward (both of which are read into the text), they have not met the exegetical burden that is incumbent upon them."

The last sentence speaks of an essential matter that I was surprised to see a lawyer presuppose. His argument is this: Catholics assume that Matthew 16 gave to Peter the papacy, and that this involved a right of succession, but since they cannot prove these assumptions, their position is false. His surprising presupposition is that the "burden" here is "incumbent" upon Catholics. But, I wonder, why would the onus probandi be on Catholics in their interpretation? If the Church Fathers refer to Peter as having some form of primacy over all the Bishops, and if the Church has maintained throughout the centuries that the Petrine See involved a type of succession, it seems instead that the onus is "incumbent" upon the party proferring an alternative understanding of Christ's designation of Peter as "rock" (if one insists on having burdens of proof at all). Perhaps Mr. Hagopian disagrees with this view of history, but in that case he would do well to address the matter, instead of presupposing that Neocatholics bear any burden in interpreting Matthew 16. Also, his argument presupposes that Catholics, or at least Neocatholics, look to prove their positions from Scripture alone.

He does address history enough to dispute Catholicism's claims to be the Church dating back to "antiquity". In a few sentences he seeks to debunk this claim. He tells us that, "along with dispensationalism, Catholicism simply assumes that the church sprang up in the first century A.D.", but that the proper "truly covenantal view" sees that the Church did not begin on Easter, but when God declared a covenant people for Himself (i.e., the Jews). "Thus", to be connected with antiquity, one should be Reformed Protestant.

I believe this is a non sequitur: if one believes that one should be affiliated with the church where it has ties to antiquity, since antiquity began with the Jews of the Old Covenant, one should be Reformed Protestant. How is Reformed Protestantism more affiliated with covenantal Jewish antiquity than, say, Orthodox Judaism? I believe Mr. Hagopian's position is that since the Reformed recognize the spiritual nature of the church as the new covenantal People of God, they therefore share in that nature. And since they share in it, they are the proper tie to "antiquity". But I believe Catholics also recognize that God has maintained a Covenant People from the Old Covenant onward (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1093). Therefore, they would seem to have a claim to "antiquity" either under the Neocatholics' purported view (back to the first Easter) or Mr. Hagopian's view (back to the Covenant with Abraham).

Also, Mr. Hagopian did not discuss how a 3rd or 10th or 14th century Christian would feel about this proposition on antiquity. I believe Christians of those eras would have held as today's Neocatholic does, namely, that their ties to the Christ-commissioned (new) Church validates their orthodoxy. As Christ is the culmination of the Old Covenant, a proper line of affiliation with Him is a line of affiliation to all of redemptive history.

To be continued (next up: Sola scriptura)...

Good Pope, Bad Pope

After Pope Benedict XVI's recent Papal Visit to the United States, Protestant voices have been surprisingly affable in speaking about the man. I don't doubt that his visit left a positive impression for many Protestants. One fellow blogger spoke of the effect that the Pope's visit had on his decision to return to Catholicism. For Protestants willing to consider that a man can be both Pope and a Christian, I imagine most see "B16" as a good Pope. And the same would be said, I imagine, of his predecessor.

But I wonder whether there would be so much discussion of Protestant conversions to Catholicism if we had a really bad pope - a horrible, wicked pope? It seems that when one accepts Catholicism as the proper constitution of Christ's Church, one should not have their faith in the Church swayed at all if a future pope turned out to be a wicked person.



Separate to my discernment on the faith, I've been reading about how the principle of freedom of the seas flows from the political guile of Pope Alexander VI (d. 1503). In a story of political intrigue, he issued a papal bull granting sovereignty to certain states over parts of the sea (thereby excluding others from those areas of the sea). For example, he divided the Atlantic Ocean, giving half to Spain and half to Portugal. Because of this, the Dutch and British were excluded from the lucrative East Indies trade. (Aside: this later led to the Dutch hiring the famous Hugo Grotius (d. 1645) (Protestant) to find a way around the pesky Bull, and the principle of freedom of the seas (embodied in Mare Liberum) was born.)

At any rate, strife-filled international politicking, and the practices of simony and nepotism (for the children born of the Papal Mistress) in Alexander's life are enough to tell me that he was not what even open-minded modern evangelicals would call a good pope. It reminded me that times have not always been so good for the Catholic Magisterium.

I do not mean to dismiss the truth that wicked people and brokenness drive lost souls away from Christ and His Church. That certainly will always be the case, and seems rooted in many points of Scripture (not least of which is John 17). But I still have to ask (of myself) the hypothetical: if the next pope were an Alexander VI, would I still find the arguments for Catholicism and Apostolic succession convincing? Am I merely persuaded by pleasant conditions? One buying Apostolic succession must be accept this possibility and place it in its proper context.

Why I Am Protestant

Why am I still a Protestant?, a recent commenter implicitly asked.

I imagine that when a man is in the process of deep conversion, he is unable to grasp exactly what is happening, or where he is along the way (until it is over). Therefore, I can only speculate about what has been happening to your faithful Thos.

I risk being boring if I give too extensive a recap of my own exposure to Catholic doctrines, so to be as brief as possible, I diagram (and necessarily exclude my efforts spent looking for a third way):

Proudly Reformed → puzzled at my inability to defend sola Scriptura against a Catholic critique → puzzled that Reformed writings don’t refute the critique → puzzled that my Reformed pastors can’t refute the critique → becoming increasingly skeptical of the Protestant authority scheme → my present state. (I discussed my thoughts through this process in more detail in a series of posts ending with this one.)

The days of being proudly Reformed, and confident that its teachers could address any supposed deficiencies, are about four years behind me. But it has been some time indeed since I’ve felt that I’ve been able to progress one way or another (back to my roots, or further from them).

So why have I stalled in this “no-man’s-land”? Why am I still Protestant?

I don’t know. I told Kim recently while discussing the idea of being reasoned into Catholicism (or any other conversion, I suppose), “I'm not sure you can be *purely* reasoned into [conversion]. I mean, reason may be persuaded, and one still can't get over some anxieties." Let me try to clarify.

The best I can figure at this point is that conversion, as a process, involves at least two major changes. My working theory holds that it involves both intellectual conversion and emotional (i.e., sentimental) conversion. Further, I believe the intellect and emotions need to be persuaded much further beyond 50% of certainty before they are actually converted (a sort of 'principle of inertia'). My intellect was persuaded beyond 50% that the authority claims of Catholicism are stronger than those of Protestantism relatively long ago. And I think that within the last six months I approximately reached my inertial tipping point. When I perceived that this was happening, I got excited that I might have enough conviction to end this long and tiring journey…

But then the neon lights just weren’t flashing quite like I had hoped. I have continued to harbor a kind of skepticism that is particularly provoked by certain Catholic images, prayers and practices. My present theory is that while my intellect has converted, my emotions (or Protestant sentiments) have not. If this is true, it’s an unpleasant spot to be in. When I read, write, discuss, or debate, I hold a higher respect for Catholic theology. When I pray, meditate, and talk to myself in the quiet of the night, I remain a skeptic, deeply worried that I could be standing in the path of making a fatal error. Lead me not into temptation, but deliver me from evil.

In sum, I am still a Protestant because I would not like to be a skeptical Catholic, and I would not like to convert only to re-convert later in life (I was quite fickle as a younger man, and do not wish to return to that reputation). I am still a Protestant because, at present, I would not be able to take the Eucharist into my mouth without a small voice in my head whispering “heresy!” That voice has to expend so little energy to counter a loud voice of reason and intellect.

Cross on Denominational Renewal

Bryan Cross and Todd Gwennap have engaged in a fantastic discussion here. I recommend that anyone considering conversion between a Protestant denomination and Roman Catholicism give it a read, especially those from (or inclined toward) a Reformed background.

Bryan, now a Roman Catholic, graduated from my denomination’s seminary, Covenant Theological Seminary. Todd is currently a student at that institution. I have relatives with strong ties, seminal even, to Covenant, so I have taken particular interest in Bryan’s story, and now this discussion between these two.

I will not spoil the plot, but Todd takes up some arguments on the nature of “church” with vigor. Bryan responds with aptitude. I hope to see the conversation continue. [Omitted.]

From what I've seen, I have developed a deep admiration of him. It is an exceedingly rare thing to see someone take Bryan up in learned dialogue. Bryan is logical and methodical in his approach, in a way that I surmise may intimidate the typical antagonists and Johnny-come-latelies of blogosphere spats. Todd is above that, and brave to boot. He enters the discussion graciously and thoughtfully. I continue to *hope* that these brothers (or brethren) will run the conversation to ground, as I stand to benefit. Besides being more theologically educated than I am, Todd has fuel to critique Catholicism that I depleted long ago.

A last substantive thought: Todd brings up an argument that has been central in my thoughts about how Christ has constituted His Church, and I believe its resolution would be meaningful to a great many seekers. To what extent is the parallel between the Old and New Testaments (Covenants) valid? Put another way, is the Church Era a recapitulation of the Jewish Era, or is it a whole novus ordo? Should we expect to see a division amongst Christ’s Covenant People as the Jewish people divided into a Northern and Southern Kingdom (see my post touching on this parallelism here)?

If the Church Era is a whole new order, such that the Holy Spirit would prevent such division, obviously the Reformation fails. If it is not so new (as human sinful nature may not have changed), and a recapitulation is possible then the Reformation could be proper (indeed, the Old Testament experience would serve as a “preview” warning to those of us in the New).

Violating Plain Text

This past week's program on The Journey Home was about one Stephen Budd's conversion from the Baptist church to Roman Catholicism. He had been a bold Baptist, and believed then that it was his duty to convert Catholics from their ways. He went through a litany of bumper-sticker sized condemnations of Catholicism he had made as a Baptist.

One critique from his bygone does stood tall, and resonates with my emotions, even though my intellect sees it to be vacuous.

He described an anti-Catholic tract that he would give to Catholics he found in his home town (in Ireland, I believe). On it was a depiction of Pope John Paul II praying before a statue of Mary, and beside this image were the words "thou shall have no other gods before me..." These tracts have power in their simplicity. This one sets up a contrast, and draws you immediately into it.

The plain text of Sacred Scripture warns against creating likenesses and bowing down before idols. Its whole timbre is one that merits great caution and prudence. The plain text of scripture, what could be more plain?

Then I read an article/book review in the May, 2008 edition of First Things (with finals, I've been a month behind) which made me consider a different angle. Robert Louis Wilken wrote Jews as the Romans Saw Them (subscription required), discussing Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient ­Civilizations by Martin Goodman. In it, he says "Romans were puzzled as to why Jews refused to eat pork (which the Romans loved) and why they circumcised infant boys. They could not understand that there was no image of their God in the Temple..."

Maybe you can follow where my mind went at this point.

"Thou shall have no other gods before me. (Exodus 20:3)"



"You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. (Genesis 17:11)"



[I can't depict an uncircumcised Christian here, but if I could, my intent would be to juxtapose that image with this verse to the Catholic image and the Bible verse given above it. I hope you can accept this picture of a Jewish briss in its place, though it's the opposite of what I mean to depict, in that it is in strict conformity with the commandment of the Sacred Scriptures.]

"And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. (Leviticus 11:7)"



Now I know full well that New Testament passages address circumcision in the New Church and consuming unclean and ceremonial meats too. We have, then, either a contradiction within Scripture, or a new authority able to override the old. If the old can be overridden in its ceremonial aspects, surely it can be given more precision (vis-a-vis idols, images, and the like). At any rate, my point is simply that plain text is often a poor guide. The meaning beneath the text is a harder thing to depict in tracts...

False Ecumenical Advertising

I'm a fan of the Catholic cable channel EWTN, so don't get me wrong when I say that it is not always, for me, the Cat's Meow.

I found myself a little miffed last night at the discongruity between one program, and that program's description as provided by my "Info" button. The show was called "Micah Project: Tearing Down the Walls that Separate Christians", but the show was in fact more of a "why Michael Cumbi thinks Protestants should become Catholic."

Now, if Catholicism is correct in its assertion that it is the one true Holy Apostolic Church, then its approach to Protestantism should certainly be one of "convert now!". But if that is the Church's position, I don't care for conversion efforts veiled as ecumenical wall-tearing-down. I tuned in hoping to hear how we Protestants and Catholics can better come to terms with one another, and better understand each other's positions. Instead I heard a former fundamentalist talk about why Catholicism is superior (which it may be, but that's beside the point).

As far as conversion stories go, the further a convert's "before" position is from my own, the less I relate to his reasons for conversion. So this wouldn't have been my choice of programming on the conversion front. And it didn't live up to my expectations on the ecumenical front either.

The Micah Project website says the following:

"When the Nation of Israel became a divided kingdom (much like the Church today, Protestant and Catholic) there were certain prophets that gave God’s message to the Northern Kingdom and prophets who spoke for God to the Southern Kingdom. There was one prophet, however, who had a message from God for both kingdoms, that was the prophet Micah."

I don't want to nit-pick, and I really do hope God blesses my brother Mr. Cumbie in his efforts at reconciling Christians together. I'm concerned though that the Judah-Israel : Catholic-Protestant analogy does not align with the Catholic position on Protestantism. In fact, I'm pretty certain that the saying "the Church today, Protestant and Catholic" will grate on a few of my Catholic friends' nerves. They would say that I am outside of "the Church today" precisely because I am Protestant. Also, I was hoping that Mr. Cumbie had a message for "both kingdoms", but instead thought he was a 'Judean' with a message for the 'other Kingdom'...

I'll leave my criticism at that. If anyone else saw the show and felt otherwise, I'd enjoy being put in my place.

Argue The Forest, Not The Trees

I blogged here that I could no longer confess the doctrine of sola Scriptura, leaving me in a sort of spiritual no-man's-land. That sentiment has not changed since September 1, 2007, but it has not clearly progressed either.

Marian angst (I use this as a term of art; let me know if you're not sure what I mean) is a recurring problem. At times it feels critically acute, and at other times the sensation is minimal. I believe that it is probably a proxy feeling for overall anxiety over subscribing to a belief that the (i.e., "a", or "one") Church holds infallible interpretive authority over Divine Revelation. Therefore, and because of the formality of its decrees, this feeling is most acute vis-à-vis the Catholic Church, even where the Orthodox Churches may articulate Marian doctrines with stronger emotive language.

So while I have toed the line of entering the Catholic Church for some time, this recurring angst makes me think I need to step back and try as well as possible to objectively recapitulate and reconsider what I believe to be the constitution of Christ's Church. While I realize that I am incapable of objectively viewing the church, I'd like to try all the same. By “objective”, I will mean “expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations” (Merriam-Webster).

I think that I tried something similar here, where I asked five questions related to authority that I hoped were fair and not loaded to lead to a certain conclusion. Here I will try to describe the analytical steps I think I need to pursue, without using the form of question and answer. There’s an old law school trick to writing I’ll use: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion. I’ll try that here.

To be clear, I don’t mean to discuss issues like whether the Catholics are wrong for 'violating' the “call no man father” verse, or the Orthodox are wrong because they had a Sultan select their hierarch, or the Protestants are wrong for excluding the apocrypha/deuterocanon. My experience is that for every such argument, there is some reply, and for most, there is an able reply. I do mean to discuss the overall analytical framework I think I need to use when considering ecumenicism, and how those facts and arguments should fit within the framework.

ISSUE:

I'd like to consider whether the claims by any one of the major branches of Christianity are objectively superior to the others (I realize this is an idealist approach).

First, I assume that anyone engaged in this discussion, like me, believes and so assumes that Christ is True and not false. From there I assume that each candidate Church model sees at its core a mission to preserve and transmit the Gospel-Truth (i.e., Logos or Word). Other functions of the Church (e.g., sacramental, communal) flow from the substance of the Gospel-Truth that the Church has preserved and transmitted. In this way, the candidates, indeed all of Christianity, aims to bear Witness to the world of the Messiah’s coming. Church, in my expression “candidate Church model” simply means God's people, however additionally defined by the particular candidates (in other words, I don’t mean to load that expression with lots of biased meaning).

So assuming that Christ is True, and that the candidates, as witnesses, all preserve and transmit His Truth, the discussion instantly turns to authority. By what authority does a candidate articulate and develop the Gospel-Truth? Disputes of authority have also been the catalysts of all schism within Christianity, so it’s a natural focal point.

A recent discussion helped me to see three major authority views or camps within Christianity: Papalism, Conciliarism and Biblicism. Each understands the Church's place in transmitting and safeguarding the Logos differently, and each has a different conclusion as to what the primary and subordinate principles of the Logos are. I suppose I could add "Individualist" to these three, which would look approximately like this, "whatever I understand to be true about Jesus from my feelings and from whatever I accept to be true from this book the Bible." I'm not going to add that though.

The nature and essence of the Logos is the fundamental question for the Church; to understand the nature and essence one must understand the Church, to understand the Church, one must see the Church as either Papalist, Conciliarist, or Biblicist (that is, one must have a view of authority). So my issue becomes which of these three camps has the objectively superior claim as preservationist, propagator, and articulator of the Logos.

The Biblicist believes that all authority for the Church is contained within the Bible. The Logos was exclusively preserved within its written contents, and it has been propagated through the ages. In our culture, while Biblicist groups are diverse in outward appearance, they share this view of authority – the Logos is co-extensive with the contents of the Protestant Bible. The Baptists and those that describe themselves as "fundamentalist", many branches of Reformed, Lutheran and other traditional denominations that call themselves "Evangelical", and perhaps Charismatic groups would fall within this camp.

The Conciliarist believes that authority for the Church is contained within ecclesial councils. The Logos has been preserved and propagated within the Bible and articulated by authoritative councils. I have learned of a Protestant group that considers itself conciliarist, but the traditional Anglicans and the Orthodox are also in this camp. They would add that the Logos is preserved and propagated within the Church proper, the Bible representing only a part of this Gospel-Truth. [Note: in an attempt to remain objective, I accept the candidates’ claims as true, so I accept the traditional Anglican position that they are not protestant.]

I am only newly aware of the protestant conciliarist position, known as the "magisterial protestant". This camp believes that the councils of the church, while not the source of all authority, still have real authority. These reformers perceive the state, at least classically, as playing some role in empowering these authorities and enforcing their authority. These reformers seek to turn back to the fundamental roots of the Reformation, and seek to subscribe to its traditional confessions, depending on where one lives (see here for some subscribers to this position). I'm still learning about this view, so I should not try to explain it further. But suffice it to say that the Bible is not the source of all authority to the magisterial protestant conciliarist, but is the source of ultimate authority. Only the Bible is infallible, and all articulation of the Logos will be measured by the authorities (and not the laity) against the Bible.

The Orthodox and the traditional Anglicans are within the Conciliarist camp, and have an older claim to its essence. They are both distinct from the magisterial protestants by their subscription to Apostolic Succession, that is, the belief that their Bishops have ties by succession of ordination back to the Apostles. [Note, again, I accept the traditional Anglican position as true for these purposes.] The authority of the Church and its evangelization and articulation of the Logos subsist within the Church itself. I have only recently begun making myself smart on the Anglo-Catholic view that their ties to the Apostles extend through the days of Henry VIII, so I will stop here (see here for a subscriber to this position). I don't mean to minimize distinctions between traditional Anglicans and the Orthodox (and that would be an absurd undertaking), but only leave it hear because if I tried to go on, I might paint the traditional Anglican position in an unfair light.

Finally, the Papalists (and, as I've learned, this is not the same as the derogatory use of the term "Papist"), who are not just Latin Rite (Roman) Catholics, but also their Eastern rites, believe that the Pope is not only first in honor among Bishops in council, but has actual authority over the other Bishops. Under this view too, authority exists within the Church, but binding dogmatic articulations of the Logos can flow from councils and the Pope alike.

RULE:

By what standard can I objectively judge which candidate is the right witness to and articulation of the Gospel-Truth in the 21st century? I must use reason and faith, which includes prayer, to do so. The Scriptures cannot be an independent standard by which to reach the right conclusion because 1) not all 'candidate' churches believe in the same canon of Scripture, and 2) their interpretation or articulation is part of the very essence of this dispute (i.e., what is the "Truth" handed down through the ages from Christ, assuming He is True). The Scriptures could be used, however, as a measure of the internal integrity of each candidate's claims. E.g., if a book identified by Church X as canonical and infallible says "Blessed are the poor", and that candidate church teaches, "Blessed are the Healthy and Wealthy", we find evidence that Church X is not teaching the Truth of Christ. But ultimately this would only be evidence that must be judged by reason because of competing interpretations and hermeneutic methods. I guess I have no better rule, then, than reason (which gauges the internal integrity of each belief system) informed by faith (which relies on prayer).

ANALYSIS:

I have (personally) ruled out the Biblicist position, as I stated in my post rejecting the validity of the Biblicist view of sola Scriptura cited above. The position lacks internal integrity, as it commands that all authority flows from the Bible alone, yet the Bible does not articulate a Bible alone position, nor is it self-identifying, in terms of its canon. Indeed, a multitude of rationales have been used to justify the existing Protestant canon. I withhold personal judgment on whether the magisterial protestant means something different by “sola Scriptura” than does the Biblicist, and whether his view of authority would allow the creation of canon. I believe that the majority view in my denomination (the PCA) is Biblicist, though there seems to be strong (and perhaps growing) resistance to this position (that is, there are factions of magisterial reformers who recognize the need for other authority, albeit fallible).

I started with the Biblicist position because it could be easily removed from my table. This is my no-man’s land: Church ≠ Biblicism, therefore Church = Conciliarism or Papalism. From here we come to real contention at every turn. I analyze the remaining candidates by first asking whether the Church’s own authority is fallible or infallible. The infallible camp consists of the Orthodox and Catholics, and the fallible camp consists of traditional Anglicans and magisterial Protestants.

I am surprised to find that, so long after I started my meager efforts at discerning the proper constitution of Christ’s Church, I am not certain that it has to be infallible. One of the earliest ‘shoes to drop’ for me was coming to see that a fallible church fallibly identifying a canon of scripture and a doctrine about its infallibility had serious problems of logic. And yet I read the earnestness of certain members of these camps, and can’t help but think that I might just be missing a deeper truth to their views. I still hold out some shred of hope, that the Holy Spirit could work within and preserve even a fallible Church. After all, early particular churches fell into grave error (e.g., the Church at Corinth), as did the Apostle Peter (as Protestants are fond of observing).

Taking a Newman-like view of doctrinal development may be fruitful in this context. The true principles of the fallible-camp candidates should come to light over time, as their theorems are put to practice and bear (or fail to bear) fruit. This method of thinking speaks somewhat against the magisterial protestant, who holds a model of church in his head, but can point to its existence nowhere (and its failure everywhere). The Anglican too is plagued by failures from within his camp.

But I need to consider and pray more about this before ruling out the fallible camp. I still don’t understand how the magisterial protestant differs from the Biblicist in essence, and I have only recently come to think I should give the traditional Anglican claim to Apostolic Succession more consideration. Perhaps their take that there was real, but fallible authority makes more sense than I give it credit. They would say that the authorities are the only ones who should correct error, not the laity (although in the magisterial protestant view, if the authorities become entirely corrupt, the faithful laity are free to, indeed called to assume the reigns and Reform).

On the infallible side of the house, the analysis necessary to make a rational conclusion between the claims of the Orthodox and the Catholics is a real head-splitter. I see two main ways to resolve this quest.

First, one could accede to the hemisphere in which God has them. If you’re in the West, just stay with the Western Church. However, this makes relative the fundamental differences that exist between the candidates’ view of authority, and the doctrinal views that have flowed therefrom over the last millennium plus. In other words, you would be saying that it doesn’t really matter to God that the filioque was added; what matters is that we participate with the representation of the Church that is native to our own land. Further, the geographical East-West distinction may be more notional than real. The Papalist camp does have a real presence (pardon the pun) in the East, and the Orthodox churches in the states are working hard to move beyond being mere immigrant churches, such that their presence as Western churches is real too (see this excellent post discussing how Orthodoxy in America is becoming “native”). So, while I don’t find a homesteading view all that compelling, I respect it, and I hear its advocacy often. The six-of-one-half-dozen-of-the-other crowd can point to impressive similarities between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but similarity is only plain when seen relative to the Protestantism.

Second, one can immerse one’s self in history. This effort overwhelms me. I have read and read and read the primary sources (the Eastern and Western Fathers) as well as secondary sources (books on church history, particularly describing both ‘halves’ of the Church). I feel like I only barely understand what happened after the early persecution ended, and what happened after the first millennia rolled into the second. I suppose that coupled with prayer and faith, applying reason to a deep study of history could give one the knowledge of which infallible-camp Church has the claim of Truth in its evangelization and articulation of the Logos. The temptation to resolve this difficult and time-consuming method of analysis by leaning on the homesteading view should be carefully avoided.

The fundamental dispute between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is about authority, so if I rule out fallible conciliar churches, I would be forced to decide between the infallilble conciliar model for church, and the infallibile papal model. The factual arguments in favor of each are too much for me to get into here, but I will note that arguments of Biblical and Patristic support for Papalism are persuasive, as are arguments about the meaning of the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15 and early church conciliar practice.

Finally, reason needs to turn its eyes to the doctrines of these churches. If Catholic or Orthodox Marian dogmas and doctrines, for example, conflict with one’s use of reason, informed by faith, it could provide an independent basis for looking elsewhere. This has been the premise behind my view that if all logic councils against a sola Scriptura view, but I believe that all alternative groups practice idolatry (let’s say), I must have been mistaken about sola Scriptura.

CONCLUSION:

While my attempt at objectively viewing the church has not yielded any clear winners (and if it did, I’d probably be further away from objectivity than I hope), it has taught me something. Those deeply entrenched and self-assured of the rightness of their own position ought to be well equipped to explain themselves. We should realize that each of our trench-warfare debate points (like whether we can call any man father, whether praying to saints is right or wrong, etc.) fits in a larger debate about what the Church is and is meant to be. For the sake of unity, we must try to see the forest through the trees.

[This is the best I can do with the time I have, and I realize that this is a paltry effort. I am going to keep this document at least for my own personal reference, and will update and correct my use of terms, analysis and conclusions as problems are pointed out to me. So I would appreciate constructive input if for no other reason than my own benefit.]

Church Discipline

[I made a similar entry at CHNI, and received tremendous response. I recommend that website for anyone interested in learning more about Catholicism.]

My Presbyterian denomination, the PCA, has good rules on church discipline, contained in the Book of Church Order (BCO). The denomination appears to have great leeway in shepherding the flock, which is what a church ought to have. But I don't think they use nearly as much "rope" as they're given.

A PCA member can be brought under church discipline for committing an "offense". An offense is "anything in the doctrines or practice of a Church member professing faith in Christ which is contrary to the Word of God. (BCO, 29-1)" And, nothing "ought to be considered by any court as an offense... which cannot be proved to be such from Scripture." Heresy is included as an offense, so the definition is not limited to outward sinful conduct (29-3).

So I wonder, at what point is one who adopts the beliefs of other denominations susceptible to charges of committing an "offense"? I've known plenty of PCA parents who do not baptize their infants. The PCA's confessional standards, which are the "standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture" (29-1), state that believing parents shall baptize their children (WCOF, Ch. XXVIII, sec. 4). But these baptistic parents aren't charged with an "offense". The standard for "heresy" must be pretty high then. It's not clear to me that one believing in "baptismal regeneration" is that much different from the baptistic parent, but I suspect that one would be closer to toeing the "heresy" line.

If charges aren't brought for heresy until a PCA'er announces he intends to join the Orthodox or Catholic Church, would the denomination send a "letter of transfer" to his receiving Church?

BCO, 38-3(b) states, "When a member... shall attempt to withdraw from the communion of this branch of the visible Church by affiliating with a body judged [by his session] as failing to maintain the Word and Sacraments in their fundamental integrity (BCO 2-2), that member or minister shall be warned of his danger, and if he persists, his name shall be erased from the roll... (emphasis added)".

I doubt that each session would interpret "fundamental integrity" the same way. I imagine a member could transfer to an evangelical Baptist church upon moving, and still receive a letter of transfer (so still recognized as part of the Church Visible). But the baptists don't practice sacraments, but rather ordinances. I imagine too that a member could transfer to mainline Presbyterianism, even though many in that organization doubt the infallibility of Scripture, the Virginal Incarnation, etc. If these thoughts are right, then "fundamental integrity" is meant in a broad sense, more one of outward appearances.

But what of the Catholics? They teach the Word, and practice Sacraments in a way that is fundamental at least in an historical sense. So in one sense it would seem better to transfer to Catholicism than to an Evangelical Baptist or Mainline Presbyterian denomination. There's a rub though, that makes me doubt such a transfer would be allowed. Calvin, who formulated the Word-Sacrament litmus test of a True Church, believed that one who left the True Church was apostate (see Sect. III, here, citing Calvin's Institutes, Book IV, Ch. 1, Secs. 5 and 10). So under this BCO term of art, either Calvin meant to anathematize his Genevan movement, or the Catholic Church does not "maintain the Word and Sacraments in their fundamental integrity."

It is a difficult thing, to accept that branches of the True Church are fractured, and yet to have to decide which ones remain fundamentally integral.

Palmetto Stater

To read about a South Carolina main-stream Protestant lawyer pondering the claims of Catholicism, who happens to identify himself as a liberal (and who loves hiking!), see here. His blog makes for an excellent read so far - I went cover to cover.

Neuhaus on Discernment

I'm an unabashed fan of the ecumenical magazine First Things. Do check out this comment on discernment by Fr. John Richard Neuhaus, posted on the "On the Square" portion of their website (on August 31st). I just came across it today during a dry Evidence class.

"We are all uncertain about what God wants us to do. That is to say, we do not know for sure. Of course it seems silly, when you’re well past middle age and have spent your life doing what you believe you’ve been given to do, to get up in the morning or suddenly stop in the middle of the day’s work and ask, “Is this what I’m supposed to be doing?”

"I mentioned this to a young man who is discerning whether he has a call to the priesthood, and he was shocked, perhaps scandalized. He said, in effect: “You mean after all these years of being a priest, of writing books, of editing and lecturing, of organizing so many projects, you still aren’t sure you’re doing what God called you to do? How am I ever to know that God is calling me to the priesthood?”

"The answer is that we act in the courage of our uncertainties. I am fond of pointing out that the word decide comes from the Latin decidere, to cut off. You face choices—whether to be a priest, whether to go to this school or that, whether to marry a certain person, whether to pursue this line of work or another—and then you decide. And, in deciding, you have cut off the alternatives and pray you have decided rightly. But you do not know for sure. Alternatively, you are trapped in the tangled web of indecision."

His comments seem related to what I was trying to express in my post about Burdens of Proof. If you refuse to budge from whatever doctrinal/ecclesial position in which you've landed, unless persuaded beyond any reasonable doubt, then ecumenical dialogue is without meaning. Imagine if we refuse to ever leave an unhappy job or seek further eduction unless we are convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the alternative we are considering will in fact work out, be better, be worth it (etc.)! We would forever hunker down in our trench, forsaking the possibility that we may be called to higher or more challenging things. We always have doubts; it's human.

Post Script. While on the topic of discernment, I recommend this post on a friend's blog (now an inactive blog).

Federal Vision Convert

Do stop by here for an interesting account of how the Federal Vision (FV) movement made one of its proponents (an OPC member) into a Catholic. I've heard tell elsewhere that many of the guys at the ground level of the movement have already become Orthodox or Catholic... (hearsay, I know...)

For those of you unaware, the PCA just approved a committee paper condemning what they understand to be Federal Vision theology. It an interesting debate, since no one admits to believing the unorthodox (so can't be disciplined), but they sure write like they do...

Burdens of Proof, Standards of Proof

Alexis Arapoff, Fourth Station of the Cross

[Forgive the legalese, and do view "opponent" in the spirit in which it is meant.]

My wife regularly notes that we are where we are, the Reformation happened, cats out of the bag, so who are we to go back? She is warmed by the C.S. Lewis saying (I paraphrase) that ‘the closer we are to the heart of our respective positions, the closer we are to each other.’

Hers is a common position, but one that presumes that the burden of proof for convincing any one Christian of any particular truth contrary to that which is taught in their current state is on the party opposite. I am the defendant-Protestant, and if you claim the truth is in [Orthodoxy] [Catholicism], you have to convince me.

If this standard is true, it sounds something of a death knell to the ecumenist. Each of us stands behind our wall of happenstance, refusing to believe without some degree of strong proof that we are in the wrong camp.

Is it possible to invert this formula? Can I place the burden on myself? Could we say, “I am the plaintiff-Protestant, and am confident enough in what I profess to believe that I can bear the burden of proof over my opponents”?

Even if we appreciate on which party the burden lies, we have to settle what the standard of proof for this burden is. In the secular law, various standards are used. To prove a case in civil court, one generally has to convince a jury with a preponderance of the evidence that one’s case is right (that is, somewhat greater than 50% certainty that claim X is right). To convict one of a capital crime, the state usually must present evidence that convinces the jury “beyond a reasonable doubt” of guilt.

Given the antiquity and obscurity of our primary evidence (the church fathers and scripture) in debates over the proper constitution of Christ’s Church, it seems that a discerning believer will never be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Doubt is a low standard to meet. If we place the burden of proof on our opponent, and use “beyond a reasonable doubt” as our standard, each will remain convinced (relatively) of the supremacy of his own camp, and the fortitude of his own walls.

Truth requires better than this framework though. Instead of drowning in complacency, shouldn’t one be able to prove to others by a preponderance of the evidence that their position is justified? A fabulous courtroom drama it would be.

James White's 10 Questions For Discernment

Reformed Baptist apologist, Mr. James White, recently shared 10 questions any so-called Protestant should answer before considering converting to Catholicism. Since I am in his target audience, I pulled up my socks and tried answering these questions. Forgive the length, but Mr. White wasn't able to keep his questions short (lest he should miss a chance to preach):

10) Have you listened to both sides? …Have you actually taken the time to find sound, serious responses to Rome's claims, those offered by writers ever since the Reformation, such as Goode, Whitaker, Salmon, and modern writers? I specifically exclude from this list anything by Jack Chick and Dave Hunt.

Yes, and who are Chick and Hunt, and why are you excluding them? Now I’m curious!

9) Have you read an objective history of the early church? I refer to one that would explain the great diversity of viewpoints to be found in the writings of the first centuries…?

Yes. Well, only one or two that are objective, and several that are very biased in favor of their Reformed authors. I have yet to read a Catholic history of the early church. Maybe I should, so I know I'm listening to both sides! (Actually, no one can write an objective history - the non-Christian academician will write as an agnostic seeking to debunk the Mystery of Christ, and the Protestant or Catholic will be biased to their own position.)

8) Have you looked carefully at the claims of Rome in a historical light, specifically, have you examined her claims regarding the "unanimous consent" of the Fathers, and all the evidence that exists that stands contrary not only to the universal claims of the Papacy but especially to the concept of Papal Infallibility? How do you explain, consistently, the history of the early church in light of modern claims made by Rome? How do you explain such things as the Pornocracy and the Babylonian Captivity of the Church without assuming the truthfulness of the very system you are embracing?

I believe I have looked carefully. I do not know what Mr. White means by “unanimous consent”. If he means that 100% of church fathers have to believe something for the Catholic claims to be valid, that would give, ex post facto, a limitless veto power to any one father (who would not have realized he was wielding this power when he wrote). I do not know if he means Papal Infallibility the way I have read it defended. I do not know what remains to be explained about the Pornocracy et al. The Catholics claim that the church is not free from sinful people; they say the Church is semper reformanda.

7) Have you applied the same standards to the testing of Rome's ultimate claims of authority that Roman Catholic apologists use to attack sola scriptura? How do you explain the fact that Rome's answers to her own objections are circular? For example, if she claims you need the Church to establish an infallible canon, how does that actually answer the question, since you now have to ask how Rome comes to have this infallible knowledge. Or if it is argued that sola scriptura produces anarchy, why doesn't Rome's magisterium produce unanimity and harmony? And if someone claims there are 33,000 denominations due to sola scriptura, since that outrageous number has been debunked repeatedly (see Eric Svendsen's Upon This Slippery Rock for full documentation), have you asked them why they are so dishonest and sloppy with their research?

I have applied the same standards to all my analysis, thank you for asking. Regarding circular logic, I believe the ‘Romanist’ would say that Christ promised us that he would give his Holy Spirit, and the Book of Acts records this very event. This, and Christ’s commissioning of the Apostles should give us some reason to believe that their claims to authority could be valid, certainly valid enough to identify which texts this same Holy Spirit inspired. Rome’s claims do not nearly produce harmony. Many walked away from Christ when he explained that His flesh had to be eaten for salvation. Rome’s criticism (in observing the factionalism of Protestantism) is that our claim that the Bible is a sufficient sole rule of faith has been disproved by reality, as we are in such wide disagreement on its interpretation, even in essential matters. There may not be harmony, or even obedience in Catholicism about the use of, say, the Pill (an abortifacient), but at least everyone understands that their Church has spoken against it. Incidentally, and speaking of essentials, I believe Calvin would say that Mr. White's Reformed Baptists are not part of the true church, since they do not properly attend to the Sacraments.

6) Have you read the Papal Syllabus of Errors and Indulgentiarum Doctrina? Can anyone read the description of grace found in the latter document and pretend for even a moment that is the doctrine of grace Paul taught to the Romans?

I just pulled these documents up, thank you. I do not understand what point was sought to be made by the first, so need elucidation. The errors refuted by the Pope are, e.g., that the philosophy of Relativism is not in accord with Christianity. No surprise. Regarding Indulgences and Paul’s doctrine of Grace, this textual criticism does not account for the Catholic defense that Indulgences are able to relieve only temporal punishment. Eternal punishment is cured by Christ’s grace alone (Cf. Paul's doctrine of grace taught to the Romans).

5) Have you seriously considered the ramifications of Rome's doctrine of sin, forgiveness, eternal and temporal punishments, purgatory, the treasury of merit, transubstantiation, sacramental priesthood, and indulgences? Have you seriously worked through compelling and relevant biblical texts like Ephesians 2, Romans 3-5, Galatians 1-2, Hebrews 7-10 and all of John 6, in light of Roman teaching?

Yes, still weighing them, thank you. I have read those passages in light of Rome’s teachings, and continue to pray about this. These are hard passages that could be taken different ways. I am poorly qualified to judge individually what they mean. This reading makes me doubt the sola Scriptura claim of the perspicuity of scripture.

4) Have you pondered what it means to embrace a system that teaches you approach the sacrifice of Christ thousands of times in your life and yet you can die impure, and, in fact, even die an enemy of God, though you came to the cross over and over again? And have you pondered what it means that though the historical teachings of Rome on these issues are easily identifiable, the vast majority of Roman Catholics today, including priests, bishops, and scholars, don't believe these things anymore?

Second point first, so many people doubt. As all of John 6 made clear, many of the disciples, people who walked with Christ and heard him directly, doubted and walked away. Judas did not believe his teachings. The O.T. Jews, entrusted with the very Oracles of God (Rom. 3:2) did not believe (but this does not disprove the Abrahamic faith!). So no surprise that many Catholics do not believe their Church even if it is (hypothetically) right. How many use the pill? It’s still an abortifacient, so an evil sin.

First point second, of course we can all die impure even though we come to the cross over and over again. 1 Cor 11 seems to support such a possibility nicely – if you eat of the flesh in an unworthy manner, you are eating judgment on yourself! I think this question mischaracterizes the re-presentation theology of the mass. But Mr. White may be more of a eucharistic scholar than I am.

3) Have you considered what it means to proclaim a human being the Holy Father (that's a divine name, used by Jesus only of His Father) and the Vicar of Christ (that's the Holy Spirit)? Do you really find anything in Scripture whatsoever that would lead you to believe it was Christ's will that a bishop in a city hundreds of miles away in Rome would not only be the head of His church but would be treated as a king upon earth, bowed down to and treated the way the Roman Pontiff is treated?

I have considered it, and I don’t like it one bit. The Catholics would say Mr. White confuses “holy father” with “Heavenly Father” here. I note the use of "father" and "fathers" in Stephen's speech in Acts, incidentally. Regarding Rome, the early church testimony (like ~ 80 AD early) at least makes this a reasonable proposition. I do not find anything in scripture that tells me I have to find anything in scripture telling me it’s okay that the church was run the way it was run in the early centuries.

2) Have you considered how completely unbiblical and a-historical is the entire complex of doctrines and dogmas related to Mary? Do you seriously believe the Apostles taught that Mary was immaculately conceived, and that she was a perpetual virgin (so that she traveled about Palestine with a group of young men who were not her sons, but were Jesus' cousins, or half-brothers (children of a previous marriage of Joseph), or the like? Do you really believe that dogmas defined nearly 2,000 years after the birth of Christ represent the actual teachings of the Apostles? Are you aware that such doctrines as perpetual virginity and bodily assumption have their origin in gnosticism, not Christianity, and have no foundation in apostolic doctrine or practice? How do you explain how it is you must believe these things de fide, by faith, when generations of Christians lived and died without ever even having heard of such things?

This question is a sort of litany of doubt, perpetuating much confusion and clouding a clear ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. I think it is imprudent. The origin of these teachings is not within Gnosticism, and much of Marian teachings (if not all) developed as Christology developed to refute Gnosticism and other early heresies. I seriously believe the Apostles could have taught Mary’s perpetual virginity, if it was true. I would not have slept with the woman who carried the Christ in her womb if I were Joseph. Calvin and Luther believed this doctrine. Anyway, this litany of doubt raises only secondary issues to the primary issue of church authority.

And the number 1 question I would ask of such a person is: if you claim to have once embraced the gospel of grace, whereby you confessed that your sole standing before a thrice-holy God was the seamless garment of the imputed righteousness of Christ, so that you claimed no merit of your own, no mixture of other merit with the perfect righteousness of Christ, but that you stood full and complete in Him and in Him alone, at true peace with God because there is no place in the universe safer from the wrath of God than in Christ, upon what possible grounds could you come to embrace a system that at its very heart denies you the peace that is found in a perfect Savior who accomplishes the Father's will and a Spirit who cannot fail but to bring that work to fruition in the life of God's elect? Do you really believe that the endless cycle of sacramental forgiveness to which you will now commit yourself can provide you the peace that the perfect righteousness of Christ can not?

I was actually offended by the first part of this question. If I ‘claim’ to have ‘once’ embraced the gospel of grace (followed by Mr. White’s definition of what that means), how could I embrace a system that does not give the ‘peace’ of assurance of salvation? Would such a system have been right to assure Judas that his selection as an apostle set in motion that good work that would result in his salvation? I think the Catholics would teach that God’s elect are preserved by the Holy Spirit, but that the rebellious are damned. Why else would Paul beat his body into submission? Why was Paul so concerned with running the race with perseverance, lest he should lost hold of the prize (1 Cor 9:27)? This is not cut and dry.

Apostate Apostolic Officers and Offices

Perhaps few Protestants appreciate this, but the Reformers depended upon the notion that the Western Church had become so apostate as to be no Church at all. This belief was necessary to justify their behavior in disregarding their contemporary ecclesial authorities. Calvin insisted that the offices of apostolic succession, at one time valid, had been destroyed through corrupt practices such as simony and the ordination of children (as young as ten years old).


The first governor of California, a lawyer and Catholic convert (Peter H. Burnett), made an excellent rebuttal argument about corrupt offices in his book about conversion. He observed that the corruption of an officer cannot abolish the office. To make a secular analogy, we would have very few seats in our Senate if it could. We’d have been a nation without a Chief Executive many, many Presidents ago.

The question then needs to be: were there really ever legitimate apostolic offices (vice officers) established by God?

Reformed Answers To Discernment Q's

As promised, this is what I believe to be the Reformed answer to the discernment questions posted below. I am most open to correction. WCOF is short for the Westminster Confession of Faith, the confessional standard of Presbyterian churches in this country, at least historically. I'm curious how Pentecostal, Baptistic and other denominational churches would answer these questions.

1) Is there authority or not within the church?
Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God to the visible church, which consists of all those throughout the world who confess the true religion, and their children. He gave this power for the gathering and perfecting of the saints. Outside the church visible there is no salvation. This church is under Christ alone, and not the Pope (WCOF, Ch. XXV).

Church officers are appointed by Christ to govern the church. To them are committed the keys of the kingdom; they can shut out those who do not belong. They can censure, discipline, and excommunicate to seek purity within the church (WCOF, Ch. XXX). The strongest authority exists within the church.

2) If so, who gave the church that authority? If not, where then lies the rule of faith?
That authority comes to the church officers from Christ, through the words of scripture (WCOF, Ch. XXX).

3) Was authority with the Apostles, and did they pass on this authority?
The Apostles were granted authority by Christ in the way that today’s church officers are granted authority. There's was not a continuing office, but a special foundational one. The apostles passed on no authority; all authority is with Christ.

4) If so, did they pass it to men or to their written words?
They did not have authority to pass on. Christ and the Holy Spirit hold Authority, and with authority God breathed the Scriptures through the Apostles, as well as other men, to be the Rule of Faith for those church officers who today are appointed by Christ to govern the church.

5) What authority permitted a definition of Canon, and why are the books therein contained beyond question?
No earthly authority was needed to permit the canon’s definition. Rather, the books in the Bible are beyond question because the Westminster Divines considered the matter and concluded that those 66 books in the Protestant bible are canonical. They noted that while the 66 books’ many perfections, excellencies and consistency are evidence enough, their "full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in [their] hearts” (WCOF Ch. I.5).

In questions of interpreting scripture, the infallible rule of interpreting scripture is scripture itself (WCOF Ch. I.9).

What Authority Permitted Canon Formation?

This is the final answer to my five questions, as I answered it a while ago in my discernment. I will soon try to give Reformed answers to these questions as best as I am able.

5) What authority permitted a definition of Canon, and why are the books therein contained beyond question? Here is an exhausting topic.

The Catholics and Orthodox simply answer that the Church has the authority to define canon. It is interesting to note that the various Orthodox churches have varied canons.

The Protestant churches have used several explanations. I know of four methods (i.e., canon rationale) for arriving at the Protestant list of 66 books.

1) The Westminster Confession of Faith states that "our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority [of Scripture], is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." This is the reformation's canon rationale; we know Scripture when we see it. I sheepishly admit that when I read Revelation and Ecclesiastes, I tend to doubt this inner-testimony doctrine.
2) Prof. R. Laird Harris of Covenant Theological Seminary, in his book Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible, downplayed the reformation claim as described in The Westminster Confession of Faith, and instead promotes a theory of historical-critical analysis to determine which texts belong in the Bible. Suffice it to say that Canon has been so hotly contested throughout church history that it is not self-evident or even self-identifying. It is not clear what the Jews had for a Canon at the time of Christ’s birth (if such a notion even clearly existed), nor is it clear that Josephus and early Hebrew scholars of the church were not heavily influenced by anti-Christian sentiment within Judaism, particularly against the Christian use of the Septuagint to prove that Christ is the Messiah.
3) Prof. Harris also promotes a view, and I don't know if it is better to refer to this as a complementary or a fall-back argument, that canonicity is determined by Apostolicity. Mark and Luke wrote for Peter and Paul, the argument goes, so are also Apostolic, and thus canonical. James could have been written by the Apostle himself, or by the "brother" of Jesus who is given a special status as an Apostle, the argument goes, such that either way this epistle also should be canonical.
4) Keith A. Mathison, in The Shape of Sola Scriptura, argues that the church was authoritatively reliable in choosing a canon, but only until the fourth century, at which point corruption made it unreliable.

We must concede either that some visible Church authority is responsible for defining a Canon for Christians, or that each individual has to read and reflect upon candidate Holy Books and the history of their acceptance to determine which he might choose as his own rules for normative and moral faith. Authority rests either with the church or the individual. A properly constituted and commissioned Authority is required to define canon, or else we are left with the depressing tailspin noted by R.C. Sproul, that the Bible is a "fallible collection of infallible books." Try explaining that to our relativistic world.

Since the Apostles themselves were not around to define the list of books to be included in Sacred Scriptures, their successors must have. I am loathe to admit this.

However, remember my earlier comment on the Sherlock Holmes inverse analysis. Even if all arguments cut in Catholicism's or Orthodoxy's favor but one, and that one is clearly wrong, those Churches must be wrong. It must mean I've been mistaken about everything else.