Tonight at 6:30 p.m. is the last of my four-part series “Why God? Why Jesus? Why the Catholic Church?” St. Pius X in Mission, Kansas. One of the things that I hope to provide is a couple of “simple cases” for the visible Church, the papacy, and the Eucharist. By “simple case,” I just mean that it’s overwhelming to through a gazillion Bible verses at people. So I’ve tried to highlight just a few passages to read carefully, pray over, and know well. Here’s the simple case for the fact that Christ’s Church is visible and organized:
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Simon Peter, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” We’ll talk about that verse in greater depth in the context of the papacy. But for now, just recognize that Jesus says that He is going to build His Church.
The Church that Jesus builds is visible and organized. In Matthew 18:15-18, Jesus says:
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
So the Church established by Christ is able to act as a judicial body, and able to make infallible judgments in particular context. That’s the point of the binding and loosening – the Church isn’t going to do something here contrary to God, binding something He loosens, or loosing something He binds.
So that certainly sounds like a visible Church. And we see the Church acting in a visible, structured way in Acts 15. After the Gentiles started to come into the Church, Paul and Barnabas “came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses’” (Acts 15:4-5). So there’s a theological question: is it necessary to keep the Jewish Law to be saved?
Think about how these sorts of questions are resolved in Protestantism.* Both sides write about why they’re right and the other side is wrong, eventually they come to regard the other side as heretics, and maybe they split off an form a new denomination. But look at what the Church does: it forms a Council, the Council of Jerusalem. As Acts 15:6 says, “The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.” The Council then settles the question and takes steps to resolve things. Specifically, “it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas” (Acts 15:22). So they sent Judas Barsabbas and Silas, and they sent them with this letter (Acts 15:23-29):
The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting. Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us in assembly to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
So the Council has done three things here: (1) sent Judas Barsabbas and Silas; (2) critiqued the heretical party for preaching, “although we gave them no instructions”; and (3) spoken in the name of the Holy Spirit. That’s how the early Church understood its role. St. Paul referred to this in Romans 10:15, when he says “And how can men preach unless they are sent?” The early Church didn’t think you could just decide to go be a preacher, or “send yourself” on mission. Rather, it was the Church herself who sent preachers.
That’s one way to show that the Church founded by Christ is visible, so it’s worth remembering Acts 15. But the other chapter to think about is 1 Corinthians 12, which is all about the Church as the Body of Christ. There, St. Paul tells us that “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues” (1 Cor. 12:28). How could you have Church “administrators” if the Church is invisible, or has no organization at all?
So back to Jesus’ initial promise: “I will build My Church.” Many Protestant denominations start with a Bible, and try to build the church or denomination that best reflects what they believe are “Biblical teachings.” But Jesus starts with a Church, and that Church gives us the Bible. What do I mean when I say that the Church gives us a Bible?
- The authors of the New Testament were Christian clergy;
- The books of the New Testament are largely written to the Church, or to local churches.
- The Church preserved and compiled these writings and the Jewish Scriptures that now make up the Old Testament.
Here are two good questions to consider: “Where does the Bible come from?” and “How do we know which books belong in the Bible?” There is a lot of misinformation out there. Contrary to popular belief, the Emperor Constantine has nothing to do with the compiling of Scripture; also contrary to popular belief, there weren’t a ton of other texts which were contenders for inclusion in the Bible. The Church (and the local churches) preserved the writings of the Apostles, copied them, and shared them with one another. This practice dates back to the time of the Apostles. St. Paul instructs the Corinthians, “And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you read also the letter from Laodicea” (Col. 4:16).
And this is one of the arguments for the accuracy of the New Testament writings – very quickly, there were so many copies that if one copy got screwed up (someone made a mistake in copying, or tried to add or remove something), that copy could be checked against the other copies of the text. So we can say that the Bible was written by the Church and to the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that the Bible was preserved and compiled by the Church under the protection of the Holy Spirit.
Passages to remember: Matthew 16:15-19, Acts 15, and 1 Corinthians 12.
*I didn’t include this in the talk, but you could easily tie this in to John 17:20-23, in which Jesus prays:
I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.
If the Church can’t conclusively and infallibly settle theological controversies, then they become interminable and divisive. Protestants tend to know this already, even better than we Catholics do, because they see it every day. Forget the fact that Protestants don’t agree with Catholics. Protestants don’t agree with Protestants. Arminians and Calvinists, for example, disagree strongly with one another, and many of them go so far as to reject the other side as heretical. What’s worse is that it’s not clear how they ever could come together, since neither side accepts the validity. So if Jesus’ pray for oneness in the Church isn’t backed up by something keeping the Church from heresy, it’s an empty hope.
Interesting article. Though Orthodoxy likewise teaches infallibility, I think in your view you have a specific idea in mind (and it pertains to Roman Catholic ecclesiology). Based upon the Scriptures cited here, I think it is obvious that RC ecclesiology over an EO ecclesiology is a forgone conclusion. Nevertheless, allow me the following musings:
Though EO 95% agrees with RC in principle about infallibility, it oftentimes is a lot like Protestantism in its application.
For example, the EO’s doctrine of reception in some sense places the laity above the institutional church. The Council of Florence, on paper, made a union between East and West and was a theological capitulation to the West. Granted, if you want to get real technical Florence would not be binding in the East (the Constantinopolitan Bishop died before it was concluded, though he was a Uniate, and the Alexandrian, Jerusalem, and Antiochiene legates were rejected when they returned–hence their Bishops did not consent), but you will read Orthodox views of the Council reduced to, “It was heterodox so the people rejected it.” This is not terribly far from how Protestants reject a teaching due to it being “unbiblical” (i.e. heterodox), and doing what is in their own view orthodox.
Likewise, Orthodoxy lacks a “neat and tidy” way to enforce discipline. I won’t go into a whole long discussion of the whole Ukraine issue between Russia and Constantinople right now–but ’nuff said.
Further, Orthodoxy ultimately does not have a way to weigh in on doctrinal matters outside of the first “9” councils (the only one we can all agree upon). The Council of Jerusalem in the 17th century…is it “Pan-Orthodox” and legit or “too Roman Catholic.” Who and what decides this? Reception. This is sort of like Southern Baptists who are trinitarian but do not cite Nicea as authoritative as an exercise in Church Infallibility. They know better than to say they rely just on the Bible for this one, and they will admit that they “stand on the shoulders of giants [the fathers],” but ultimately this reduces itself to that Christians have always received the doctrine of the Trinity. Ultimately, we Orthodox for our opposition to Purgatory and RC Marian doctrine can only cite reception–we never received these doctrines…so, we don’t hold them.
Now, none of this is to me reason to jump ship from Orthodoxy. Far from it. But I guess, I’m just a Protestant wearing different clothes these days in man ways.
God bless,
Craig
Hey Craig,
I know what the first Seven Councils are, and I know the [Orthodox] 4th Council of Constantinople is considered the 8th, but which is the 9th Council?
The councils surrounding Heseychasm. Orthodox pride themselves on being the one, true, unchanging faith without profound “doctrinal development” but all of us admit that something certainly changed after Palamas in at least how we talk about the faith, even if the categories of thought Palamas introduced simply described pre-existing practices and beliefs.
Interestingly, Palamas was sort of “re-discovered” in the 20th century and you would not find much from EO stating their differences with RCs pertaining to the energy-essence distinction Palamas introduced. To be fair, though, the EO resistance to the RC doctrine of purgatory only makes sense with the presupposition that the energy-essence distinction is true.
God bless
Craig
Thank you for this case that you have made, and I will use it for Apologetics. Again, thank you.
Great work! I’d love someday to have a list of the very best verses for catholic apologetics that always come up. We who have kids and teach kids love to have good bible verses for them to memorize in addition to Psalm 23 etc. I would like my kids to be able to rattle off those verses like Tim Staples or Steve Ray and not have to always say “I know I read somewhere…”
Joe,
Interesting article. I think my objections to it boil down to a lack of a clear definition of what’s being argued for, and what’s being argued against. Or, more plainly: what is it we mean when we say that the church is “visible” or “invisible?”
I’d start with my own side of that: to say that the church is “invisible” is to say that the body of Christ is not synonymous or coextensive with any temporal human organization – that Scripture uses the word “church” either to refer to particular localized assemblies of those who have put their faith in Christ, or to refer to the entire group of such people, and not to any particular binding, temporal governmental structure encompassing all such assemblies.
As I understand it, the Catholic use of “visible” church asserts by contrast that “the church” should be taken as referring to precisely such a binding governmental organization – and in particular, that this organization is the Roman Catholic Church.
And it seems to me that those definitions make a fair number of the arguments above… not really apply? That the Protestant believes that the church does not have a universally binding government (and is, thus, “invisible”) does not mean that he thinks churches can never act in a temporally visible way. Protestant churches can still practice church discipline! We’re entirely capable of carrying out Matthew 18; indeed, the most natural reading of Matthew 18 is that Christ’s words are guidance for local assemblies, and not overarching worldwide governments. That fits well linguistically, given that ekklesia is generally used of local bodies that are actually physically assembled, and surely the local body is best equipped to act as the natural escalation from two or three people. At an absolute minimum, there’s nothing here that can only be accomplished by a universal government.
You mention the council of Acts 15; I would note only that this council is called by the request of the church in Antioch, not by mandate from above, and that the usage of church mirrors what I said above (in v. 22 “the whole church” refers only to a local body; in v. 41 the various local bodies are various churches).
The early Church didn’t think you could just decide to go be a preacher, or “send yourself” on mission. Rather, it was the Church herself who sent preachers.
You’ve made this argument from Romans 10 before, but Paul doesn’t identify who it is that sends; it’s equally plausible that he is speaking of God in this role. (Certainly in Galatians 1, Paul identifies himself as “sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father,” which would seem rather inconsistent with your reading.) Chrysostom seems to understand the verse this way in his Homily 18 on Romans, saying “these were the persons sent upon the mission by God,” emphasis mine.
There, St. Paul tells us that “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues” (1 Cor. 12:28). How could you have Church “administrators” if the Church is invisible, or has no organization at all?
But Protestants don’t argue that there exists no organization within a church; the roles of elder and deacon are organizational roles, for instance. We deny rather that there is necessarily an overarching organization. Certainly within a church, there will be people gifted to help lead, or to help manage that church’s affairs.
Nothing I’ve said here establishes absolutely that the invisible view is correct. But if your argument is that churches must be organizationally linked, it seems to me that the burden of proof falls to you – and these passages fail to establish that claim.
***
A few closing thoughts:
Think about how these sorts of questions are resolved in Protestantism.* Both sides write about why they’re right and the other side is wrong, eventually they come to regard the other side as heretics, and maybe they split off an form a new denomination. But look at what the Church does: it forms a Council, the Council of Jerusalem.
Oh come, this is uncharitable and ahistorical. The Great Schism, or the Arian controversies, are still right there: all our branches of Christanity have written voluminously on why “the other side” is wrong, eventually coming to regard them as heretics, and maybe splitting them off altogether. All our branches have, likewise, convened councils to try to resolve controversies without such drastic steps.
Protestants don’t agree with Protestants.
Is anyone going to argue – today, right now, in the Catholic Church – that Catholics agree with all other Catholics on all matters? That Catholics agree even with the Pope on all such?
But, you may say, we hold certain truths in common, despite our disagreements – sure! And so, overwhelmingly, do churches among Protestantism, Arminians and Calvinists included. The difference is not whether we disagree with each other, but whether we feel the need to share a single inter-church hierarchy.
Hello Irked,
Nice to talk to with you again. As I was struggling with my decision between Catholic and Protestant, one of the problems for me was the Protestant understanding of the church. You’ve laid out what I think is the common Protestant view, that the “church” is not any single organization or denomination. Rather, the church universal is made up of all those who have been saved by Jesus throughout the generations and have become genuine followers of Jesus. The universal church is thus essentially invisible, since only God knows who is justified, and who is not.
The universal church is then organized into visible local churches, which all Christians are called to be a part of. At some point, a local church can become so impure that it ceases to be a “true church,” though this may be hard to discern in every case. In no case, however, does the universal “church” fail or become false, for it is not really an institution in the sense that a local congregation is. Let me know if there’s anything in that description that you’d disagree with.
For the most part I think there’s a plausible way to interpret the New Testament within this view. One exception for me is 1 Timothy 3:15. In context, Paul is giving the qualifications for bishops and deacons. He tells Timothy that, “Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
It is easy to see how a single, visible church like the Catholic Church can fulfill this function, for a visible church can proclaim the truth in a publically identifiable way. But I have trouble applying this to either a local, visible church or the universal, invisible church of Protestantism. This is especially problematic because this group of people (whether considered as the set of all elect or as a single local church) is supposed to include Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, evangelicals, Orthodox, Presbyterians, and hundreds of other denominations, all of whom believe and proclaim contradictory doctrines. So rather than serving as the foundation of truth, this conception of the church renders the truth more difficult (if not practically impossible) to see.
The other passage for me is the Matthew passage Joe cited above, but I won’t respond to your comment yet because this is already long. At any rate, how do you think the Protestant conception of the church can serve as “the pillar and foundation of truth” that Paul speaks of in 1 Timothy?
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Hi Jordan,
Nice to talk to you too! I felt like I took a few weeks off to get some work done, and then suddenly it was October.
I think I’d broadly agree with your description of the Protestant picture here. Christ talks in Revelation about churches that have strayed so far that he removes their lampstand, and I think that’s roughly what you’re describing: many lamps (who are also one body), with One who walks among them.
Let me try to answer your question, and we can follow up if need be. Paul says that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth – the thing that supports it, and makes it visible and prominent – but he presents it neither as the source of truth nor as, itself, the truth.
So what is the truth of which the church is the pillar? I’d argue that Paul is pretty clear that it’s the gospel: that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day. More broadly, this truth is all of God’s revelation – and here I’d agree with Joe at least so far as to say that the historic role of the church has been to hold up, to preserve, and to teach that revelation as it appears in Scripture.
And – overwhelmingly – the Protestant churches all uphold that truth. For all that I disagree with my Methodist and Wesleyan and Presbyterian and Lutheran and etc. brothers on a great many issues, I agree with them on the core fundamentals of the faith: that there is one God in three persons, that he sent his only son (begotten, not created) to live as mortal man; that Christ lived sinlessly, died, and rose again; that he now ever lives to make intercession; that salvation is through him alone; and so on for a great distance after. We uphold this truth together, and while my disagreements with my Catholic brothers are somewhat larger, I believe we uphold it together with you, as well.
Is there nonetheless disagreement on the nonessentials of the faith? Yes, absolutely – just as the Catholic church has its Thomists and its Molinists, its theological liberals and conservatives, its Mary-as-coredemptrix-ists and its non-, its hardliners for and against the morality of the death penalty, its sedevacantists, its controversies over the proper application of Amoris Laetitia, and so on for a great distance after. But I don’t think disagreement on the nonessentials precludes a core of agreement, in either of our cases.
Let me put this practically: I work for an “undenominational” Christian organization, alongside brothers both Protestant and Catholic. We disagree; we squabble; we fight. But that the function of the organization is to uphold the gospel – and that we broadly agree as to what that gospel is – isn’t really in question. That’s more or less how I see the faith as a whole operating.
(It may be objected that there are those who claim the name “Christian” who don’t uphold this common gospel. And that’s true! But it’s also true that there have been false prophets and fake apostles basically since Christ left; if they preclude the church satisfying its purpose, then the game has been up from the beginning.)
Hi Irked,
Thanks for your response. I was a bit surprised by some of the things you mentioned there, so let me ask a couple clarifying questions to be sure I understand.
First, what do you think Paul has in mind when he uses the word “church” in this passage?
Second, you mentioned that when Paul uses the word “truth,” you believe he is referring to the core beliefs, “that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day.” You then later acknowledge disagreements among Protestants and Catholics on “nonessentials” of the faith. This surprised me because it would seem a great many things that the Reformations were fought over would be included as non-essentials. For example, do you think justification by faith alone, sola scriptura, the biblical canon, baptismal regeneration, holy orders, etc., are all non-essentials? I want to be sure I’m not misunderstanding you.
Third, you said it is “pretty clear” Paul is referring to the gospel (the content of which I quoted above) in this passage when he uses the word “truth.” Why do you think this is clear? To me he seems to be referring to spiritual truth in a broader sense, akin to what Jesus says in the Great Commission, “everything I commanded you.”
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Hi Jordan,
Good critiques; let me try to be clearer.
First, what do you think Paul has in mind when he uses the word “church” in this passage?
Paul’s first reference here is to “God’s household,” which he then clarifies is “the church of the living God.” Given that clarification, I’d read “church” in this instance as the set of all members of God’s household – the universal church, the body of all believers.
Second, you mentioned that when Paul uses the word “truth,” you believe he is referring to the core beliefs, “that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day.”
That’s not quite what I said – or was trying to say, in any event. The particular bit you quote there is itself a quote of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. There, Paul says, “I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance…” and then says the things that I cited.
I don’t believe by any means that this is the whole of the truth of which the church is the pillar; that’s why I then went on to say, “More broadly, this truth” – that is, the church the holds up – “is all of God’s revelation.” Anything God has said is to be held up by the church, and as the church has acted to preserve and spread and teach the Scriptures, I think it has acted in that capacity. But I’d also say, echoing Paul, that some of the truths presented there are of first importance, and some by implication are not. “Who is this Jesus?” is a question necessary to your salvation; “How literal is Revelation?” is probably not. Revelation is still God’s truth, and there’s still a right answer to that question – but believers can affirm both those facts and still in good conscience disagree on the answer. They can’t disagree as to whether Christ died and rose.
That was a long digression; let me bring it back around. I think Paul has in mind all of God’s revealed truth here, but I think the church has most clearly and most universally taught the most vital elements of that truth. I think there are other places where, while it upholds God’s original presentation of that truth (i.e., in Scripture), it differs as to the application of those elements.
For example, do you think justification by faith alone, sola scriptura, the biblical canon, baptismal regeneration, holy orders, etc., are all non-essentials?
I think each of these doctrines is either true or false, and I think Christians are obliged to try to understand them rightly. I don’t believe most of them are essential to your salvation: Paul’s list of requirements to be saved in Romans 10:9 is… pretty brief.
The only exception I might make (and this might require a longer conversation to really lay out sensibly) is justification by faith alone. I think Paul is pretty clear in Galatians that to believe you contribute anything to your salvation is to create an admixture of the gospel that is “no gospel at all,” and which cuts one off from Christ; I also think it may be possible to satisfy saving faith within these bounds without holding precisely to sola fide. Or putting that differently: I both accept that Catholics don’t believe in salvation by works, and also I’m deeply uncomfortable with the parallels of their position to that of the Galatian Judaizers; it seems to me that the practical in-the-pews doctrine might bleed into something nonsalvific even if the formal doctrine does not.
Third, you said it is “pretty clear” Paul is referring to the gospel (the content of which I quoted above) in this passage when he uses the word “truth.” Why do you think this is clear? To me he seems to be referring to spiritual truth in a broader sense, akin to what Jesus says in the Great Commission, “everything I commanded you.”
I agree, as I hope is better said further up: the gospel most clearly, but also the rest of God’s revelation.
Rereading, that was a long answer to a short question. Here’s a short answer: I think there are lots of doctrines that are true, that are worth standing up for and getting thrown out of a church for and even dying for, if it comes to that, because they are the very truth of God – and many of these doctrines are still not essential to your salvation.
Hi Irked,
Apologies for the delay in response, been a bit busier than normal.
Some of your comments remind me a bit of Vatican II, specifically Unitatis Redintegratio, where we read that “in Catholic doctrine there exists a ‘hierarchy’ of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith.” Interestingly, this point is made in the context of dialog with other Christians, exactly our context here.
Earlier, you mentioned that you believe the church is “the thing that supports the truth, and makes it visible and prominent.” I agree with this. The church is meant to understand, guard, and proclaim the truth to the world. We also agree that this “truth” includes more than the “basics” of the gospel, more than those things which are essential for salvation. You take “church” in this passage to mean “the set of all members of God’s household.” Let’s think through, then, how all the members of God’s household can serve as the means by which we understand, guard, and proclaim the truth.
Let’s take baptismal regeneration as an example. The majority of the members of God’s household seem to believe that it actually forgives all past sin and the punishment for past sin, including original sin and that the Holy Trinity pours out grace on the one who is baptized. A sizable minority, however, believes that baptism is a public confession that they have been saved by Jesus and a demonstration that their old, sinful life has been buried with Christ, that it is an act of obedience done in faith by each person after they have been saved by grace. We can call this “believer’s baptism.” Having understood the different views, we can now ask our question.
How does the “church,” understood as the members of all God’s household, help us to understand, guard, and proclaim the correct truth to the world? My contention is that it does not and cannot, in principle. This is because all the members of God’s household do not speak in a visible, unified way on this issue. And this is true not just of baptismal regeneration, but of most other theological truths.
The Catholic Church, in contrast, can in principle and has in reality spoken with a single, visible, unified voice. A simple example of this is the council of Trent’s 14 canons on baptism, from session seven. Even though the proclamations at the council were not unanimously approved by vote, nonetheless there was no question after the proclamation about what the church teaches, about what the truth is. In this way, then, the Catholic understanding of church can fulfill the purpose that Paul gives it in 1 Timothy in a way that the Protestant conception of the household of all believers cannot.
Hi Jordan,
How does the “church,” understood as the members of all God’s household, help us to understand, guard, and proclaim the correct truth to the world?
By preserving, presenting, and teaching the Scriptures, which are the only infallible guide to moral action. To the extent that the church does so, it serves its purpose as the pillar of the truth; to the extent it fails to do so, it doesn’t. It is, I think, not much of a shock that this is one of our major critiques of Catholicism: that you err in upholding something other than the truth when you present Magisterial tradition as an equal authority.
But you do continue to uphold the Scriptures – and so while I think your denomination holds up false things as well, you also continue to uphold the truth.
Let me try that another way: from my perspective, Scripture is truth; particular formulations of doctrine are applications and interpretations of that truth. Some doctrines are very clear (“there is one God,” “Christ died for our sins”); others are more difficult (“human free will does/does not exist”). But as long as the church attempts to present that ground truth, it serves its purpose, even if some of its members reach the wrong conclusions. In actual practice, given that common source of truth, this means we also uphold many of the same (true!) core doctrines (and so also serve as a pillar for them), as I’ve argued upthread.
I don’t think that a single fully-comprehensive universally-accepted doctrinal statement is required to satisfy Paul’s words here.
This is because all the members of God’s household do not speak in a visible, unified way on this issue. And this is true not just of baptismal regeneration, but of most other theological truths.
Okay, so riddle me this. My sense is that we agree that three things are true:
(1) There are doctrines on which more-or-less all Christendom agrees: “Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
(2) There are doctrines on which Catholics and (many) Protestants disagree: “Baptismal regeneration is/is not a thing.”
(3) There are doctrines on which Catholics disagree with other Catholics: “Thomism/Molinism is the correct view of predestination.”
It seems to me that you are saying, “It is insufficient that the whole church agree on (1) – that’s not enough for it to serve as the pillar of the truth. And it’s not a problem that the Catholic church doesn’t agree on (3) – that doesn’t interfere with serving as the pillar of the truth. But any doctrine in (2) – that’s proof that we need unity in order to be a pillar.” In other words, it feels like you’re calling out specifically the Catholic distinctives as the things needed to satisfy the verse, while treating both agreement with other denominations and disagreement within Catholicism as irrelevant to it.
And that feels… pretty arbitrary to me? Either serving as the pillar requires a single, comprehensive, totally consistent doctrinal statement, or it doesn’t. If it does, you guys don’t satisfy the requirement. If it doesn’t, then what in Timothy specifies that our points of agreement aren’t enough to qualify, and our points of disagreement are enough to disqualify?
(Obviously one could answer, “Well, the Catholic Church says they are,” but that begs the question, right? We can’t use the presumption that the Catholic Church is the sole true church, to give authority to their declarations regarding that fact, to demonstrate that they are the sole true church. If the appeal is to Paul’s words, what is it that Paul says that forces this interpretation of the facts on us?)
A simple example of this is the council of Trent’s 14 canons on baptism, from session seven.
So two questions here. First, your argument here seems to be that the church serves as the pillar by declaring truth with one voice. But Trent is in the mid 1500s, and as you note, its precepts are not universally accepted among Catholics right up to that point. What does that mean for the church in the previous fifteen centuries? Did it not serve as a pillar for the truth (for this truth?) during those times?
Second, what would have to happen for the church to fail to serve in this way? What would a minimum criterion for failure be? (Do you believe it is possible for the church to fail to serve as pillar to any degree?)
Hi Irked,
Lots of good questions there, please let me know if I miss one. Apologies for the length.
I think we agree that a good interpretation of Paul’s words to Timothy is something like, “The church is the means by which all the truths of God’s revelation are made visible and prominent.” We must ask ourselves, then, what kind of church can accomplish this? What conception of church can serve as this means?
You lay out three statements, each of which describes a possible way that the church might fulfill Paul’s words here. The first statement is, “There are doctrines on which more-or-less all Christendom agrees: “Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” You believe that this state of affairs is adequate to fulfill Paul’s words. And this, in turn, means that the “church” in Paul’s letter can be understood as the universal set of all believers.
But this is false for two reasons. First, as we both agree, the truths that the church are meant to make clear and prominent go beyond the doctrines on which more-or-less all Christendom agree. Suppose you asked me to create a lie detector that can always tell if someone is lying. I come back and give you a detector that can tell if someone is lying 55% of the time. Have I fulfilled your request? No, because “a means to do part of X” fails to be “a means to do all of X.” Similarly, a means to make some truths clear and prominent is not a means to make all truths clear and prominent. And we both agree that Paul is saying that the church’s role is to make all spiritual truths clear and prominent.
There is a second reason this view of the church cannot do what Paul is saying. This second reason is hidden in your adjective “pretty much.” Who is a part of the church and who isn’t? This is something that you have to answer first before you can make a judgment about whether pretty much all of those people believe something. In other words, you have to know what the truth is already in order to make a judgment about who belongs to the church or not. So rather than the church acting to illuminate the truth, the truth illuminates the church. And this is the reverse of what Paul is saying here.
For those two reasons, then, the Protestant view of the church as the set of all believers is ruled out by 1 Timothy. In the same way, your third option is also ruled out. I do not believe the church is “the set of all Catholics,” any more than I believe that it is “the set of all Christians.” When I say, “The church speaks in a unified way,” I’m not saying, “The set of all Catholics speaks in a unified way.” If I was saying that, you are correct that disagreement among Catholics would disprove it. Rather, I am saying that the church is a universal, visible institution, with a visible leadership, and official proclamations that make the truth clear and visible. So the Catholic Church can fulfill the role laid out by Paul in 1 Timothy.
You had a couple questions for me at the end. First, “What does that mean for the church in the previous fifteen centuries? Did it not serve as a pillar for the truth (for this truth?) during those times?”
It did serve as the pillar of truth during those previous centuries. I agree that a single, fully-comprehensive doctrinal statement, issued from the moment the church was founded and continually reissued over the centuries is not required to satisfy Paul’s words here. Such a statement is not even possible in principle. First,the church existed prior to the full revelation of God. Second the truths of God are infinite. There is always something else that can be said about God which is true, always some new insight that can be gained. This is why doctrine develops over time, as truths which were only implicit in the beginning are made more explicit. (The Trinity is a good example of this.)
The doctrine of baptismal regeneration was passed down through the written and oral revelation entrusted to the church, taught unanimously by the church fathers, proclaimed in the Nicene Creed, and practiced by the church in her Tradition. Trent is yet another example of how, in response to new challenges and new questions, the church again serves her function as the pillar and foundation of truth.
You second set of questions was: “What would have to happen for the church to fail to serve in this way? What would a minimum criterion for failure be? (Do you believe it is possible for the church to fail to serve as pillar to any degree?)”
Just a technical point to start: I think of succeed/fail as a binary that doesn’t admit of degrees. You are either pregnant or not pregnant. You either succeed or fail (relative to a criteria of success). The way that my view of the church could be proven false is if the Catholic Church (as an institution) makes contradictory statements. Obviously, there are a lot of people who believe the Catholic Church has done just that. I’m not interested in arguing for or against that at this point. My point is simply that the church conceived of as an institution can fulfill the function laid out in 1 Timothy in a way the Protestant conception of the church as the set of all believers cannot.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
One follow up point I forgot to include. You write that, “as long as the church attempts to present that ground truth, it serves its purpose, even if some of its members reach the wrong conclusions.” In other words, if the set of all Christians is trying to present the truth, than it is serving exactly as Paul lays out.
My objection is that this interpretation lessens Paul’s statement. He does not say that the church “attempts to serve as” pillar and foundation, but that it “is” the pillar and foundation. This language implies that it is stable, reliable, strong.That it can be counted on as a reliable means to continually guide the world toward all of the truth about God. This is not true of a set of all believers who attempts but frequently fails to guide the world to all truth. To ask you a similar question that you asked me, then, what in Timothy implies that as long as the set of all believers attempts to present the truth, they are serving their function as pillar and foundation?
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Shoot – Jordan, I misjudged both which reply to hit and where my italics ended. See below.
Hi Jordan,
Lots of good questions there, please let me know if I miss one. Apologies for the length.
Heh. I think it’d be pretty hypocritical of me to hold it against you, at this point.
You lay out three statements, each of which describes a possible way that the church might fulfill Paul’s words here.
Hrm. That’s not really what I’m trying to do there, no; they’re just three statements that I think we’d both agree are true. My point isn’t that these are three models; my point is that it seems weird for you to say, “Never mind that there are lots of places where you agree with us; never mind that there are lots of places where we disagree with each other; there are places where you disagree with us, and that’s the real problem.” Why is that the exact line necessary to not serve as the pillar? Why is that the thing necessarily entailed by Paul’s words?
In other words, what prevents me from saying, “Well, there can only be one truth about how free will works, and so the existence of Thomism and Molinism is proof that the Catholic Church isn’t fulfilling its role as the sole pillar of that one truth, and so only my little Catholic sect is the true church?”
The first statement is, “There are doctrines on which more-or-less all Christendom agrees: “Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” You believe that this state of affairs is adequate to fulfill Paul’s words.
I don’t, no. I think it’s a consequence of the church fulfilling Paul’s words, which we do by upholding Scripture. That’s what I’ve been saying from the beginning: the truth is all of God’s revelation. We teach that revelation, and we share overwhelming commonality in the doctrines that emerge from that revelation. So…
But this is false for two reasons. First, as we both agree, the truths that the church are meant to make clear and prominent go beyond the doctrines on which more-or-less all Christendom agree.
… while this is a true statement, it’s not really a rebuttal of my position. (I want to come back to one thing you say here in a minute, though.)
Who is a part of the church and who isn’t? This is something that you have to answer first before you can make a judgment about whether pretty much all of those people believe something. In other words, you have to know what the truth is already in order to make a judgment about who belongs to the church or not.
So there’s certainly a sense in which, if I did not know what the truth was, I could not identify the church; if I thought the Koran was true, for instance, I’d presumably identify some sect of Islam as the true church.
But I don’t see that this matters for our current purposes? The church exists, independent of my ability to recognize it: “the set of all believers” is a group of people whether or not they glow purple in my Elect-o-vision goggles. Likewise, “the truth” – the revelation of God – is a particular thing whether or not anyone acknowledges it as such. Paul’s statement is that a particular group will uphold a particular thing, and that claim is true or false regardless of whether I recognize it as such.
Putting that differently: I observe that, from my finite vantage point, it appears to be true that the set of all believers uphold the same sorts of things, including Scripture. I can be mistaken in that judgment, perhaps because I misjudge who “the set of all believers” is – but that just means I’m mistaken. Paul is still true (or false) regardless of my take on the situation.
So rather than the church acting to illuminate the truth, the truth illuminates the church. And this is the reverse of what Paul is saying here.
Let me try this one more way, actually: It seems to me that you are understanding Paul to say, “Figure out who the church is, and then you’ll see what the truth is,” and that your critique of me is that I seem to be reading him as, “Figure out what the truth is, and then you’ll know what the church is.”
But I don’t think either of those things is what Paul is saying. I think Paul is just observing, as a factual matter, that the people of God uphold the Word of God which first drew them.
Just a technical point to start: I think of succeed/fail as a binary that doesn’t admit of degrees. You are either pregnant or not pregnant.
Cool, that’s exactly what I was trying to ask. I don’t agree; I think the church can imperfectly serve as pillar for a perfect truth (and indeed, I think that’s her whole history).
To ask you a similar question that you asked me, then, what in Timothy implies that as long as the set of all believers attempts to present the truth, they are serving their function as pillar and foundation?
I don’t see that 1 Timothy necessitates either opinion; I think the verse can be plausibly read either in an absolutizing sense or as a description of the overall character and function of the church, which admits seasons of backsliding and misunderstanding. Given Paul’s frequent condemnation of such seasons, I think the latter makes better sense.
And we both agree that Paul is saying that the church’s role is to make all spiritual truths clear and prominent.>
Okay, here’s the thing I wanted to come back to. I’ve understood you to make the following claims:
1) Paul’s statement is applied to all spiritual truths.
2) Paul’s statement is absolute; to fail in any part of the truth, at any time, is to fail in whole.
3) Where the church has not made an official doctrinal statement, the (nigh-?) universal consensus of the church substitutes.
Would you agree with all of those? Because it seems to me that, in that case, you must affirm that for all doctrines, at all times, there has been overall consensus of the church on matters of spiritual truth – or at an absolute minimum, that there is no general consensus opposing the actual truth. Is that fair?
Because I don’t think that’s sustainable. I don’t think it can be supported when Athanasius virtually alone – “Athanasius contra mundum!” – stood against Arianism. I don’t think it’s viable when for forty years there was no consensus on issues as basic as, “So which of these guys is pope, anyway?” I don’t think it can be upheld when, as I note below, we have everyone from Athanasius to Cardinal Cajetan to the Glossa Ordinaria to Pope Gregory the Great agreeing that the apocrypha is not Scripture, in some cases centuries before any binding official statement is issued.
Each of these issues eventually gets some official Catholic statement – but I think it’s ahistorical to argue that those statements reflect the nigh-universal view among church leadership at all times prior. By your own statement, it seems like failure at any point necessitates failure overall – and so I don’t see how this view can be upheld.
Hi Irked,
You asked, “Why is that the exact line necessary to not serve as the pillar? Why is that the thing necessarily entailed by Paul’s words?” I’m sorry, but I’ve read this a couple times now, and I’m still not sure what you are asking or implying, Instead of guessing, then, I’ll lay out my argument in a more succinct form and then answer some of your other questions. Hopefully that hits the mark, but let me know if not.
My argument is as follows:
1. St. Paul tells us that the church is the pillar and the foundation of truth.
2. In order to serve as the pillar and foundation of truth, the church must be capable of presenting the whole truth of God in a visible, knowable way. In other words, it must have a particular nature.
3. The universal set of all believers cannot present the whole truth of God in a visible, knowable way. There are two reasons for this.
4. First, the universal set of all believers is not visible. Therefore, even if every member of the set agreed and taught the same things, there would be no way of knowing this.
5. Second, the members say contradictory things. This is true regardless of whether we consider disagreement among Protestants, among Catholics, or between Catholic and Protestants, Orthodox and Coptic, etc.
6. The Catholic Church, however, is capable of presenting the whole truth of God in a visible way (i.e. it has the necessary nature). There are two reasons for this, which are the inverse of the previous reasons.
7. First, the Catholic Church is a visible, universal institution. Therefore, when the church makes public proclamations about truth, the truth can be located and known.
8. Second, the Catholic Church (as an institution) does not contradict itself. This is true regardless of whether individual Catholics contradict each other.
In other words, only the Catholic Church has the right nature, ability, and capacity to serve as the pillar and foundation of truth. The universal set of all believers does not have the nature, ability, or capacity. Therefore, Paul cannot be thinking of the universal set of all believers when he uses the word “church” in 1 Timothy 3:15.
I’ll turn now to the three statements that you ascribe to me, since I’m hoping that will clarify further. You understand me to be claiming the following:
“1) Paul’s statement is applied to all spiritual truths.
2) Paul’s statement is absolute; to fail in any part of the truth, at any time, is to fail in whole.
3) Where the church has not made an official doctrinal statement, the (nigh-?) universal consensus of the church substitutes.”
I disagree with the second statement and likely disagree with the third, depending on how you are thinking about it. I am not saying that, as you put it, “for all doctrines, at all times, there has been overall consensus of the church on matters of spiritual truth.” I am not talking about “consensus” at all. Speaking of the “consensus of the church” only makes sense in a context where the church is the set of all Christians, or the set of all Catholics, or something like that. I am saying that only the Catholic Church, conceived of as an institution, has the nature required to make the whole truth of God clear and knowable.
One more clarifying point. I wrote that failure is a binary; you either succeed or fail relative to a criteria for success. This seems to have caused some confusion.
As I wrote in a previous post, I do not think the criteria of success needed to satisfy Paul’s words is that the church must have issued a single, fully-comprehensive doctrinal statement from the moment the church was founded until today. Rather, I think the criteria of success needed to satisfy Paul’s words is that the church has a nature capable of making the whole truth clear and knowable. The universal set of all believers is not capable of doing it at all.
Hope that helps.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Hi Jordan,
That actually does clarify a few things for me – thank you! Apologies for the misunderstanding, and thanks for addressing my attempts directly.
Let me see if I can reframe. I think part of our disconnect is that I understand Paul to be speaking of the action of the church: that is, that it acts as a pillar, upholding the truth. By analogy, when I say that Bob is a “pillar of the community,” I mean that Bob actively tends to do things that make our community a better place, and not that he is by nature capable of such actions. (I read Paul similarly in other places; Jesus would not be “the author and perfecter of our faith” if he did not actually perfect our faith.)
By contrast, you read Paul as describing the nature of the church: it is ordered in such a way as to be capable of taking action to uphold the truth.
So, for instance, when I see Christians speaking in a united voice on so many theological issues, I nod and say, “Yes, there’s the church, acting as a pillar for the truth.” But for you – if I’m understanding aright – it sounds like it does not matter (for the purposes of this verse) whether the church actually takes any action or not? The Catholic church could, in principle, never issue any theological declarations on any subject whatsoever; it would still have the nature of a pillar, by virtue of the fact that it theoretically could issue such declarations. Your critique of Protestantism is that no such theoretical declaration is possible, and so the church has the wrong nature to serve in this role.
Is that closer to describing your actual position?
If so, I think this is the bit that threw me. In discussing baptismal regeneration, you said,
The doctrine of baptismal regeneration was passed down through the written and oral revelation entrusted to the church, taught unanimously by the church fathers, proclaimed in the Nicene Creed, and practiced by the church in her Tradition. Trent is yet another example of how, in response to new challenges and new questions, the church again serves her function as the pillar and foundation of truth.
But if I’m understanding you right, it isn’t actually relevant to your position that there’s all this tradition among the church fathers – correct? Because by your description, the church serves as pillar “by public proclamation,” and not by general consensus or teaching of its members. Thus, the Arian heresy, however widespread it might be, does not matter to the church’s functioning as pillar unless it could be shown that the Catholic Church had made a universally binding public proclamation to that effect. Is that at all in the right neighborhood?
Can you see where, from a “behavioral” point of view, it seems peculiar to say that the church is serving as a pillar of the truth even while its leaders are overwhelmingly teaching against some aspects of that truth?
Regardless, it’s probably not a shock that I think the official teachings of the RCC contradict themselves over time, particular when the ordinary magisterium is considered. Since you’ve asked that we not get into such discussions, I’ll leave it at that. Maybe that’s an answer to your original question, though: I don’t see that the reading of nature is stronger than the reading of actual behavior, and so I do not see a need for an earthly, hierarchical church implied in this verse.
Hello Irked,
I’m glad we are starting to understand one another better. I’ll make a couple of clarifications, then move on to my interpretation of Matthew 16: 15-18 which Joe cites above and which was the other passage that troubled me as I was trying to think through Protestant and Catholic conceptions of the church. I’ll make a separate thread for that so that we can keep things more focused and continue this conversation if you’d like.
You said: “By contrast, you read Paul as describing the nature of the church: it is ordered in such a way as to be capable of taking action to uphold the truth.”
Let me rephrase point number 2 above to be more clear. In order to serve as the pillar and foundation of truth, the church must *at a minimum* be capable of presenting the whole truth of God in a visible, knowable way. I don’t think merely having the ability to do something is what Paul is assuming, but I think it is a minimum requirement. A requirement that the set of all believers cannot, in principle, fulfill, and the Catholic Church can in principle and does in reality fulfill.
I’ve given two reasons that the universal set of all believers cannot fulfill this minimum requirement (see numbers 4 and 5 above). Can you more directly address those reasons, and tell me why you think that the universal set of all believers can and does make the whole truth of God clear and knowable, even though this set is invisible and contradicts itself?
Apologies for the confusion over my comments on baptismal regeneration. I can understand how I misled you there. The universal consent of the Fathers is not what I have in mind with my argument above, so you can strike it from the record for now if that is easier. It’s actually more a way that we can know what was handed on by the Apostles as a part of Sacred Tradition.
My historical understanding of the Arian controversy is limited. I’m initially skeptical of a claim that Church leadership “overwhelmingly” taught Arianism, particularly since there were two ecumenical councils within the sixty-ish years of the Arian controversy, and both of them affirmed orthodoxy. (If you have some sources you can direct me to, I’d be interested in reading them.) In general, as I mentioned above, doctrine necessarily develops, and truth is progressively revealed and proclaimed. When the truth was in doubt, two ecumenical councils met to settle matter, and both of them proclaimed the truth in a visible and knowable manner. To me then, this is a perfect example of the capacity and reality of the Catholic Church making the truth visible and knowable, serving as the pillar and foundation of truth.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Hi Jordan,
I’ve given two reasons that the universal set of all believers cannot fulfill this minimum requirement (see numbers 4 and 5 above). Can you more directly address those reasons, and tell me why you think that the universal set of all believers can and does make the whole truth of God clear and knowable, even though this set is invisible and contradicts itself?
Sure; I was trying to address that through my discussion on nature vs. behavior, but let me be more explicit. Your points (4) and (5) hinge on (2): “In order to serve as the pillar and foundation of truth, the church must be capable of presenting the whole truth of God in a visible, knowable way.” I fundamentally reject that claim, at least under the meanings of “visible” and “knowable” I’m understanding you to use.
Paul’s statement as I read it requires only one thing: that the church upholds the truth as a pillar. Suppose that Paul had instead said, “Left-handed people are the pillar of the truth.” Would that statement require that left-handed people be “visible” – that is, that they have a temporal organization capable of speaking in one voice? Well… no, I don’t see that it would; it’s a statement about what left-handed people do, not about how they do it. Would it require that everyone else be able to identify exactly who the left-handed people are? Well, no; we’d expect that it might be possible generally to note that left-handed people act in similar ways, but there would probably be some non-left-handed people acting in apparently similar ways, or some left-handed folks who aren’t acting in the general model. The statement isn’t about these things; it’s just about describing what left-handed people as a whole do.
I read the actual passage the same way. The church is the pillar of the truth; it makes the truth more visible, but that doesn’t require that the church itself be perfectly visible or identifiable. The verse isn’t about that; it’s about the church’s relationship to the truth.
Let me try this another way. Grant, for just a moment, my reading of the verse. Suppose that Paul really does mean something on the order of, “The set of all believers, whose behavior as a whole is to uphold God’s self-revelation.”
Is it your contention that this would be a false claim – that an outside observer would look at the overall history of Christendom and say, “Nah, they haven’t really done that?” Or is it merely that I’ve misinterpreted Paul? Or is it something else?
Because that’s the answer I’ve been trying to give to your challenge: I think it’s premised on a misunderstanding of Paul (i.e., your statement (2)), and so (4) and (5) are unnecessary because (2) is false.
Let me turn to a puzzlement of my own here. I know we struck the bit on baptismal regeneration – but do you believe that the Catholic Church’s teachings via the ordinary magisterium are infallible? It seems like your definition of “pillar-ness” is almost designed to carve them out, since they aren’t an explicit singular binding doctrinal statement – but the RCC generally appeals to these teachings pretty hard both as a defense of their eventual doctrinal statements and as the means by which they taught those truths before the statements. Is this not a way in which the Catholic Church serves as the pillar of the truth?
My historical understanding of the Arian controversy is limited. I’m initially skeptical of a claim that Church leadership “overwhelmingly” taught Arianism, particularly since there were two ecumenical councils within the sixty-ish years of the Arian controversy, and both of them affirmed orthodoxy. (If you have some sources you can direct me to, I’d be interested in reading them.)
I’m not a deep scholar on the subject, either, and the complexities of who was Arian and who merely semi-Arian (and who orthodox, but linguistically confused) are probably more than are worth getting into here. I’d note only that Arianism had a strong enough position to win multiple councils of its own (including Ariminum, which represented as many bishops as had Nicaea, and several of the Sirmium councils); that they held power enough to five times exile Athanasius for opposing them, at least once after securing Pope Liberius’s signature and approval on an Arian creedal statement; and that, of them, Jerome said, “The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian.”
We do not hold these councils to be authoritative now; then again, Arianism ultimately lost this fight, and we have the luxury of defining in retrospect. In 360, the claim that Trinitarianism was the church-upheld doctrine, and Nicaea the legitimate council, was not an obvious thing.
Hi Irked,
Thanks for the response. This is a bit tricky since Paul uses a metaphor here to describe the church’s relationship to the truth. I thought initially that we interpreted that metaphor the same way, but that is not the case. (Related: dialog is hard.)
For example, you ask, “Suppose that Paul had instead said, “Left-handed people are the pillar of the truth.” Would that statement require that left-handed people be “visible” – that is, that they have a temporal organization capable of speaking in one voice?” My answer is yes. But the answer here depends on how we interpret the metaphor. I interpret “pillar of truth” to mean that the subject in question must be capable of presenting the whole truth of God in a visible, knowable way, and in order to do this, it must have a particular nature, (etc.) as I laid out above.
Again you ask, “Suppose that Paul really does mean something on the order of, “The set of all believers, whose behavior as a whole is to uphold God’s self-revelation.” Is it your contention that this would be a false claim – that an outside observer would look at the overall history of Christendom and say, “Nah, they haven’t really done that?””
You use the word “uphold,” which is metaphorical language. So if by “uphold” you mean, “present in a visible, knowable way,” then I would say that yes, the set of all belivers has failed to uphold the truth.
But if I’m understanding you correctly now, you are saying that the set of all believers serves as the pillar and the foundation of truth by making “the truth more visible.” I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “more visible.” More is a comparative word, so what are you comparing it to? Are you saying the set of all believers makes the truth more visible than it would be if there were no believers? It seems like you are claiming that that as long as some members of the set of all believers attempt to pass on the whole truth of God, then that set succeeds in serving as the pillar and foundation of truth. And, importantly, this means that it succeeds regardless of whether the individual members disagree with one another on fundamental issues of the faith.
If so, I would argue that this interpretation is a poor fit with the metaphor that Paul chooses. The metaphor posits “the truth” as a house or building, and the church as its foundation. The purpose of a foundation is to bear the weight of the structure above it, to keep it stable and sound. You seem to be saying, “The universal set of all believers succeeds in serving as the foundation of truth by making the truth more visible than it would be without the set, the same way that a foundation succeeds by making a building more stable than it would be without the foundation.” Again, you seem to be saying, “The universal set of all believers succeeds in serving as the foundation of truth by agreeing on parts of the truth, the same way that a foundation succeeds by upholding parts of a building.” As a third example, you seem to be saying, “The universal set of all believers succeeds in serving as the foundation of truth by attempting to pass on the whole truth of God, the same way that a foundation succeeds by attempting to uphold a building.”
But a foundation does not succeed as a foundation if merely attempts to keep the building upright. Nor does it succeed if it merely upholds part of the building and not all of it. Nor does it succeed if it merely makes the building better than it would be without a foundation. Similarly, then, I conclude that the universal set of all believers does not succeed at “upholding” the truth if it merely attempts to pass on the truth, or agrees on only part of the truth, or is merely better at passing on the truth than no set at all.
You ask, “Do you believe that the Catholic Church’s teachings via the ordinary magisterium are infallible?” Yes, I do believe this. One important difference between “the set of all believers” and “the set of all bishops in union with the pope,” is that the latter is visible, while the former is invisible. Therefore, the Magesterium can, in principle, uphold the truth in the way I describe. A good example of this is the doctrine of the all-male priesthood. If this was the only way that the Catholic Church claimed to make the truth visible and knowable, I would have to do some serious thinking about whether it succeeds in this or not. However, that is not the only way that the church does so. Further, I’ve been trying to focus primarily on the passage in 1 Timothy, and when Paul says “church” in this context, my argument is that he is referring generally to the insitution in its fullness, not exclusively to the Magesterium.
We can set aside the Arian question for now. Thank you for your thoughts.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Hi Jordan,
(Related: dialog is hard.)
Right?
So rather than fisk this all the way down, let me see if I can unpack what you’re saying. It seems to me that you’re describing “pillar-ness” as having basically two attributes:
1) The first is an attribute of being: one must be pillar-like in one’s qualities. For you, this requires “visibility,” which as we’ve defined it above means an organizational, hierarchical structure capable of issuing universally-binding declarations.
2) The second is an attribute of action: one must be pillar-like in one’s behavior, by upholding the truth in a consistent way.
I think we see both of those in your earlier post, where you say,
The Catholic Church, however, is capable of presenting the whole truth of God in a visible way (i.e. it has the necessary nature). There are two reasons for this, which are the inverse of the previous reasons.
7. First, the Catholic Church is a visible, universal institution. Therefore, when the church makes public proclamations about truth, the truth can be located and known.
8. Second, the Catholic Church (as an institution) does not contradict itself. This is true regardless of whether individual Catholics contradict each other.
7 is about the nature of the church as an organization, as a thing that can uphold; 8 is about its active role, via the action of “upholding.”
But it seems to me that your comments this time around – and particularly your critique of Protestants – extend the requirements for upholding significantly. In particular, you say
But a foundation does not succeed as a foundation if merely attempts to keep the building upright. Nor does it succeed if it merely upholds part of the building and not all of it. Nor does it succeed if it merely makes the building better than it would be without a foundation. Similarly, then, I conclude that the universal set of all believers does not succeed at “upholding” the truth if it merely attempts to pass on the truth, or agrees on only part of the truth, or is merely better at passing on the truth than no set at all.
You also seem to suggest that a proper pillar acting in this role will preclude disagreement within the church on fundamental issues of faith, saying,
And, importantly, this means that [Irked’s view of the church] succeeds regardless of whether the individual members disagree with one another on fundamental issues of the faith.
I read an implicit “unlike Jordan’s view of the church,” there. Is that fair?
All of that seems like it fits under the active role: you’re describing what the organization must do, and not what it merely must be capable of: it must, actively, uphold the truth, and it must uphold all of the truth, and it must uphold all of the truth in agreement with itself.
So here’s where my objection comes in: I don’t think the Catholic Church meets your standard of behavior. That leaves us several possibilities (including “Paul was wrong”), but the likeliest-seeming one to me is that you’re misreading him on this point – that you are inferring a standard that no temporal organization meets, and that would disqualify both our denominations.
Let me lay a case for that. I don’t think it’s too controversial to argue that there are some doctrines of the Catholic Church not singularly defined (“visibly” defined) for well over a thousand years: the Marian dogmas, for instance, or Trent’s definition of the canon of Scripture. Prior to that, they might be conveyed by the ordinary magisterial teaching of the church, but there’s no ecumenical council weighing in. While the Catholic Church maintains the capacity in principle to give a visible declaration on these subjects, it in practice does not do so for fifteen hundred years or more.
It seems to me that “Which sources are divinely inspired?” is about as fundamental a question as you can get; would you agree? (Perhaps the Marian dogmas are not so foundational.) Certainly the answer is part of the truth the church is to uphold! And yet – for fifteen hundred years – we have no visible statement on this point.
I would argue that leaves us with one of two necessary conclusions:
1) The Catholic Church does not serve as a pillar for this period according to your definition. It is not sufficient for it to agree on merely part of the truth; it must uphold the entire truth. For the majority of its lifespan, it has not upheld this one.
Let me anticipate a response. The last time I attempted an argument in this direction, you said,
I agree that a single, fully-comprehensive doctrinal statement, issued from the moment the church was founded and continually reissued over the centuries is not required to satisfy Paul’s words here. Such a statement is not even possible in principle. First,the church existed prior to the full revelation of God. Second the truths of God are infinite. There is always something else that can be said about God which is true, always some new insight that can be gained. This is why doctrine develops over time, as truths which were only implicit in the beginning are made more explicit. (The Trinity is a good example of this.)
The doctrine of baptismal regeneration was passed down through the written and oral revelation entrusted to the church, taught unanimously by the church fathers, proclaimed in the Nicene Creed, and practiced by the church in her Tradition.
But I’m not asking for a fully comprehensive doctrinal statement here – just for a basic acknowledgement of whether or not I can trust, say, Maccabees, or James. If I can’t even know reliably what the revelation from God is, am I not missing part of the truth almost by definition?
More, in that last statement you seemed to defend the church purely on its nature, but we’ve now agreed that action is also a relevant component. How does the action (or lack of action) of the church fit with the criteria you give?
Can I be tongue-in-cheek for a moment? I agree that the Protestant creeds do not agree with each other on some important stuff. Doesn’t the example of Trent suggest we have another thousand years to go before that becomes unacceptable?
The second possibility:
2) The church did uphold the truth of what the Scriptures were during this time, actively, and it did so through the ordinary magisterium.
But I do not see that this answer is sustainable. The standard you gave for a doctrine upheld in this way, without a visible statement, was
The doctrine of baptismal regeneration was passed down through the written and oral revelation entrusted to the church, taught unanimously by the church fathers, proclaimed in the Nicene Creed, and practiced by the church in her Tradition.
None of that is true regarding agreement on the contents of Scripture. Athanasius calls a different Scripture than Trent does. So does Jerome. So does Gregory the Great. So does the Glossa Ordinaria. So do various local councils. There is no consensus, no creed, no overwhelming practice in favor of Trent’s conclusion.
I don’t see that it’s possible to claim an ordinary magisterial teaching in Trent’s favor at all; I definitely don’t see one that avoids “individual members disagree[ing] with one another on fundamental issues of the faith.”
You say below,
If this [the ordinary magisterial teaching] was the only way that the Catholic Church claimed to make the truth visible and knowable, I would have to do some serious thinking about whether it succeeds in this or not. However, that is not the only way that the church does so.
But on this vital issue, for well over a thousand years, this was the only way that the Catholic church did so. Does the fact that we’re having this conversation now, and not in 1544, change anything about the necessity of pondering how well it did so?
Your charge seems to be that my standard is too low: that it’s too easy to meet. You say
But if I’m understanding you correctly now, you are saying that the set of all believers serves as the pillar and the foundation of truth by making “the truth more visible.” I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “more visible.” More is a comparative word, so what are you comparing it to? Are you saying the set of all believers makes the truth more visible than it would be if there were no believers? It seems like you are claiming that that as long as some members of the set of all believers attempt to pass on the whole truth of God, then that set succeeds in serving as the pillar and foundation of truth.
And that’s not exactly it. Mine is also a nature argument: that the overall nature of the church is to uphold the truth of God, just as the overall nature of the believer is to be conformed to Christ. But corporately as well as individually, we backslide; we fight against the new nature we’ve been given. I am still a new creation when I sin, and the church is still the church when it makes apologia for torture or slavery or murder. But these things are against its nature, and the natural work of Christ within the church is to grow it as the pillar and foundation of the truth.
You may still say that’s too weak a claim. But, funnily enough, I think the same of yours. In my view, the church was the pillar of the truth of Scripture during all the long years in which no official statement was made. Every Christian who ever said, “Thus saith the Lord” and pointed to the true Word was a rock in that pillar. The alternative – which still seems to me to say that it was a pillar regardless of what it actually did – seems pretty cold comfort.
Hi Irked,
Thanks for the very thoughtful response. This has been helpful for me so far.
You write, “You also seem to suggest that a proper pillar acting in this role will preclude disagreement within the church on fundamental issues of faith.” That is not what I was attempting to say. For example, there is and will always be disagreement within the membership of the Catholic Church, even after the institutional church has made a truth very clear.
Related to this, you are correct that I think, “the church must uphold all of the truth in agreement with itself.” I think the Catholic Church succeeds in this because “the church” (in the Catholic view) is a universal institution that has always been in agreement with itself (as an institution). Whereas, the universal set of all believers has never been in agreement with itself (or if it has, there is no way of knowing this, since the set is invisible). My point in the previous post was to show that this disagreement does not matter in your view of the church. In other words, I think you would disagree with the statement, “In order to serve as the pillar and foundation of truth, the universal set of all believers must uphold all of the truth in agreement with itself.” Am I correct there?
You wrote, “I don’t think it’s too controversial to argue that there are some doctrines of the Catholic Church not singularly defined (“visibly” defined) for well over a thousand years: the Marian dogmas, for instance, or Trent’s definition of the canon of Scripture. Prior to that, they might be conveyed by the ordinary magisterial teaching of the church, but there’s no ecumenical council weighing in. While the Catholic Church maintains the capacity in principle to give a visible declaration on these subjects, it in practice does not do so for fifteen hundred years or more.”
Your argument is that the Catholic Church does not live up to the standard I have set, and therefore my interpretation of Paul is incorrect. However, my standard does not require the Catholic Church as an institution to have proclaimed the canonicity of Maccabees in an ecumenical council by a certain point in history. Nor does it require that the canonicity of Maccabees is conveyed via the ordinary Magisterium by a certain point in history. (As a side note, I would say the canoncity of Maccabees was clear via the ordinary Magisterium by the 7th century, and James earlier than that.) Let me try to explain why.
You correctly anticipated my response, that “a single, fully-comprehensive doctrinal statement, issued from the moment the church was founded and continually reissued over the centuries is not required to satisfy Paul’s words here. Such a statement is not even possible in principle.”
In response to this, you wrote, “But I’m not asking for a fully comprehensive doctrinal statement here – just for a basic acknowledgement of whether or not I can trust, say, Maccabees, or James. If I can’t even know reliably what the revelation from God is, am I not missing part of the truth almost by definition?”
Yes, you absolutely would be missing part of the truth. Perhaps I was not clear enough with my previous comment. You are not asking for a fully comprehensive doctrinal statement here, no. But of course, if such a statement is not possible, then there will always be missing parts of the truth. We can point to any period in history and see some of the truths that were missing at that time, even “fundamental,” extremely important truths. To give another example, when the church was first founded, it did not really understand or clearly proclaim the truth that Gentiles could be saved and receive the Holy Spirit.
So you are correct that I believe “the church must, actively, uphold the truth, and it must uphold all of the truth, and it must uphold all of the truth in agreement with itself.” But by necessity, the active upholding of the whole truth takes place progressively, over time. And the Catholic Church, as an institution, does meet this standard.
You wrote, “Can I be tongue-in-cheek for a moment? I agree that the Protestant creeds do not agree with each other on some important stuff. Doesn’t the example of Trent suggest we have another thousand years to go before that becomes unacceptable?” The problem here is not the time frame in which the universal set of all believers passes on the truth, but rather that the universal set of all believers is technically invisible and the visible entities that we do see contradict themselves. So such a set cannot, even in principle, actively uphold all of the truth in a visible way, no matter the time frame.
You wrote, “In my view, the church was the pillar of the truth of Scripture during all the long years in which no official statement was made.” I agree, as I hope you see, though of course I don’t interpret “church,” “pillar,” or “Scripture” the same way you do!
You wrote, “The alternative – which still seems to me to say that it was a pillar regardless of what it actually did – seems pretty cold comfort.” And hopefully you can see that this is not what I am claiming. I am not claiming that the church is a pillar regardless of what it actuallly does. You seemed to understand me on this point in the first part of your post.
So moving forward, I’ve argued here that the Catholic Church does meet the standard that I have laid out, and therefore that my interpretation of Paul is indeed plausible. There are two potential next steps.
First, you can let me know if you still think the Catholic Church fails the standard I have set.
Second, could I ask you to expand more on your response to the metaphor argument I gave? How would you complete this sentence?
“The universal set of all believers succeeds in serving as the foundation of truth by ______________, the same way that a foundation succeeds by _____________________.”
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Hi Jordan,
Okay, so third thread; here’s my question for you. This is going to echo what I said to LLC; I’m curious whether your interpretation matches his.
So the book of Galatians is one of the things that persuades me that something like the Catholic model cannot be right – for a variety of reasons, but the one I’m going to focus on right now is (what seems to me to be) the way Paul systematically refutes any idea that his authority descends from some hierarchy, in chapters 1-2.
The very first thing we see in this book – in the place where we’d normally see Paul talk about his service to the gospel as an apostle – is the declaration that he is not sent from men or by men. The latter part of chapter 1 emphasizes that he’s taught, baptized, etc. for years with almost no interaction with the Jerusalem church. The early parts of chapter 2 explicitly call out “those regarded as pillars” – specifically Peter, James (presumably the brother of Christ), and John – and states that, whatever their reputation in the church, they do not stand over Paul either in his own eyes or in those of God: “whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism.” He finally, in the last part of this chapter, goes specifically out of his way to show that he is not deferential to Peter, and indeed that Peter can stray from the gospel and should be opposed when he does so.
But the most vital verses here, for me, are 1:6-9: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!”
In light of these verses, I have to conclude the following:
1) Paul expects that the Galatian church is capable of understanding what the gospel they’ve been taught actually is. He is “astonished” that they are deserting it; whatever has happened, it’s in contradiction of the critical faculties he expected them to display.
2) Paul thinks that the Galatian church should be able to judge whether a new teaching conforms to that gospel or not. This is the basis of the whole book: “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your own eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.” If it’s not reasonable to expect them to make this judgment call, there would seem to be no reason for this anger.
3) Paul thinks that they should reject new teachings inconsistent with the gospel, regardless of the source of those teachings. Note that he calls out authorities both temporal (“we,” that is, Paul as an apostle) and heavenly (“an angel from heaven”), with a general qualifier to catch anyone else. There’s no caveat here for a Magisterium; there’s no “follow Peter, who has the true gospel” – quite the opposite. There is what sure looks like a universal, unequivocal condemnation of following anyone who teaches contrary to what the Galatians see in the gospel.
So here’s my question: if one hypothesizes a Magisterium, how was the Galatian church to follow these instructions? Suppose word arrives from the Jerusalem church: “Actually, you need to be circumcised; the apostles say so.” What, according to these verses, is their proper response?
Because the only answer I can come up with that’s consistent with these verses is, “They should compare that teaching to the once-for-all gospel, judge whether the two fit together, and reject the message and the messenger if not.” LLC’s answer was that these verses are impossible to apply: that the Galatian church should yield to the Magisterium and ignore what Paul says here.
What do you say?
Hello Irked,
Good questions. Let’s walk through some of the statements that you make. (For time’s sake, I won’t go through and read your previous discussions with LLC.)
You write, “Paul systematically refutes any idea that his authority descends from some hierarchy, in chapters 1-2.” I agree. Paul’s authority as an Apostle comes directly from Christ, the same source for the authority given to Peter and the rest of the Apostles.
You write, “Paul expects that the Galatian church is capable of understanding what the gospel they’ve been taught actually is.” I agree.
You write, “Paul thinks that the Galatian church should be able to judge whether a new teaching conforms to that gospel or not.” I agree.
You write, “Paul thinks that they should reject new teachings inconsistent with the gospel, regardless of the source of those teachings.” I agree.
So far a lot of agreement. You then ask, “Suppose word arrives from the Jerusalem church: “Actually, you need to be circumcised; the apostles say so.” What, according to these verses, is their proper response?”
The problem with this question is that it already assumes that that the Catholic position is false. The Catholic position is that it is not possible for the Magesterium to contradict the gospel. This question assumes that it is possible, and so assumes that the Catholic position is false. Thus, this question is a not a neutral question that can help us decide between the Protestant and Catholic understandings of the church. You might be able to see this is you imagine an atheist who asks us, “What would you do if Jesus came back and told you to be a Muslim?” We would both tell him that the question makes no sense. Jesus cannot contradict himself. Similarly, the Magesterium cannot contradict the gospel, whether found in the Bible or in the sacred Tradition that Paul handed to the Galatians.
I’m struggling to see where the conflict is between your three statements and the Catholic view of the church. Consider the following two statements:
1. Jesus established a universal, visible, institutional church and gave authority to a particular group of people to lead that church, administer the sarcraments, pass on the whole truth of God, and settle theological disputes.
2. A Christian who has understood and embraced the gospel is morally culpable if he embraces something contrary to that gospel. (The “gospel” here referring to the truth that “a man is justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law.”)
I don’t see a contradiction between those two statements, and I take them to faithful summaries of the Catholic position on the church and your position on what Galatians shows us. Perhaps there’s something implied in one or the other that I am not seeing?
Finally, you write that “[Paul] finally, in the last part of this chapter, goes specifically out of his way to show that he is not deferential to Peter, and indeed that Peter can stray from the gospel and should be opposed when he does so.” I agree that Peter acts hypocritically by pulling back from his association with Gentiles out of fear of offending the Jews. And I agree that Paul rightly calls him out for this hypocrisy. It reminds me a bit of St. Catherine of Siena and her opposition to the Avignon papacy.
However, it seems to me that Paul still looks to Peter and the other “pillars” for confirmation that what he is preaching is true. In Galatians 2:1-2, Paul tells us that he went up to Jerusalem after fourteen years, and “laid before…(those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.” To me, this means that Paul was comparing notes with the other leaders of the church to make sure they were saying the same thing. And importantly, if there was a difference between their version and his, Paul believed that his work would have been in vain, that if he did not agree with those of repute, his preaching would have been for nothing – presumably because those leaders were the keepers of the true gospel and he would know that his preaching was false. How do you understand those verses?
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Hi Jordan,
The problem with this question is that it already assumes that that the Catholic position is false. The Catholic position is that it is not possible for the Magesterium to contradict the gospel. This question assumes that it is possible, and so assumes that the Catholic position is false. Thus, this question is a not a neutral question that can help us decide between the Protestant and Catholic understandings of the church.
So a few thoughts here.
1) Your answer is fair, as far as it goes; I understand that the Catholic position is that this is impossible. In most cases, I think this would be a very reasonable reply.
But it specifically does not work in Galatians 1. Paul goes out of his way to suggest what the church should do if an apostle comes to them; he further suggests what they should do if an angel (specifically an angel from heaven, and not a fallen spirit!) teaches a false gospel. Surely we could likewise say, “Well, it’s impossible for an apostle or an angel from heaven to teach against the gospel; it’s nonsense to even consider the question.”
But – vitally – Paul apparently doesn’t think so. Even if this is just a hypothetical that can’t/won’t actually happen, it’s a hypothetical with a clear answer: the gospel first; then any other authority.
I don’t think we can stand, after he explicitly lists apostles, angels, and everyone else, and then declare, “Well, but we can’t consider whether he intends the Magisterium; that’d be an impossibility.” The passage doesn’t allow that response; Paul could have carved out a Magisterial exception and does not, and indeed goes out of his way to deny an infallible hierarchy
2) It seems as though your response presupposes the truth of the Catholic Church’s claims – that you’re disallowing Catholic teaching from consideration under this passage on the grounds of Catholic teaching. Doesn’t that render the passage useless? Couldn’t an angel from heaven have likewise claimed to be above reproach, and so outside the purview of this passage? Couldn’t those Judaizers who came to Galatia have said much the same thing – that they spoke with incontrovertible authority? (If not, what is Paul’s point here? Why is he even bringing this up?)
And yet this is a passage on the subject of judging supposed authorities in light of the gospel. It seems fantastic to say that it simply cannot be applied to the question of whether Catholic authority is legit.
3) In the same vein, you give the example of an atheist asking an impossible question – but I could answer that question using this very verse: I cling to the gospel, and hold that the thing purporting to be Christ returned is a lying spirit. In other words, the real question under consideration is not, “What do you do if Christ actually returns and…?” nor is it “What do you do if an actually infallible church is wrong?” The real question is, “What do you do if something purporting to be Christ/an infallible church does such-and-such?”
Isn’t that, indeed, what we’re told to do: to test the spirits, and reject any spirit that denies that Christ is come in the flesh? (In this case, that Christ is God come in the flesh, since that’s the bit Islam denies, where the “in the flesh” bit is the part 1 John is more interested in.) Doesn’t the same apply to something purporting to be a Magisterium?
Or, here: I have no inherent problem with the idea that there’s an apostolic-succession church, but there are multiple churches today that claim to be the true succession of the apostolic fathers. The Catholic Church is one; the Jehovah’s Witnesses are another. I imagine you and I would agree that Galatians 1 is fully applicable to the Witnesses: that we test their teachings against the revealed gospel, and reject them because they fall short.
On what grounds do we not test the Catholic Church by that same standard? There’s no inherent knowledge burned into the human heart that the Catholic Church is indeed the true apostolic inheritor; why would we not apply the standard of Galatians 1 to them?
Because that’s where I fail out: when a church says many things that seem to me to be contrary to the Scriptures, including a denial that it’s subject to the test of Galatians 1, I have to reject it. I don’t see any other way to be obedient.
1. Jesus established a universal, visible, institutional church and gave authority to a particular group of people to lead that church, administer the sarcraments, pass on the whole truth of God, and settle theological disputes.
2. A Christian who has understood and embraced the gospel is morally culpable if he embraces something contrary to that gospel. (The “gospel” here referring to the truth that “a man is justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law.”)
I don’t see a contradiction between those two statements, and I take them to faithful summaries of the Catholic position on the church and your position on what Galatians shows us. Perhaps there’s something implied in one or the other that I am not seeing?
Here’s the problem as I see it: in practice, “pass on the whole truth of God” and “settle theological disputes” amounts to the power to infallibly define what “the gospel” is for the purposes of (2). Certainly Ignatius of Loyola saw it thus: “We should always be prepared so as never to err to believe that what I see as white is black, if the hierarchic Church defines it thus.” It’s also what I see in, say, the Catechism: “The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.” In other words, I have no standing to even ask the question, “Is this teaching of the hierarchy in line with the gospel?”
And yet Galatians explicitly places no hierarchy in that position, and condemns the church for failing to ask the question; in other words, if “the gospel” becomes something defined by (1), the meaning of (2) evaporates. Where the Catechism instructs me to yield in a way Paul condemns, what am I to do?
That’s the contradiction as I see it.
How do you understand those verses?
Broadly, I think it makes total sense that Paul would go to the men who actually knew Christ – who had sat at his feet – and make sure that what they thought Christ had said was what Paul thought Christ had said. That doesn’t imply they’re the hierarchical heads of the church – again, Paul doesn’t care whether they’re esteemed as pillars – but it does mean they have access to a kind of direct knowledge no one else does. “Is this what he actually said?” is a pretty reasonable question regardless of which of you and I is right.
Hi Irked,
Thanks for the response. I appreciate your commitment to the truth. I’m trying to be as clear as I can below, but please ask follow up questions if I lose you.
You wrote, “Paul goes out of his way to suggest what the church should do if an apostle comes to them; he further suggests what they should do if an angel (specifically an angel from heaven, and not a fallen spirit!) teaches a false gospel. Surely we could likewise say, “Well, it’s impossible for an apostle or an angel from heaven to teach against the gospel; it’s nonsense to even consider the question.” But – vitally – Paul apparently doesn’t think so. Even if this is just a hypothetical that can’t/won’t actually happen, it’s a hypothetical with a clear answer.”
The chain of inferences here is getting a bit complicated, but I’ll try to unravel it a bit. I think it is nonsense to believe that that an angel from heaven could actually preach that salvation comes through works of the law. Do you disagree with this? If you agree that it is impossible, then you seem to be coming to two different, contradictory conclusions.
1. Paul’s words mean that it is possible for the Magesterium to preach that salvation comes from works of the law.
2. Paul’s words *don’t mean* that it is possible for an angel from heaven to preach that salvation comes from works of the law
Yet he speaks of both of them in the same way. In other words, you are taking the language that Paul applies to both parties and interpreting that language to imply opposite possibilities. If it is impossible for an angel to preach that salvation comes from works of the law then the hypothetical question you think Paul raises here does not have a “clear answer.” Rather, it has no answer, because it is impossible.
That is why I do not think that Paul actually believes it is possible. He is not implying that it is actually possible for someone with the proper authority from God to betray the gospel. Rather, he is using hyperbole here. Similarly, he later tells the Galatians that he wished those who were troubling them would castrate themselves. Of course, he does not literally wish this.
You wrote, “In other words, the real question under consideration is not…“What do you do if an actually infallible church is wrong?” The real question is, “What do you do if something purporting to be Christ/an infallible church does such-and-such?””
I agree that this is the real question. The Catholic Church points to numerous reasons why it is reasonable to conclude that it is invested with authority from God (and subsequently why it is not reasonable to conclude this of the Jehovah’s Witness organization, to use your example). Usually these are referred to as “motives of credibility.” Those reasons are outside of the scope of this thread, of course. My goal here is simply to point out that the passages you point to in Galatians do not necessitate or imply that the Catholic Church is as fallible or authoritative as any other groups of Christians.
You wrote, “[W]hen a church says many things that seem to me to be contrary to the Scriptures, including a denial that it’s subject to the test of Galatians 1, I have to reject it. I don’t see any other way to be obedient.”
I agree that it is neither right nor safe to disobey conscience. I disagree, for the reasons given above, that Paul is giving us a “test” by which we can judge whether it is possible for the Magisterium to preach that salvation comes by works of the law because Paul does not believe that it is possible for the Magisterium to do this.
You wrote, “Here’s the problem as I see it: in practice, “pass on the whole truth of God” and “settle theological disputes” amounts to the power to infallibly define what “the gospel” is for the purposes of (2)… And yet Galatians explicitly places no hierarchy in that position, and condemns the [Galatian] church for failing to ask the question; in other words, if “the gospel” becomes something defined by (1), the meaning of (2) evaporates. Where the Catechism instructs me to yield in a way Paul condemns, what am I to do?”
Again, you are claiming here that the Magisterium denies the gospel, but you have not demonstrated that this is the case, nor have you demonstrated that Paul even believes it is possible. From what I can tell, the meaning of (2) only “evaporates” if it is possible for the church of (1) to deny the gospel. So again you are essentially asking, “If something impossible happens, what am I to do?” Of course, there is no answer to this question, and asking the question does not demonstrate that the event in question is possible. The Galatian church was not in the position of having to deny the gospel in order to obey the Magesterium, and you are not in that position now.
You wrote, “Broadly, I think it makes total sense that Paul would go to the men who actually knew Christ – who had sat at his feet – and make sure that what they thought Christ had said was what Paul thought Christ had said. That doesn’t imply they’re the hierarchical heads of the church – again, Paul doesn’t care whether they’re esteemed as pillars – but it does mean they have access to a kind of direct knowledge no one else does. “Is this what he actually said?” is a pretty reasonable question regardless of which of you and I is right.”
What do you think Paul means by “lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain?” To me, this implies that his assumption is that the leaders have the correct gospel. In other words, he is not going to test what the leaders of the church say against his own understanding of the gospel, and reject it if he disagrees. Rather, he assumes that if his understanding is different from the leaders, then his understanding is incorrect and all his work has been or would be in vain. And that’s a Catholic assumption, not a Protestant one.
You wrote, “It seems as though your response presupposes the truth of the Catholic Church’s claims – that you’re disallowing Catholic teaching from consideration under this passage on the grounds of Catholic teaching.”
Apologies if it came across that way. The truth of the Catholic Church’s claim has to be supported by reasoning like any other. As I tried to show above, my point is simply that your question was begging the question against the Catholic claim, rather than proving the falsity of the claim. Your question assumed from the outset what it was purporting to prove, and I’m trying to show above how you are still doing this.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Hi Jordan,
So it seems like we have a basic misunderstanding as to what I’m arguing. Let me try to clarify. You say:
If you agree that it is impossible, then you seem to be coming to two different, contradictory conclusions.
1. Paul’s words mean that it is possible for the Magesterium to preach that salvation comes from works of the law.
2. Paul’s words *don’t mean* that it is possible for an angel from heaven to preach that salvation comes from works of the law
But that’s not my argument. My premises are basically the three things laid out upthread, and with which you agreed: that Paul expects the Galatians to know what the gospel is; that Paul expects them to be able to judge new teaching against the gospel; and that Paul expects them to in fact do so, regardless of source, and reject the teaching if it is inconsistent.
It seems like you’re reading me to say, “And so the Magisterium is errant,” which you rightly conclude is unsupported. But I haven’t asserted that; I’ve simply asserted that, based on this passage, we have a theological obligation to test the teachings of the Magisterium against the gospel and see whether they conflict. In other words, I’m not trying to prove (yet) that there is error; I’m simply arguing that, regardless of whether error is even theoretically possible, we’re obliged to run the test.
Now! There’s a trap in that, because I understand the Catechism to say that we should not perform this test – that my local church, say, lacks the theological standing to even perform the check, because the right of interpreting the gospel (and so of judging whether a statement fits with it or not) isn’t extended to us. If I’m right in that assessment – that Paul says we should, and the Magisterium says we shouldn’t – it necessarily follows that either Paul or the Magisterium is in error. But that’s a second-order conclusion; it isn’t a direct teaching of the verse, in the way that “Test everyone, even the ones who shouldn’t be able to be wrong” is.
Does that better elaborate my position? You say below that you think I’m begging the question, but I don’t see what my unspoken premise is; the whole point of the angel interlude is that whether-or-not we perform the test does not depend on the presumed fallibility of the source.
Rather, he is using hyperbole here. Similarly, he later tells the Galatians that he wished those who were troubling them would castrate themselves. Of course, he does not literally wish this.
Okay: so what does Paul mean here? If, when he tells them to hold to the gospel even against himself or an angel, he does not actually mean that they should hold to the gospel even against himself or an angel… what is your positive reading of this passage?
Again, you are claiming here that the Magisterium denies the gospel, but you have not demonstrated that this is the case
That’s true. I’m just trying there to explain my position; I have not argued that it does, save in the explanation of the “trap” above.
From what I can tell, the meaning of (2) only “evaporates” if it is possible for the church of (1) to deny the gospel.
No, I don’t think that’s true. Suppose I say to you, “You know what blue is; test everyone to see if their eyes are blue, even me, who has extremely blue eyes.” If some group declares, as per (1), that their eyes define the meaning of “blue,” this becomes a meaningless test – the “test” just becomes “do whatever (1) says.”
Now, that might be a fine policy in general, but it’s clearly not the same thing as, “You know what blue is; test everyone to see whether their eyes are blue.” It’s still not the same thing even if group (1) actually does have objectively blue eyes, because it introduces an entire category of people who cannot meaningfully be tested.
Does that make sense? Even if the Catholic Church teaches only the true gospel, when I yield to them the right to define what the gospel is, the requirement that I test them against the gospel becomes nonsense. Paul’s statement here doesn’t make sense if the gospel can only be defined relative to some external source, and not by something the Galatians already know. That was the point of my first premise (to which you agreed) above: “Paul expects that the Galatian church is capable of understanding what the gospel they’ve been taught actually is.”
What do you think Paul means by “lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain?” To me, this implies that his assumption is that the leaders have the correct gospel.
I think it suggests that he had wondered, in an entirely human and understandable way, whether he had truly dedicated his life to the actual teachings of a man he’d never met, or whether he’d (broadly speaking) had a stroke on the road and hallucinated a theological system disconnected from the real Jesus – that he wondered, in other words, if the divine vision he’d called Lord was indeed the same as the carpenter of Galilee.
The only people who could possibly answer that question were those who had actually known the carpenter. This doesn’t imply special authority for them; it can’t, because Paul specifically says it doesn’t: that their supposed position meant nothing to him, and nothing to God.
In other words, he is not going to test what the leaders of the church say against his own understanding of the gospel, and reject it if he disagrees.
As I see it, he literally does precisely this in 2:11 and following.
Your question assumed from the outset what it was purporting to prove, and I’m trying to show above how you are still doing this.
I appreciate that, though as I argue above, I think you misunderstand my point. But it seems to me your response still assumes its conclusion as well: “If we assume that the Catholic Church is infallible, we don’t have to check its teachings against the gospel.” I don’t think that’s borne up by what Paul says, as he lists even infallible sources among those to be checked – but even that aside, isn’t this process of testing against the gospel part of how we determine whether a source is fallible or not? Doesn’t that privilege the apostolic church over the way Paul says to treat actual apostles?
Hi Irked,
Thanks for sticking through this. I think I am understanding your argument better, but could you answer directly the question I asked above? Do you believe that it is possible for an angel from heaven (not a fallen angel) to preach that salvation comes through works of the law?
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Jordan,
Ah, I’m sorry!
Certainly not without falling, no. (I don’t think Scripture is entirely clear whether an angel today could, in principle, fall.)
Hi Irked,
Thank you. I still do not see a conflict between the three premises you gave and the Catholic claim of infallibility, so I’m going to try fleshing out those premises with some other things you said to see if I can understand you correctly.
1. Paul expects the Galatians to know what the gospel is.
2. Paul expects them to be able to judge new teaching against the gospel
3. Paul expects them to in fact do so, regardless of source, and reject the teaching if it is inconsistent.
4. Paul’s words mean that we have a theological obligation to test the teachings of the Magisterium against the gospel and see whether they conflict.
5. The Catholic Church says that we should not perform this test because the right of interpreting the gospel (and so of judging whether a statement fits with it or not) isn’t extended to us.
6. So Paul says we have an obligation to do something that the Catholic Church forbids us from doing.
7. So either the Catholic Church is wrong, or Paul is wrong.
8. We both agree that Paul is not wrong.
9. Ergo, we should both agree that the Catholic Church is wrong.
Is this your argument?
I see several problems with this, but I want to make sure I’ve captured your argument correctly before I try to demonstrate them.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Jordan,
Almost missed this! I’m afraid we’re falling into history now.
Broadly, yes, though my primary initial point only extends through (4). I might expand (1) a little bit to be clear that Paul expects them to know the contents of the gospel and not merely, for instance, “the gospel is the stuff the Magisterium says” – that would make a hash of “even if we…”
Hi Irked,
Yes, I know that there are other conversations now in more recent posts. If you find you don’t want to keep up with our conversations here, let me know. No hard feelings, of course. (FYI, in case you missed it, I had posted another response to our conversation on 1 Timothy a few weeks ago.)
To get to your argument, then, let me try to outline why I think premises 3 and 5 are false, and that premise 1 needs to be further clarified.
The problem with premise 3 is the clause, “regardless of source.” I will try to explain again why Paul cannot be saying this. We agree that it is not possible for an angel from heaven to teach that salvation comes by works of the law. So we can rephrase Paul’s statement in Galatians this way:
“But even if [the impossible happened and] we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”
This statement cannot be taken strictly literally. If we take it strictly literally, then it is meaningless. By definition, the impossible cannot happen. It would be as if Paul were saying, “Any shape with a 75 degree angle is accursed. Even if a square has a 75 degree angle, let that square be accursed.” The second part of that conditional only applies if the first part comes to pass, and since the first part cannot come to pass, the second part cannot either.
But of course, I don’t think Paul’s statement here is meaningless, and thus it should not be taken strictly literally. Rather, it should be taken as a figure of speech, that anyone who betrays the gospel is accursed. The Catholic Church, of course, still upholds this principle. But crucially, the term “anyone” cannot actually apply to some entities, like angels.
Your Premise 3 only works if we try to read the passage strictly literally. Since we cannot read it that way, we have to modify premise 3 to something like, “Paul expects them to in fact do so, for any source that can betray the gospel, and reject the teaching if it is inconsistent.” If we change it that way, however, you have to add another premise (3B) to get the argument to work, something like, “The Catholic Church is a source that can betray the gospel.” But 3B, as we both agree, is question begging. It might be true, but it needs to be argued for.
Let me try to explain this one more way. Premises 1, 2, and 3 are not actually what Paul says, of course, they are premises that we are inferring from the text. What Paul actually says is that anyone who teaches a different gospel is accursed. Let’s say we call this group of people (the group that preaches a different gospel) Group A. Our reasoning goes like this.
Paul: Anyone in Group A is accursed.
Inference: We should reject the teaching of anyone in Group A.
Inference: We have a moral obligation to test the teaching of anyone who could be in Group A against the gospel.
Inference: There is some means by which we can understand the gospel.
But of course, there are some beings who cannot be in Group A, such as angels from heaven. If an angel from heaven came to us and started preaching something that seemed contrary to the gospel, we should not reject the angel from heaven on the grounds that he must be accursed. Rather, our conclusion ought to be that either we misunderstand the angel or we misunderstand some aspect of the gospel.
For another example, suppose that the Galatians received Paul’s letter, and then sometime later received the letter of James. (We don’t know what New Testament texts they had, of course.) We would not say that the Galatians should judge James’s letter against Paul’s letter and reject James if they think it is different. James’s letter is infallible (indeed, it is more than that, it is God-breathed). Therefore, if the Galatians think there is a conflict, they need to reevaluate either one or the other letter to bring them into harmony. With an authorized source, our job is not to test them against each other, but to reconcile them to each other.
Now, I’ll be careful to note that we shouldn’t simply accept, without evidence, the claim of a being purporting to be angel from heaven. Similarly, we should not simply accept the Catholic Church’s claim to be infallible without evidence. And the Catholic Church does not ask us to. On the contrary, it argues from the motives of credibility that its claim to infallibility is reasonable. You can argue against that claim. You can argue it is possible for the Catholic Church to be in Group A. But so far, your argument from Galatians still assumes that this is the case.
The second problem with your argument is premise 5. The Catholic Church does not claim that we should not test what other people say against the gospel. On the contrary, it encourages us to do so.
In support of your argument, you’ve said a number of similar things in multiple places. For example, “Paul’s statement here doesn’t make sense if the gospel can only be defined relative to some external source, and not by something the Galatians already know.” And “[the Catholic view] introduces an entire category of people who cannot meaningfully be tested.” And “Suppose I say to you, ‘You know what blue is; test everyone to see if their eyes are blue, even me, who has extremely blue eyes.’ If some group declares, as per (1), that their eyes define the meaning of ‘blue,’ this becomes a meaningless test – the ‘test’ just becomes ‘do whatever (1) says.'”
So let’s step back for a moment and think through this. I don’t think you actually believe that the test is meaningless if “the ‘test’ just becomes ‘do whatever (1) says.'” You would agree, I assume, with a something like “do whatever (the Protestant Bible) says.” We would both agree with “do whatever (God) says.”
You don’t actually believe that the gospel test “doesn’t make sense if the gospel can only be defined relative to some external source.” On the contrary, you would agree that it actually must be defined relative to some external source, namely the God-breathed Scriptures.
You don’t actually believe that Paul’s statement doesn’t make sense if there “is an entire category of people who cannot be tested.” On the contrary, you believe positively that there actually is an entire group of people who cannot be tested, namely the writers of the Scriptures.
We are dealing with revelation here, not the logical truths of mathematics or observable truths of the natural world. So an approach like “do whatever (1) says,” or “the gospel is whatever (1) says” is exactly the approach we must take. There has to be an authorized something or someone in those parentheses for us to know the gospel. And we have to know the gospel first before we can perform the test (your premise 1). The test, indeed, just consists of us comparing what that authorized (1) says to what someone else is saying.
Our disagreement, then, is not on the form of the test but rather on what (1) actually is. To take your “blue eyes” example, it’s not quite right to say (as per premise 5) that the Catholic Church declares that their eyes define the meaning of blue. Rather, the Church claims that Jesus’s eyes define the meaning of blue, and that he entrusts that definition to the Church for safekeeping. They claim that the Holy Spirit inspired some people to write letters and histories and poems which help us understand that definition of blue. They claim that if I find someone’s eyes and I can’t really tell if they are blue or not, or if some of us think they are blue and others of us think they aren’t, then I can ask the Catholic Church, because the Holy Spirit has guaranteed that the Catholic Church will always judge correctly what is blue. They claim that none of these three sources will ever contradict each other.
So rather than prohibiting people from testing the color of eyes or rendering the test meaningless, the Church actually gives us the means to do the test. For the Galatians, of course, they did not have all the scriptures, so the only way that they could come to know the contents of the gospel (premise 1) was through a combination of sacred Tradition delivered by Paul, whatever part of the Scriptures they had, and possibly the clarification from the Council of Jerusalem (hard to know exact dates on these or how quickly the declaration spread).
You write, “But it seems to me your response still assumes its conclusion as well: ‘If we assume that the Catholic Church is infallible, we don’t have to check its teachings against the gospel.'” The conclusion that I am arguing for at the moment is: “Paul’s teaching in Galatians does not contradict the Catholic Church’s claim to infallibility.” I have not assumed that conclusion, as far as I can tell. I am not making a positive argument in favor of infallibility. That argument, as I’ve said, is based on the motives of credibility, and we do not have the space to go into those here.
You ask, “[I]sn’t this process of testing against the gospel part of how we determine whether a source is fallible or not?” In a sense yes, in another sense no. Let’s take the book of Proverbs as an example. In Proverbs 26:4-5 we read, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” This appears to be a contradiction. It seems like Proverbs (or at least these verses) cannot be God-breathed. Yet we have other reasons to believe (other motives of credibility) that Proverbs is Scripture, and so this apparent contradiction must not be an actual contradiction. To do otherwise is to take the path of Marcion or to give in to the temptation of Martin Luther (which he thankfully eventually rejected) and throw out parts of the Bible that we think contradict the parts we believe.
I know that’s a lot of text, so is there anything in what I’ve said that I am unclear on or that you still disagree with? I don’t want to belabor the point.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Hi Jordan,
I know that’s a lot of text, so is there anything in what I’ve said that I am unclear on or that you still disagree with? I don’t want to belabor the point.
Well, I mean, yes. I’m a little bit agog that Paul’s example here is, “Don’t trust anyone, not even angels,” and your conclusion about a third of the way down is, “But obviously you should trust angels.” You say:
“But even if [the impossible happened and] we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”
This statement cannot be taken strictly literally. If we take it strictly literally, then it is meaningless.
But that’s not true. Your parsing here would seem to suggest that Paul is speaking only of impossibilities. But he isn’t; he’s giving an impossibility as an upper bound. Suppose I say to you, “You keep letting people on the Tilt-a-Whirl who are too short. Stop it. Even if it’s, like, the planet Jupiter, and wants to ride, you check them out and ban them if they’re too short.”
Now, we might agree that it is impossible for the planet Jupiter to do so, and anyway it would clearly be tall enough. Does this make my statement meaningless in the literal sense? No, obviously not; it establishes a standard for a range of people, and then extends that standard out to a ludicrous degree. The meaning is clear: this applies to everyone.
The same applies here. Even the people who should be above reproach must be tested against the gospel. That’s, after all, the function of the “even if” at the beginning: it sets an impossibly high bar, and thus includes everyone up to and including that bar.
That seems to me to be the exact point Paul is trying to make in 1:6-9: “I understand some people are throwing you into confusion, but no matter who they are, let them be accursed.” Likewise, this explains why Paul calls out Peter a bit later; he’s establishing that even apostles are not above reproach in this regard – and this is important, because the Judaizers are sometimes claiming to speak for the apostles (or to be “superapostles”).
Your response would seem to entirely defang Paul’s response; it enables a Judaizer to simply shrug and say, “Well, obviously I’m not included in that category.” Paul’s superlative examples seem serve no function other than to allow no one that possibility: everyone faces the bar of the gospel.
(Even in pure logic, this works; “If , then X” is a logically consistent statement, albeit one that’s always true. Paul’s statement here is closer to “If , then X” – but again, that’s perfectly coherent read literally.)
Your Premise 3 only works if we try to read the passage strictly literally. Since we cannot read it that way, we have to modify premise 3 to something like, “Paul expects them to in fact do so, for any source that can betray the gospel, and reject the teaching if it is inconsistent.”
See, again, this is the part that’s baffling to me. Paul sets the bar as impossibly high as he can, and you’re immediately lowering it back down – excluding the very people he explicitly says to include. It seems to me that you have to do this – that, if you do not, the Catholic Church does indeed stand opposed to Paul on this matter – and yet it’s wholly destructive to his argument.
I sincerely don’t have any idea how to argue from here, and that makes me a little bit sad, because this has been a fun conversation.
If an angel from heaven came to us and started preaching something that seemed contrary to the gospel, we should not reject the angel from heaven on the grounds that he must be accursed. Rather, our conclusion ought to be that either we misunderstand the angel or we misunderstand some aspect of the gospel.
Or that the thing purporting to be be an infallible messenger from God – i.e., an angel – is not. Right? Thus we’re told elsewhere to “test the spirits”: see if purported angels actually are from heaven.
For another example, suppose that the Galatians received Paul’s letter, and then sometime later received the letter of James. (We don’t know what New Testament texts they had, of course.) We would not say that the Galatians should judge James’s letter against Paul’s letter and reject James if they think it is different.
So this is funny to me, because we see something very near that happen in Galatians 2: “For before certain men came from James, [Peter] used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.”
Paul’s not shy in saying that both James and Peter can potentially mislead people, nor in saying that they should be opposed when they do.
Now, clearly an infallible, God-breathed letter of James cannot contradict Paul’s gospel. But any letter must be tested against that gospel precisely to see if it meets that criterion.
The second problem with your argument is premise 5. The Catholic Church does not claim that we should not test what other people say against the gospel. On the contrary, it encourages us to do so.
I don’t think it’s unusual to say, “Test everyone except me,” though. What’s remarkable about Paul’s standard is that it includes himself; what’s troubling about the Catholic Church’s position is that it does not include themselves.
Absent this, Premise 5 loses its import.
I’m unfortunately out of time right now, so I can’t respond to the rest of this at the moment, but at least that’s a bit to go on.
Argh, put my logical conditions in angle brackets, and they got interpreted as tags. My apologies.
Hi Irked,
Perhaps it would be best to take a moment, pray, and then reread what I’ve wrote with as much charity as you can muster. It might be good for you to attempt to write my argument for me, as I did for you. As you’ve said, we have had a good conversation to this point and in other places, and I’m hoping you’ve at least seen that I tend to think through things very carefully, as you do. I will respond a bit to what you wrote, but much of the way I would respond is already contained in the post above, so I will wait to revist those points until you have finished your analysis.
You wrote, “I’m a little bit agog that Paul’s example here is, ‘Don’t trust anyone, not even angels,’ and your conclusion about a third of the way down is, ‘But obviously you should trust angels.'” You agreed that it is not possible for an angel from heaven to betray the gospel. Why, then, do you think Paul is saying not to trust them? How can you hold to both?
You wrote that Paul is “giving an impossibility as an upper bound.” But an impossibility is not an upper bound. An upper bound has to be possible. You give a carnival example with Jupiter and ask if your statement is “meaningless in the literal sense?” Yes, it is. If you take “literal” to mean, “taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory,” then a statement which speaks of Jupiter riding a carival ride is “literally” meaningless because it is “literally” impossible. It does not and cannot in principle literally mean that the person should measure Jupiter if Jupiter tries to board the ride because it is impossible for Jupiter to try to board the ride.
Suppose I said to you, “If green oranges run wildly, then sail the moon to three o’clock.” Taken literally, this phrase is meaningless, even if, grammatically, it has a perfectly correct if/then structure. Your concept, “if Jupiter asks to ride, then do X” and Paul’s concept, “if angels preach a different gospel, then do Y,” similarly describe impossible situations. The difference is that your sentence and Paul’s do not lack all meaning. Yours means, as you said, that the person should measure everyone that is capable of riding the ride, and send them away if they are too short. And Paul’s means, as I’ve tried to point out, that everyone that is capable of betraying the gospel and does so is accursed, and (we infer) we should reject them.
You write, “Paul sets the bar as impossibly high as he can, and you’re immediately lowering it back down – excluding the very people he explicitly says to include.” My argument is that he does not actually believe an angel from heaven can be accursed for preaching a different gospel, because he does not think an angel from heaven is capable of preaching a different gospel. So he is not explicitly saying to include them. Therefore his statement does not actually apply to everyone. Do you think, for example, that we ought to test what Jesus says against the gospel, as we understand it?
You write, “Your response would seem to entirely defang Paul’s response; it enables a Judaizer to simply shrug and say, ‘Well, obviously I’m not included in that category.'”
Again, we both agree that “we shouldn’t simply accept, without evidence, the claim of a being purporting to be angel from heaven,” (as I said) “or that the thing purporting to be an infallible messenger from God – i.e., an angel – is not,” (as you said). A Judaizer cannot simply shrug and say it doesn’t apply to them. They must give evidence of their infallibility to make it reasonable. We do not disagree on this point, and the Catholic Church is not exempt from this requirement.
You wrote, “It seems to me that you have to do this – that, if you do not, the Catholic Church does indeed stand opposed to Paul on this matter – and yet it’s wholly destructive to his argument.” What this seems to imply is that I am committed to the Catholic position whether or not it is true. And this is not my situation. Perhaps you did not mean to imply this. To be personal for a moment, my return to the Catholic Church has cost me and continues to cost me a great deal of pain in my personal life and it would be much easier for me to return to Protestantism. My goal in this conversation is to reach agreement on the truth, regardless of where it leads us. So if you think there is truth I am not seeing, please continue to try, in charity, to show it to me.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Jordan,
I owe you an apology; I wrote while frustrated about some issues unrelated to your posts, and under a time limit that precluded reconsideration of harsh words. Thanks for your gracious response, and I’ll try to to a better job of replying somewhere in the next few days.
Hi Irked,
That’s very nice of you to say. Of course, I forgive you. I have admired your ability to continue so many conversations at once, and I’m sure it probably feels like constant attack sometimes. I know I have to take a break from this kind of thing regularly to get back to devotion and prayer. Please pray for me, as I will for you.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Irked,
Nice “talking” to you again.
I would like to disagree with your interpretation of Acts 15. The narrative surely takes off from Antioch, but the Church of Antioch didn’t request the Council. Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to discuss what, in my opinion, was seen as a local issue with the Apostles and elders. Since Luke reports this issue as happening in other places where Gentile and Jew Christians are coexisting (Jerusalem at least), the Church of Jerusalem, seeing it as a more universal struggle, “convokes”, for lack of a better word, the Council, and after much discussion a conclusion is reached, and letters sent to other Churches, not just back to Antioch. Therefore, Acts 15 is very much in support of a global church structure, and contradicts your “At an absolute minimum, there’s nothing here that can only be accomplished by a universal government” conclusion, which is, incidentally, vague (what is your “absolute minimum”?). If not, why sending Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem in the first place, if a binding decision could’ve been reached in Antioch?
Otherwise, good post. I disagree, of course, with your minimizing the divisions inside the Protestant universe, but enough ink has been poured out on it already, so I’ll stick with Acts 15.
Hi LLC,
Good to see you, too!
contradicts your “At an absolute minimum, there’s nothing here that can only be accomplished by a universal government” conclusion, which is, incidentally, vague (what is your “absolute minimum”?)
Yeah, that was not worded great. Let me try again: I think Scripture actively does not teach a papacy. But even if you won’t go that far (I am, after all, somewhat biased on the subject), I think we should be able to agree that Matthew 18 or Romans 10 can all be fully satisfied without the need for one. My “absolute minimum” was an attempt to say, “Even if we don’t agree all the way, can’t we agree that these verses aren’t enough to make Joe’s case?”
The narrative surely takes off from Antioch, but the Church of Antioch didn’t request the Council.
We don’t really know exactly what they asked for, but I think it’s fair to say they did not specifically request a council, sure. I was trying more to say that Antioch clearly asks Jerusalem for help with this matter – that it is a voluntary “Hey, what should we do?” coming from a younger church to the sole elder church, and not something Jerusalem initiates towards Antioch. And as far as that goes, I don’t see that Protestants have any issue with a young church asking their elders in the faith for directions.
If not, why sending Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem in the first place, if a binding decision could’ve been reached in Antioch?
Because Antioch pretty clearly doesn’t know what to do; from what’s said in v. 24, we may presume that they aren’t sure who is bringing the actual gospel. Again, there’s nothing in Protestantism that forbids voluntary submission of one church’s leadership to another’s instruction – it can even be a really good idea! We just don’t think it’s mandatory that such a structure goes all the way up to a single pinnacle (well, except Christ).
And I think the presentation in Acts 15 has to be balanced against Paul’s words in Galatians 1-2: that Paul’s teaching does not derive its authority from any temporal churchly organization; that it very pointedly does not derive from Peter; and that any new teaching, be it from angels, apostles, or anyone else, must be measured against the gospel they first received – and if it fails, let that messenger be accursed. I don’t see any way to unify that with ultimate submission to any sort of church hierarchy.
Irked,
“…I think we should be able to agree that Matthew 18 or Romans 10 can all be fully satisfied without the need for one” = actually, I think that Matthew 18 completely supports the idea of a central Church, for the exact reason that the Church in Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, asking for help. You say that Antioch’s request was “…a voluntary “Hey, what should we do?” coming from a younger church to the sole elder church, and not something Jerusalem initiates towards Antioch”. I agree that Jerusalem did not initiate the fix to Antioch’s “issue”; instead, they saw that Antioch’s issue was more widespread than, perhaps, even Antioch thought, and convened a Council to decide once and for all a common solution to be adopted by other churches as well. Furthermore, in my opinion Galatians 1-2 actually supports the need for a central Church. If Paul doesn’t derive his teaching authority from any temporal organization, why then he is the one sent to Jerusalem (with Barnabas), looking for a common solution? We know that Paul, through his letters, will provide guidance to many churches without the need for guidance from Jerusalem, correct? Why is this issue requiring a more widespread consensus? Perhaps because it’s not as unequivocally derivable from his current knowledge, or maybe because the contrasting teachings are coming from a perceived authoritative source (…down from Judea). In Acts 14, “…some Jews came from Antioch and Iconium and won the crowd over”, but Paul doesn’t feel the need to contact those churches to straight out whatever issue they had. The circumcision issue will require that, and the consequent “…ultimate submission to […] church hierarchy”, which is consistent with the Catholic Church use of the Councils sparingly, and only when she perceives the need to clarify a notion of widespread application. You say that “Again, there’s nothing in Protestantism that forbids voluntary submission of one church’s leadership to another’s instruction – it can even be a really good idea!”, but does it actually happen? See the split among Presbyterians and Episcopalians regarding same-sex marriages and ordinations. These two denominations have a central governing body that, in reality, doesn’t have any doctrinal nor political power, hence the contradiction between that notion and “We just don’t think it’s mandatory that such a structure goes all the way up to a single pinnacle”. The original Church clearly did have a system to invoke a common decision when important doctrinal questions arose, and Acts 15 is proof of it.
So, in a way, while you and I are saying the same thing (the Church in Antioch did not know how to deal with that issue), we disagree on the significance of Jerusalem’s involvement in addressing it.
Hi LLC,
actually, I think that Matthew 18 completely supports the idea of a central Church, for the exact reason that the Church in Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, asking for help.
In Matthew 18?
To be clear, my claim here isn’t that these verses can’t be read in a manner consistent with a central church – it’s that they do not require one.
Furthermore, in my opinion Galatians 1-2 actually supports the need for a central Church.
This is the passage where Paul explicitly declares that he is “not sent from men or by a man,” where he explicitly says of “those held in high esteem” (i.e., James, Peter, and John) that “whatever they were makes no difference to me,” where indeed Paul opposed Peter to his face on the grounds that the gospel was right and Peter was wrong. I don’t deny the utility of an infallible central church, if one existed – but Paul seems pretty clear that his authority derives from Christ’s gospel directly, and no human intermediary is to be trusted against it.
Let me return a couple of questions here:
1) What do you understand Paul to be denying in 1:1? Do you see any link between his words here and his dismissive comments towards the “pillars” in ch. 2?
2) Perhaps I’ve asked you this before, but let me ask again: suppose you were a member of the Galatian church, having received the true gospel from Paul. Now word comes to you from a central church that (to the best of your ability to understand) stands in conflict with that gospel. In light of Paul’s teaching in 1:7-9, what is your church’s proper response?
Why is this issue requiring a more widespread consensus?
To judge from Acts 15, it’s because not everyone believes Paul’s gospel.
Perhaps because it’s not as unequivocally derivable from his current knowledge
That’s again inconsistent with Galatians 2: “They added nothing to my message.” The best presentation we have is that it is Paul who is most correct on this matter, initially, and it’s the rest of the church who comes to recognize the truth, with even Peter and Barnabus led astray along the way.
You say that “Again, there’s nothing in Protestantism that forbids voluntary submission of one church’s leadership to another’s instruction – it can even be a really good idea!”, but does it actually happen?
Oh, yeah, all the time. This is (as I understand it) the idea behind “the session” of my PCA brothers.
These two denominations have a central governing body that, in reality, doesn’t have any doctrinal nor political power
The idea that a denomination must wield political power seems ungrounded in Scripture or early church history.
More to the point, “Presbyterian” isn’t a denomination. The PCUSA went one way on this matter; the PCA went another. Each of them has a separate government, and denominational governments can and do act – the SBC, for instance, expelled a church on doctrinal grounds just this past summer.
But even more to the point: let’s set same-sex marriage aside for a moment and talk about, say, the giving of communion to those divorced and remarried. I think we’d be hard pressed to say that the existence of a central authority in Catholicism has prevented a split on how the Catholic Church answers that doctrinal question; indeed, it sure seems like that authority has facilitated the split. Why is this not the same kind of problem?
Irked,
This is the progression, as I see it. In Matthew 18:15-18, Jesus defers judgement to the church, do we agree? You say “yes, the local church”, to which I concur, until the issue is (either by geographic extension or thematic importance) larger than the local authority. Then a larger entity is required, the central church (Acts 15), because Paul’s authority is clearly not enough. You object that in Galatians 1-2 Paul says that his authority comes from Christ’s gospel, yet he defers to the Jerusalem church in the matter of the circumcision for the Gentiles. If Paul is “not sent from men or by a man”, then why going to Jerusalem in the first place? After all, in other instances he took care of the issue at hand personally by addressing it in an epistle. Note that in the Galatians epistle (which some see as another rendition of the Council of Jerusalem, this time from Paul’s point of view), despite his declarations of independence from any man’s endorsement, Paul needed to be sure that he “… was not running and had not been running my race in vain”. He clearly sees the need to be recognized by the other Apostles and their authorization (2:9) to continue his mission. Furthermore, let’s not forget Paul’s deference to the Church in 1 Timothy 3:15. Hopefully my line of thoughts is clearer now.
If I may ask, to what are you referring with the “the giving of communion to those divorced and remarried” issue facilitating a split?
Hi LLC,
I’d really like to see your answers to my questions before I press on in response to you, here; I don’t really understand how you interpret Galatians 1-2, and that’s going to impede our progress.
If I may ask, to what are you referring with the “the giving of communion to those divorced and remarried” issue facilitating a split?
I’m referring to the fact that Francis has declared what he thinks the correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia is, and his stated interpretation directly contradicts the one a fair number of conservative Catholic scholars have insisted is the only and necessary historical position of the church. This is not exactly a model of a central authority resolving conflict; I’d like to know how you square it with your comments above.
Irked,
1) As I understand it, Paul is saying that he (Paul) has been sent directly by Jesus. In other words, he (Paul) did not get commissioned by any man nor men. Having said that, Paul is not saying that he (Paul) doesn’t need consent nor endorsement from a church; he explicitly says in Galatians 1:23 that a report from Jerusalem supports his teachings, and (Galatians 2:2) that he consulted with the leaders to make sure that his message was still on target.
2) Your question cannot warrant a straight answer. How do I know that Paul’s message is correct, when he himself is not so sure and needs to consult the central church? If a source with apparent authority proclaimed a different message, I would wait for the pronunciation from the central authority (Magisterium, in my case). This, of course, assuming that the contradiction in teachings would be so deep that I could not make up my own mind. I a “priest” said that, for example, the Eucharist is not really Jesus’ body and blood, I would ignore his teachings and report him to the Bishop.
Hopefully this helps. As for my question, I was really hoping that you would not bring up AL. This is why I rarely enter in discussions with P, E and ND. If even concepts expressed in contemporary terms can produce such different interpretations, how much more words in a dead language long lost can be misinterpreted. Another reason, for me, for an authoritative interpretative entity that supersedes the local white noise, often produced by ignorance on the subject or by plain malevolent intent. Hence, to your “This is not exactly a model of a central authority resolving conflict; I’d like to know how you square it with your comments above” = I say, I do not fret. The Church’s times are not our time. Perhaps because of my background in Geology and its different understanding of time, I do not need a response here and now. I can wait (perhaps even to the next Pope). And, incidentally, there has been no split yet. The Church is still one.
Hi LLC,
1) As I understand it, Paul is saying that he (Paul) has been sent directly by Jesus. In other words, he (Paul) did not get commissioned by any man nor men. Having said that, Paul is not saying that he (Paul) doesn’t need consent nor endorsement from a church; he explicitly says in Galatians 1:23 that a report from Jerusalem supports his teachings, and (Galatians 2:2) that he consulted with the leaders to make sure that his message was still on target.
“These guys agree with me” or “I checked to make sure we were teaching the same gospel” is not the same thing as being under their authority as a central church hierarchy, though. I see Paul unambiguously denying here that his authority derives from “those held in high esteem – whatever they were makes no difference to me.” Do you?
2) Your question cannot warrant a straight answer. How do I know that Paul’s message is correct, when he himself is not so sure and needs to consult the central church?
Would you say, then, that it was impossible to actually apply 1:8-9 at the time? When Paul writes 1:8-9, do you think he intended the Galatian church to be unable to apply these words, or does it seem that Paul expects that they should be able/have been able to test new teachings against already revealed truth?
If a source with apparent authority proclaimed a different message, I would wait for the pronunciation from the central authority (Magisterium, in my case).
Wouldn’t the Magisterium fall under Paul’s heading of, “we or an angel from heaven… [or] anybody” that should be held accursed? Given that Paul has just described authorities both earthly and heavenly as being insufficient, it seems odd to respond that you’d wait for an authority to weigh in.
As for my question, I was really hoping that you would not bring up AL.
I mean, it’s pretty directly relevant, right? You raise a place where Protestant churches are currently arguing among themselves; it seems only fair to point out where Catholics are doing so as well. If arguing among ourselves – if teaching different doctrines – is a sign of a failed church, then all our churches have failed.
But if one can say, as you seem to, “This too shall pass, and the church will endure, though some fall away” – then I can say that of Protestantism as well, can’t I? I believe God’s truth will win out in the end, whether or not it does so on the timetable I’d prefer.
***
To your post I skipped:
In Matthew 18:15-18, Jesus defers judgement to the church, do we agree?
I’m not sure I do. I think Jesus appoints the church to handle matters of discipline in this body, but I also think there are reasonable arguments that he’s saying here the earthly judgments echo (rather than cause) the heavenly ones: that the better translation carries a meaning closer to, “As you judge sin in the church, it has already been judged in heaven.”
You say “yes, the local church”, to which I concur, until the issue is (either by geographic extension or thematic importance) larger than the local authority. Then a larger entity is required, the central church (Acts 15), because Paul’s authority is clearly not enough.
That seems to me like a pretty major equivocation on “not enough.” Paul’s authority is insufficient to persuade everyone in Antioch; that is, the perception of Paul’s authority is insufficient (a recurring problem). That’s quite different from saying that Paul lacks the authority in actual fact to make this judgment, whether or not anyone will listen to him; per his testimony in Galatians 1-2, he does have this authority – or, more to the point, the gospel he carries has the authority.
In this view, the council of Acts 15 is recognizing a truth already revealed – already authoritatively declared in the gospel. Notice how the arguments presented are historical, regarding God’s revelation of the answer through miraculous signs (v. 12), through his direct witness to Peter (v. 7-11), and most finally through Scripture (v. 13-18). The council has to decide how they will interpret God’s revelation, yes – but the judgment is already made by God and has already been revealed.
You object that in Galatians 1-2 Paul says that his authority comes from Christ’s gospel, yet he defers to the Jerusalem church in the matter of the circumcision for the Gentiles.
He does not: “they added nothing.” Judging by 2:11-21, had the church ruled otherwise, Paul would have “opposed them to their face.”
Note that in the Galatians epistle (which some see as another rendition of the Council of Jerusalem, this time from Paul’s point of view), despite his declarations of independence from any man’s endorsement, Paul needed to be sure that he “… was not running and had not been running my race in vain”. He clearly sees the need to be recognized by the other Apostles and their authorization (2:9) to continue his mission.
Whoa, that’s not at all the same thing. Paul talks about going there to confirm that, yes, this revelation he’s had is real – that the work he’s doing is indeed from God – by talking to the men who actually knew the Savior who had appeared to him. He notes that the apostles are all cool with each other – that, contra the apparent rumors, he isn’t at war with the rest of them. That’s not at all the same thing as saying he needed their recognition and authorization; it can’t be, because he’s already flatly stated that his authority does not come from them (1:1), and that they hold no higher place (2:6) either in his eyes or the eyes of God!
Irked,
“Paul unambiguously denying here that his authority derives from “those held in high esteem – whatever they were makes no difference to me.” Do you?” = I have already answered this question. Paul has been sent directly by Jesus, but this doesn’t preclude the necessity to be in communion with (and ultimately defer to) the Church that Jesus Himself has established. Furthermore, are you positive that “those held in high esteem” are actually James, Peter and John? The latter are considered pillars, quite different than being held in high esteem. Note the wording in Galatians 2:6-8. Paul is not talking about the Apostles, whom he cites in 2:9, when they (John, James and Peter) welcome him and Barnabas in fellowship (as equal). The wording in Acts 15 is much more deferent towards the elders and the Apostles, with Paul and Barnabas watching from the sidelines as witnesses. The tone in Galatians, in my opinion, is nothing but ambiguous, with Paul walking a very thin line between asserting his mission as been directly from Jesus and still looking at the Church in Jerusalem as endorser and ultimate arbiter.
“Would you say, then, that it was impossible to actually apply 1:8-9 at the time?” = yes. Your question assumes knowing that Paul’s message is the true Gospel (which it is, but it’s beside the point). Paul actually includes himself in Galatians 1:8-9 (first “we”), so it’s clear to me that even he is not sure about his own teachings. Perhaps because of the provenience of the contrasting message (from Judea). Remember, Paul writes after the facts, so he can afford to be bold in his asserting now that “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!”. The Church in Jerusalem has confirmed that his message was correct.
“Wouldn’t the Magisterium…” = no. Again, Paul himself not being sure, I would wait for his return from consulting with the Church in Jerusalem before accepting or refuting the new teachings. Magisterium = Church of Jerusalem.
As for AL and teaching different doctrines, I am not aware of any split among Catholics as a result of it. I am, instead, well aware of splits among Protestants as a result of recent doctrinal changes.
“That’s quite different from saying that Paul lacks the authority in actual fact to make this judgment, whether or not anyone will listen to him; per his testimony in Galatians 1-2, he does have this authority – or, more to the point, the gospel he carries has the authority” = again, Paul is not shy in other instances to apply his full weight without the need to consul the Church in Jerusalem. For the specific issue in Antioch, although he has the authority, he clearly lacks the confidence in his message (“I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain”), therefore he defers to a higher authority (higher than him, not the Gospel). And see how different is Luke’s description of the facts compared to Paul’s. Luke simply reports the facts (Acts 15:5); Paul is much more judgmental and, if you allow me, almost childish in his characterization of the opponents (Galatians 2:4), as if in need of further vindication.
“that the better translation…” = if you mean that God already knows what the Church will decide, it’s beside the point. The Church doesn’t know at any point in time what will or will not be bound in the future. Can you please quote who says that “As you judge sin in the church, it has already been judged in heaven” is a better translation?
“Paul’s authority is insufficient to persuade everyone in Antioch; that is, the perception of Paul’s authority is insufficient (a recurring problem)” = clearly, as his opponents seem to carry equal or higher authority, hence the need to resolve this issue at a higher level. Again, you know now that Paul is Paul. Your specific question was to position ourselves back at the time of the facts (not when Galatians was written).
“In this view, the council of Acts 15 is recognizing a truth already revealed – already authoritatively declared in the gospel” = where? The best precedent would be Peter’s vision, which has not yet written down in the books of Acts. Note that the issue is not if the Gentiles could be saved – this has been settled for a very long time. The issue at hand is much more subtle, that is, if the Mosaic Law should apply to the Gentiles as well as the Jews.
“He does not: “they added nothing.” = actually, Acts 15 reports “much discussion”, and then the issue is settle by Peter with the final stamp of James. Also, note that the Church sends back to Antioch “some of their own men”, to support Paul’s message.
“Judging by 2:11-21, had the church ruled otherwise, Paul would have “opposed them to their face.” = not too sure about it. After all, in Acts 16 Paul has Timothy circumcised, so he himself was not immune from social pressure.
“That’s not at all the same thing as saying he needed their recognition and authorization” = contradicted by Acts 15:22-23, especially.
Hi LLC,
I have already answered this question. Paul has been sent directly by Jesus, but this doesn’t preclude the necessity to be in communion with (and ultimately defer to) the Church that Jesus Himself has established.
Okay. I don’t think “he was not sent by them, he was not sent from them, he does not care what they are supposed to be, and he goes out of his way to give examples of contradicting them – but he still has to defer to them” is a consistent position.
Furthermore, are you positive that “those held in high esteem” are actually James, Peter and John? The latter are considered pillars, quite different than being held in high esteem.
It is not; 2:2, 2:6, and 2:9 are all just different forms of the same root word “dokeo,” i.e., “to esteem.” 2:9 may be a more particular group, but it is at worst a subgroup of 2:6 or 2:2, and so things said of them are still true of 2:9.
Note the wording in Galatians 2:6-8. Paul is not talking about the Apostles
He is, yes. John Chrysostom reads them this way, in his Homily on Galatians 2: “This is his meaning; What you may say, I know not; this I know well, that the Apostles did not oppose me, but our sentiments conspired and accorded.” Catholic scholar Frank Matera concludes in his commentary that P,J,&J are at least among the group in 2:6. Is this an original reading, or do you have someone in mind who reads 2:6 and 2:9 as disjoint groups?
“Would you say, then, that it was impossible to actually apply 1:8-9 at the time?” = yes.
…
“Wouldn’t the Magisterium [fall under the heading of “anybody”]” = no.
So… look, I could keep fisking this, but I don’t think I’m going to land my point any clearer than that does.
We Protestants like to say, “You’re negating the command of God for the sake of your tradition!” We probably say it too much, but, like…
… there’s the command of God, right? God says, through Paul, to the church in Galatia, “If anyone comes teaching another gospel, let him be accursed.” And your response is that the people to whom the message most directly addressed is – literally, unambiguously – that they can’t actually be expected to follow it. If Peter comes and teaches (what seems to them to be) a different gospel, not only are they not to hold him accursed, they’re to abandon the gospel Paul preached for it.
That’s a direct, unequivocal contradiction of Paul’s own words. I don’t really know where else to go from there, and I don’t see that any of the rest of our conversation matters in comparison. If your belief in the Magisterium requires you to disregard parts of Galatians 1… then you’ve negated the command of God for the sake of your tradition.
***
But so as to finish out the post.
As for AL and teaching different doctrines, I am not aware of any split among Catholics as a result of it.
Okay. Help me out, then; I see two statements:
1) “Does the Pope say the divorced and civilly remarried may now be readmitted to Holy Communion? No.”
2) “[For the divorced and remarried] Amoris laetitia opens the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.”
Which of these is the unified Catholic position?
he defers to a higher authority (higher than him, not the Gospel).
You say “defers to a higher,” I say “consults with a fellow.” Galatians says God doesn’t play favorites, and Paul doesn’t care who they are.
if you mean that God already knows what the Church will decide, it’s beside the point.
I do not. My point is that the church judges sin in the church on the grounds that God has already judged sin: that when they bind one of their members in keeping with the command, they’re acting in accord with what God has already done. It’s God’s action, not knowledge, that comes first.
Can you please quote who says that “As you judge sin in the church, it has already been judged in heaven” is a better translation?
Sure. The translators of the NASB render the passage “shall have been bound,” which gives the sense I described.
“In this view, the council of Acts 15 is recognizing a truth already revealed – already authoritatively declared in the gospel” = where?
Paul says in the miraculous signs; Peter says in the miraculous vision; James, most compellingly, says in the book of Amos.
After all, in Acts 16 Paul has Timothy circumcised, so he himself was not immune from social pressure.
I would argue there’s a difference between striving to be all things to all people in order to let them hear the gospel, and compromising on what the truth of the gospel actually is. Would you agree with that?
Irked,
“but he still has to defer to them” = never said that. I said that Paul defers to the Church; huge difference.
St. John Chrysostom doesn’t specifically say that the 2 groups in Galatians 2:6-8 and 2:9 are the same. He follows “this is his meaning” with “they gave me the right hand of fellowship”, so in a way he’s talking about the latter group more than the former. Furthermore, later in the homely, he notices how Paul “… gradually proves that his doctrine was ratified both by Christ and by the Apostles”. If Christ’s ratification was enough, why did he need the latter? Incidentally, in Greek the first group is simply “reputed to be something” (dokounton einai ti); the second is “reputed to be pillars” (dokountes styloi einai). Again, huge difference, at least to me.
As for Matera’s interpretation, I don’t have his book, so I’ll just assume that it is as you say.
“So… look, I could keep fisking this, but I don’t think I’m going to land my point any clearer than that does” = apparently, neither can I.
“If Peter comes and teaches (what seems to them to be) a different gospel, not only are they not to hold him accursed, they’re to abandon the gospel Paul preached for it” = again, this is Monday morning quarterbacking. “there’s the command of God, right?” = no, this is, in the eye of the Galatians, Paul’s command.
Regarding AL, perhaps you are not aware that the Church has always allowed “…the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist”. It is very circumstantial, as also Pope Francis’ allegedly “unprecedented” change. You will say, “then why all this confusion, even at the highest levels?”. Don’t know and don’t care. I simply wait until the dust settles.
“You say “defers to a higher,” I say “consults with a fellow.” Galatians says God doesn’t play favorites, and Paul doesn’t care who they are” = apparently he does, because he doesn’t consult with the Church in Laodicea. He goes (actually, he is sent, which is also significant) to Jerusalem, doesn’t he?
“I do not. My point is that the church judge…” = God has already judged it, but we (and the Church) don’t know. Not everything is spelled out in Scriptures, and even the precepts we now take for granted have caused many headaches before being clearly formulated, and even so they still cause headaches and heartaches (the Eucharist, just to name one).
“Sure. The translators of the NASB render the passage “shall have been bound,” which gives the sense I described” = interesting, since the original Greek is a Future Indicative. I like it, dough.
“Would you agree with that?” = not at all. You simply see Paul’s and Peter’s equal behavior (both equally hypocritical to me) with a different lens.
Since we are going around repeating the same concepts, I’m bowing out of this conversation; you have the last word, if you so choose. Thank you for a very interesting conversation. I always learn tons from your posts (although I disagree with 90% of it). Especially to read twice the question before answering…
Have a blessed day!
Perhaps I should read three times instead of just two! *though, not dough…
LLC,
“but he still has to defer to them” = never said that. I said that Paul defers to the Church; huge difference.
Who is “the Church” in this instance, as separate from Peter and the apostles?
St. John Chrysostom doesn’t specifically say that the 2 groups in Galatians 2:6-8 and 2:9 are the same. He follows “this is his meaning” with “they gave me the right hand of fellowship”, so in a way he’s talking about the latter group more than the former.
We are quoting from his commentary on verse 6, in which he says that the meaning of verse 6 is “they gave me the right hand of fellowship,” from verse 9. I don’t see any way to read that except that 6 and 9 apply to the same people.
Again, huge difference, at least to me.
Okay. To be clear, then, we’re contrasting your personal reading of the Scriptures against my reading backed by both Catholic theologians and the church fathers. Have we, um, have we secretly switched sides?
Can you name any church father who reads this passage as you do? Any contemporary theologian? Or is this an idiosyncratic personal reading set against the ancient traditions of the church?
“If Peter comes and teaches (what seems to them to be) a different gospel, not only are they not to hold him accursed, they’re to abandon the gospel Paul preached for it” = again, this is Monday morning quarterbacking. “there’s the command of God, right?” = no, this is, in the eye of the Galatians, Paul’s command.
Okay, let’s unpack this.
1) Paul thinks they should have continued to cling to the already-presented gospel, regardless of who presented an argument to the contrary.
2) Paul makes the above moral argument in the book of Galatians.
3) Galatians is inspired by God, and its moral arguments are correct.
Do we disagree on any of these points?
Because it sure sounds like you’re saying that Paul’s moral argument is wrong, and actually they should have been willing to abandon the thing they originally acknowledged as the gospel of God if the right person made the argument. And that collapses the whole book: Paul’s outrage, his insults, everything hinges on the fact that they done messed up by yielding to some supposed expert. 1:8-9 makes it clear that they still would have been wrong whoever came. The thesis – the thesis – of chapters 1 and 2 is, “Your allegiance is to the gospel of God, and not to any other claimed authority.”
I do not see a way to parse your argument except to say that Galatians is wrong on this subject.
Regarding AL, perhaps you are not aware that the Church has always allowed “…the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist”. It is very circumstantial, as also Pope Francis’ allegedly “unprecedented” change.
Is Bishop Philip Egan – the source of my first quote – in error, then?
You will say, “then why all this confusion, even at the highest levels?”
No, actually. I’ll just point out that there is confusion and division at the highest levels – that was my original argument.
“You say “defers to a higher,” I say “consults with a fellow.” Galatians says God doesn’t play favorites, and Paul doesn’t care who they are” = apparently he does
If you’re correct, then Paul is lying in Galatians 2.
“I do not. My point is that the church judge…” = God has already judged it, but we (and the Church) don’t know.
That’s fine! The fact remains that Christ has not, as you said, “defer[ed] judgment to the Church.”
not at all. You simply see Paul’s and Peter’s equal behavior (both equally hypocritical to me) with a different lens.
Hm. You don’t see a difference between shunning people because of social pressure, on one hand, and voluntarily conforming to the traditions of the people you’ll be among, on the other?
What does it mean to you when Paul presents (as his example, for us to follow) “to those under the law, I became like one under the law; to those not having the law, I became like one not having the law”?
Since we are going around repeating the same concepts, I’m bowing out of this conversation; you have the last word, if you so choose. Thank you for a very interesting conversation.
Thanks to you, as well – take care!
Shoot – Jordan, I misjudged both which reply to hit and where my italics ended. See below.
Hi Irked,
As I mentioned, the other passage that I couldn’t reconcile with the Protestant understanding of the church is the passage Joe cited above, Matthew 18: 15-18. There, Jesus tells us that an unrepentant sinner should be brought before the church. And if, after confrontation by the church, he still refuses to repent, the church ought to “treat him as a Gentile or a tax collector.” Paul urges a similar thing to the Corinthian church (1 Corinthians 5). In both cases, they are talking about excommunication, about excluding someone from the church in order to try to bring him to repentance. Excommunication in this sense is intended to be a tool, a way of demonstrating to the sinner that his soul is in grave danger and that he ought to repent and be reconciled to the church at once. According to the Protestant conception of “church” this can only be done at the local church level, for there is no universal, institutional church that can declare and enforce discipline in this way. And only unbelief can exclude a person from the universal, invisible church.
When I was attending an evangelical church, I saw this exercise of church discipline happen a couple times. It’s a bit hard for me to explain what troubled me about it, so let me lay out one example that I saw.
Suppose that tomorrow a leader in an evangelical church, we’ll call him Nate, woke up and decided that God was calling him to baptize his new child. He informs the lead pastor, Samuel, and Samuel tries to show that the Bible teaches believer’s baptism. When that doesn’t change Nate’s mind, Samuel reaches out to the other overseers of the church. Still, however, Nate is adamant that this is what God wants him to do. Finally, then, the church is forced to excommunicate Nate for heresy, declaring publicly that he is no longer a leader or member of the church. This, too, does not work to change his mind. Instead, Nate and his wife attend a PCA church down the street, which is almost identical to his previous evangelical church in its doctrines, save that they baptize infants. Nate attends as a faithful member there for the rest of his life.
What, in this situation, has the evangelical church’s excommunication really accomplished? For it seems that Nate is still a member of a “true, local church,” and still a member of the “universal” church. When you can simply move down the street to another true church, what is the impact of excommunication? In other words, it seems that the evangelical church has indeed “bound something on earth,” but there does not seem to be anything which is also “bound in heaven.”
If, however, the church Jesus and Paul have in mind is a universal institution, than excommunication from that church does seem to change the relationship between “heaven” and the person excommunicated. For example, the person is cut off from the graces normally available to them in the sacraments.
There’s more to be said about all of that, but to start with, I’d like to repeat my question above. When a local Protestant church exercises church discipline, what exactly is being bound in heaven in response?
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Hi Jordan,
Fair question. Let me try to answer in a couple of parts.
1) You ask, “When a local Protestant church exercises church discipline, what exactly is being bound in heaven in response?” As I said in my discussion with LLC above, I tend towards arguments that suggest that the NASB translation of this passage is closer to correct – that Christ is affirming that church discipline reflects a divine verdict on sin, rather than producing it. (That is, “The things you bind on earth have been bound in heaven.”) So in that sense, I disagree with the framing of the question.
2) I would not precisely say “According to the Protestant conception of ‘church’ this can only be done at the local church level.” I’d say rather that, at the time Christ and Paul are speaking, it only really makes sense to read these instructions at the local church level. Look at the escalation in Matthew: one person, to a few people, to the elders, to “the assembly.” I think, linguistically, “church/ekklesia” should be read as a local gathering, absent a reason to interpret it otherwise. In Christ’s day, that’s what an ekklesia typically was, after all: a local political assembly, not an empire-wide gathering.
It also makes better sense as an escalation: if “church” here is the entire hierarchy, is there no step at which a man’s (supposed) crimes should be brought before his immediate brothers, those who know him best? How would that even work – is Bob supposed to bring Chuck up on charges of dishonesty before the church in Jerusalem, when that church has never even heard of Bob or Chuck or the supposed circumstances? Is the local church unable to remove Bob from fellowship until this (expensive, months-to-years long) trip is completed? None of this is ironclad, but it all seems to mitigate against your reading; I would expect at a minimum that, in that case, Christ would provide an intervening layer between “the elders” and “the (whole, hierarchical) church.”
3) It doesn’t seem to me that the problem you’re describing would even have been possible in the early centuries of Christianity – the period for which these words are most directly applicable – simply because there weren’t enough Christians to make a “church down the street” viable. (I don’t mean here to deny the applicability of these commands today, simply to argue that they make sense first in a first century context, and then that understanding should be applied to our modern world, rather than reading them in a way that makes sense for our world first and then reading back.) What you describe is a problem today – but it’s a contemporary problem, born to some extent of the church’s success.
And, vitally, it seems to me that it’s still a problem in Catholicism. There are at least four Catholic churches within ten miles of my house, and a dozen more within an hour’s travel – easily within the time frame a first century Christian might have had to travel to get… basically anywhere, I would guess. It’s possible that the bishops of all those churches meet regularly and compare notes as to who is or is not under discipline at any of their churches, but my guess is that I could slip into the pews at another church, start building relationships, go to confession, etc., with no one the wiser. That’s probably not true of those who have been formally excommunicated, but if we restrict this verse to that tiny handful of folks across twenty centuries, it seems to me we lose its primary application as everyday discipline within the church.
4) This is a nitpick, but I’m not sure any Baptist church of which I’ve been a member would excommunicate a man for thinking his child should be baptized. They would counsel him if he believed that this baptism actually accomplished something, to be sure, and might revoke his formal voting membership if he clearly was no longer Baptist in his theology – but we generally consider ourselves to be in communion with Presbyterians, Methodists, and so on. He could still take the supper with us; disagreeing theologically is not sin in and of itself, and I’m not sure it falls under the rubric of this verse.
We might substitute something that is more clearly sin into the example (i.e., he drinks to the point of drunkenness), but at that point, all these other churches would expel him as well (if they knew).
On reflection, “should expel” is probably more realistic than “would expel,” in that last sentence, alas – but that churches are sometimes bad at discipline is another thing our denominations have in common.
One final thought, there, and that’s that expulsion is the unfortunate and hopefully avoided endpoint of these confrontations. The hopeful result is that we win our brother back: that he repents, and we work together to bring him more fully into the fold of God. And it seems to me that that’s fully achievable in Protestant churches.
I think (1) is still our key difference here, though: if the local church is a reflection of the divine judgment, and not the trigger of it, then a sinful man is still “bound in heaven” whether he attempts to escape his earthly binding or not.
Hi Irked,
You wrote: “As I said in my discussion with LLC above, I tend towards arguments that suggest that the NASB translation of this passage is closer to correct – that Christ is affirming that church discipline reflects a divine verdict on sin, rather than producing it.”
I don’t have the background in Greek to really argue that one way or another. Applying verb tenses to heaven is difficult, anyway. Before I respond to the rest of what you said, then, let me rephrase the question. What exactly has already been bound in heaven whenever a local Protestant church exercises church discipline on earth? You said it “reflects a divine verdict on sin.”
Are you saying that any person who is the subject of local church discipline is no longer (or is shown to have never been) a member of the universal set of all believers? My guess is that you are not saying that, I just want to be more clear on what you mean by divine verdict.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Jordan,
No, I don’t think a loss of salvation is in view here in either case – the person may have been a Christian before, or may not have, but that hasn’t changed as a result of church judgment. What’s being bound here is that they are being bound over to chastisement: he has been, as 1 Corinthians 5 says, handed over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved. My reading is that Christ is saying the church can confidently apply judgment – that it has been given the authority to do so – because it knows that, when it judges sin among its bodies, it is echoing the verdict of its Lord in pronouncing sin as sin and in abandoning that brother to the not-so-tender mercies of this world. In other words, it’s a statement of, “Don’t be afraid to do these things, even when you condemn the powerful or influential members of your body for their sin; you aren’t doing anything that I haven’t already done.” Does that make better sense?
Since we’re introducing new verses, and since I’ve been basically on the defensive in all of them, I’m starting a subthread of my own below.
Hi Irked,
That helps some, but I’d still like to clarify something. You wrote, “My reading is that Christ is saying the church can confidently apply judgment – that it has been given the authority to do so – because it knows that, when it judges sin among its bodies, it is echoing the verdict of its Lord in pronouncing sin as sin and in abandoning that brother to the not-so-tender mercies of this world.”
Two follow up questions to this. First, are you saying that every time a local church excommunicates someone, every time it judges sin to be sin among its body, that God agrees with that judgment? Again, I’m guessing this isn’t what you mean. In the example I gave, for instance, you seemed to think the church I attended was in error in judging the leader to be sinning and in excommunicating him.
Second, you wrote that this excommunication is essentially, “abandoning that brother to the not-so-tender mercies of this world.” In the example I gave, however, the brother was “abandoned” to another local church with nearly identical beliefs.
So I’m still struggling to understand how you view all that. The church was genuinely seeking to discipline the leader for the sin of spreading heresy, both for his good and the good of the church. They seemed to me to follow the steps laid out by Christ, and to do it in love. Yet, what was actually accomplished, in your view?
Again, I haven’t forgot some of the other points you raised above, and intend to respond, but could you help clarify again first?
You also wrote: “Since we’re introducing new verses, and since I’ve been basically on the defensive in all of them, I’m starting a subthread of my own below.” That sounds fine with me, as long as you understand that I probably won’t promptly respond to all of them. If you are patient, I promise I will get to everything eventually.
I also sincerely hope that you haven’t felt “attacked” or anything like that. My goal for these conversations is try to use dialog so we might reach agreement on the truth. I’m sure it can be difficult at times to be one of the few non-Catholics here.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Hi Jordan,
Two follow up questions to this. First, are you saying that every time a local church excommunicates someone, every time it judges sin to be sin among its body, that God agrees with that judgment? Again, I’m guessing this isn’t what you mean.
You’re right, it’s not. I’m saying that when the local church genuinely and correctly judges sin, that God agrees with (and authorizes) that judgment. (For a parallel, look at “Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do” – the implication is that the request must be in line with Christ’s will. In the same way, Christ predicates this discussion on “if your brother sins against you” – where there is no actual sin, the promise doesn’t hold.)
In the example I gave, for instance, you seemed to think the church I attended was in error in judging the leader to be sinning and in excommunicating him.
Shoot, I’m sorry – I didn’t realize that was a real personal example. My apologies for the flippancy of my response.
Yet, what was actually accomplished, in your view?
Yeah, as I said, I think this is to some effect an unfortunate side effect of Christianity’s success: it’s possible to take shelter in another church that’s ignorant of the sin, whereas in a tiny early church (and in a society with lower mobility and population density in general) this was much harder. One consequence here is that it is much, much harder for a church to hang someone out to dry in the way Paul presents.
Again, I’m not trying to say the verse is no longer relevant – just that it’s harder to accomplish the ideal it describes. Given that this approach would have been much more successful in the first century, though, I don’t think we could fairly say, “Well, this is a rare ideal now, so this must not be what was meant.”
On the other hand, the fact that the church’s judgment is echoing Christ’s (if that interpretation is correct) is still true: from the divine perspective, the man is still bound over to chastisement, and joining a new membership roll doesn’t fix that.
That sounds fine with me, as long as you understand that I probably won’t promptly respond to all of them. If you are patient, I promise I will get to everything eventually.
Totally cool; no obligations.
I also sincerely hope that you haven’t felt “attacked” or anything like that.
Not in this discussion at all. (I will admit to some frustration in the circular paths John and I are walking down below.) You’ve been a great conversationalist, and I hope we’re both learning things from the process.
Likewise, I hope I have not come off too strident or aggressive in my presentation – I’m having fun, and it’s interesting to understand your position better.
Hi Irked,
Thanks for your response. No offense taken. Just to be clear, the community I gave as an example was not part of a Baptist denomination, but was part of an independent network of evangelical “church-planting churches.” They were a sort of Calvinist / Anabaptist / politely charismatic hybrid. And I hope that example didn’t come across as a criticism of them as people. I loved my time there and grew much as a Christian.
Let me back up a bit. I think we agree on the following:
1. Excommunication is intended to be used in response to grave sin.
2. Excommunication is supposed to be a negative consequence for the sinner.
3. The negative consequence is supposed to influence the sinner to repent.
I’m still trying to figure out, from your point of view, what that negative consequence actually is. It is not the loss of salvation, and it is not a separation from the community of a “true, local church.” You said the sinner is “bound over to chastisement” or “handed over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh?” What exactly does this mean, in your view? It seems to have spiritual connotations, but I’m not sure what they are.
I promised a response to your first post on this thread, so I’ll do that now. You wrote, “I think, linguistically, church/ekklesia should be read as a local gathering…” I agree that he is speaking locally, and did not mean to give the impression otherwise. I don’t think Christ is saying that a man should be brought before the entire Magesterium, or anything like that. I also don’t think he is referring to all the laity of a local assembly. When our Lord says, “tell it to the church,” I think he is referring to the local, authorized representative of the universal, institutional church.
You wrote, “It doesn’t seem to me that the problem you’re describing would even have been possible in the early centuries of Christianity – the period for which these words are most directly applicable – simply because there weren’t enough Christians to make a “church down the street” viable.” I agree; it would not have been possible. This is part of the reason why I don’t think that Jesus is thinking of the Protestant idea of a church in this passage.
You wrote, “And, vitally, it seems to me that it’s still a problem in Catholicism.” The difference between the two gets back to my question about the exact nature of the negative consequence. In the Catholic understanding, if I am excommunicated, I could, as you say, likely move somewhere else or drive somewhere that no one knows me and receive the Eucharist. The difference is that the grace of the sacrament would not actually be communicated to me. On the contrary, I would “eat and drink judgment on myself.” So all of my sneaking actually makes my situation worse. What has been bound on earth is still bound in heaven, even if the person giving me the host does not know it.
Finally, you say, “I think this is…an unfortunate side effect of Christianity’s success.” The increased number of Christians is a good thing, but the various denominational disagreements and organizational separations among Christians is a failure to adhere to the will of Christ. And it would seem odd to me that a command of Christ’s on how to operate the church would be rendered inapplicable because the church was too successful. Not sure if that’s really worth exploring, as it might be off-topic, but the comment struck me.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Hi Jordan,
Let me back up a bit. I think we agree on the following:
1. Excommunication is intended to be used in response to grave sin.
2. Excommunication is supposed to be a negative consequence for the sinner.
3. The negative consequence is supposed to influence the sinner to repent.
I think we functionally agree, yes.
I’m still trying to figure out, from your point of view, what that negative consequence actually is. It is not the loss of salvation, and it is not a separation from the community of a “true, local church.”
It’s not a loss of salvation, no; none of these passages say that. It is a separation from the community of a true, local church. It just may not be a (physical) separation from the community of all local churches; a sufficiently determined sinner might be able to hide in another one. I’m not sure I’d call lying and hiding among them while continuing in unrepentant sin “being part of the community,” though.
You said the sinner is “bound over to chastisement” or “handed over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh?” What exactly does this mean, in your view? It seems to have spiritual connotations, but I’m not sure what they are.
It means that God acts in such a way as to encourage the sinner to repentance – to cause him to realize his need for true community, to see that his apparent communion with another church is based on a lie, and to basically make him miserable until he repents. Some of this may be through direct supernatural means; some of it through the conscience; some of it just through the nastiness of living in a fallen world.
I also don’t think he is referring to all the laity of a local assembly. When our Lord says, “tell it to the church,” I think he is referring to the local, authorized representative of the universal, institutional church.
That seems like an unjustified leap, to me; Christ certainly could have said, “Tell it to the bishops,” and does not. Again, given that the word here is “assembly,” I think it’s reasonable that this is the literal meaning – again, that fits better with the progression of one person/a few people/the whole church.
(Minimally, I don’t think we can assume the existence of a universal institutional church in using this passage to argue for the existence of such a church. What here necessitates the existence of such a thing?)
This is part of the reason why I don’t think that Jesus is thinking of the Protestant idea of a church in this passage.
I’m not sure what this means; that “church” is often used in Scripture to refer to a local body of believers isn’t a Protestant invention, is it?
On the contrary, I would “eat and drink judgment on myself.”
I would note that I also believe this of those who eat and drink in an unworthy manner – albeit the mechanics are somewhat different.
What has been bound on earth is still bound in heaven, even if the person giving me the host does not know it.
Again, I believe this as well. That one’s sin is condemned in heaven – that one is still under the father’s chastisement – is not changed just because one pretends to be in good standing in another church. Indeed, God may use that church’s genuine communion as a way to torment and provoke the sinner to repentance, given that his presence among them is predicated on a lie.
The increased number of Christians is a good thing, but the various denominational disagreements and organizational separations among Christians is a failure to adhere to the will of Christ.
Is it? I don’t think Christ cares one whit about whether my church and yours call ourselves different denominations, provided we remain united in our love for each other and for him. I don’t think denominations have any spiritual reality at all.
I attend a church in the American Baptist Association. The main reason the ABA isn’t part of, say, the SBC is that they would resolve some issues regarding missional giving and voting representation differently; that’s not a doctrinal issue, just an organizational one. Surely I can love and be in fellowship with brothers from both those churches with no contradiction – indeed, I do.
I have a somewhat greater distance from my Presbyterian brothers, theologically speaking – but they are my brothers, and they’re welcome at our table, alongside Calvinists, Arminians, millenialists of all prefixes, pedo- and credobaptists, and a great many Catholics. Disagreement does not necessitate disunity.
Are there real, bitter divisions in the church, in ways that do grieve the heart of the Lord? No doubt. Many of those are within denominations – I’m thinking, for instance, of the bitter acrimony that can follow a Protestant church split, or the contentiousness of the Catholic “cradlegate” a couple of years ago. Others do exist between Catholics and Protestants – though blame for that disfellowship is shared on both sides, I think. Others are appropriate, in keeping with this verse and following a pattern from the very earliest days of the church, in separating out false gospels from the true.
But I don’t think the existence of this kind of true division maps well to the mere existence of denominations. That, to me, begs the question: it assumes that the kind of “oneness” Christ has in mind is fundamentally organizational, whereas I don’t see that anything of the sort is necessarily true.
And it would seem odd to me that a command of Christ’s on how to operate the church would be rendered inapplicable because the church was too successful.
But I don’t think it has been rendered inapplicable; I tried to be clear on that point. I think in some regards the disciplinary measure may be less effective, in the same way that setting a rule of “If a man will not work he shall not eat” may be less effective in a society with extensive safety nets. But I have seen church discipline applied, and applied effectively – it still works, and it’s still the pattern we follow!
Jordan,
Quick follow-up question to that, actually. It seems to me that we’re burying some differences when we refer to the content of this passage as “excommunication”; my understanding is that only a few dozen individual-by-name people have been excommunicated over the centuries. I assume you don’t believe that those are the only places that this verse has been followed to completion – from your statement that a local representative counts for “the church” in disfellowshipping someone, it seems like you believe local bishops can enact its punishment without a formal whole-Catholic-Church excommunication.
(Am I right so far?)
If so, do you think it’s possible for those local church authorities to err? Does anyone get kicked out on trumped-up charges? And if so, given that you see the “bound in heaven” as following from the “bound on earth,” what are the theological consequences of my getting expelled wrongly by my local bishop?
Hi Irked
You may find this article by Bryan Cross helpful in coming to a fuller understanding of the Catholic position on the Visible Church – http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/christ-founded-a-visible-church/
Hi Peter,
I think I may have read that before, but thanks for the link!
The topic of the nature of the church puts Protestants in a peculiar situation. There are three possibilities of the nature of the church.
1. Jesus left us more than one church. We know this is false from John 17 and Matthew 16:18 and other verses.
2. Jesus left us one church, but this is an invisible church made up of all true believers and how these believers practice and where they gather is irrelevant. However, if this is true, then one of three things must also be true.
a. Doctrine doesn’t matter at all, or…
b. It’s okay to have conflicting and contradictory doctrine.
c. Possibly this one…there is the right doctrine, but only certain people know that correct doctrine. We would have no way at all to know who actually knew the truth and we could be leading others into serious moral error.
As you can see, this becomes a big problem very soon. For example, in light of Matthew 18:15-18, one’s wife is interested in procuring an abortion and yet the husband disagrees. The wife goes to her pastor who says, “sure, you can have an abortion.” The husband goes to his pastor who says, “absolutely no abortions.” How could one follow Christ’s instructions? Or what about John 16:13? Would the Holy Spirit give some truth to some disciples and different truth to other disciples? Furthermore, if one of those things were true, then not only would it be futile to have theological arguments, it would be downright sinful, because one would be sowing strife and division. So anyone believing option two shouldn’t even be having theological arguments.
3. There is one visible church, guided by the Holy Spirit in doctrine with authority to bind and loose. This church would be about 2000 years old, can trace their authority to the apostles, and have a history of calling councils and binding and loosing. This church would also at least claim to be the true church established by Jesus. Would not the church Jesus founded know it was the true church? There is obviously a spiritual nature to the church, and the Catholic Church recognizes that those outside of the Catholic Church can be in some mystical way still united to the body of Christ.
FYI I first heard this argument from an apologist named John Martignoni.
God bless you all, and please know that I love you regardless of where you stand on this issue.
Hi T,
You might enjoy the top three articles found here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/?s=visible
Thanks very much Duane! I have these bookmarked.
Hi T,
I guess I’d ask, “Is it your contention that, given (3), there will never be any church authorities who teach conflicting and contradictory doctrines?”
The whole reason for having a hierarchy and processes for resolving conflicting/contradictory doctrine taught by Church authorities is because this has been an ongoing problem since the beginning. If Jesus had not made such provisions in founding his Church, it would have immediately begun to dissolve into chaos, which is the legacy of the Protestant experiment.
John,
I do not see that this response answers my question.
Irked,
Your question implies that (3) somehow precludes there being Church authorities that teach error. The question shouldn’t be whether there are Church authorities that can and have taught error, but does the Church have the ability to authoritatively resolve them. Any time you have more than one person involved and there’s no mutual agreement, there’s going to be a question as to who’s right. That’s true even when you are talking Bishops. Ultimately you have to have be able to identify one person who can authoritatively make the call. That’s what Jesus left us. When, if and to what degree that happens is in God’s time under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
John,
Cool. Then I’ll return that same answer to you: in model (2), there is one source that authoritatively determines truth, namely the revelation of God in Scripture. That’s what Jesus left us. When, if, and to what degree the church accedes to this revelation is in God’s time under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Or, in other words: the problem of doctrinal disagreements is suffered by both (2) and (3), and it admits the same solution in both cases.
Irked,
Model (2) didn’t say anything about an authoritative scripture. Since Jesus never left us anything in writing, there is no basis for ascribing any authority to any scripture, either new or old testament, without (3). Otherwise, how could Martin Luther take it upon himself to pick and chose his own canon or in an even more extreme case Joseph Smith come up with a completely new “scripture”?
John,
Model (2) didn’t say anything about an authoritative scripture.
Then Model (2) isn’t the classical Protestant position.
Since Jesus never left us anything in writing, there is no basis for ascribing any authority to any scripture, either new or old testament, without (3).
Okay. Then how did a Jew in 50 BC know what the Scriptures of his day were – or did God not expect them to know?
Irked,
(2) captures the reality of the Protestant position. Sola Scripture sounds great on the surface as a unifying principle, but it proves itself time and again as one of chaos.
We’re talking authority in Scripture. In 50 BC there was no common agreement in Judaism as to what Scriptures were authoritative. Jesus didn’t endorse any particular old testament canon, but spoke to others based on what they accepted…Pharisees, Sadducees etc. Without (3) we wouldn’t know anything about what Jesus said, did or taught… none of Jesus’s references to old testament and certainly nothing in the new. When you think about it, the nobility in the Bereans wasn’t in their searching scripture, but in being open minded enough to listen to Paul, i.e (3).
John,
(2) captures the reality of the Protestant position. Sola Scripture sounds great on the surface as a unifying principle, but it proves itself time and again as one of chaos.
We can’t have this both ways. Either (2) is a description of Protestantism, in which case it needs to present the actual Protestant argument, or it’s not. “Protestantism, but without the solas” is a caricature, not a real position.
(2) captures the reality of the Protestant position. Sola Scripture sounds great on the surface as a unifying principle, but it proves itself time and again as one of chaos.
We’re talking authority in Scripture. In 50 BC there was no common agreement in Judaism as to what Scriptures were authoritative.
Is your position, then, that Christ did not expect that the Jews would know which texts were Scripture – that he did not, for instance, hold them responsible for knowing that that various Scriptural citations were the word of God?
Is it not until Trent that anyone, Christian or Jew, has any basis for a canon, or what?
Irked,
Protestantism with or without the Solas… Unless the validity of the Solas are established, they are worthless. That’s on you and would require your being able to definitively and authoritatively being able to state what’s authoritative and what’s not, but that assumes you have an authority that is in conflict with the authorities Jesus gave us. It furthermore assumes a non-existent model for effectively resolving substantial and opposing/contradictory interpretations that continue to persist.
In fact, God’s word should be written on our hearts, but how well has that worked? My contention isn’t that there was no ‘scripture’ available to the pre-Christian Jews, but that there was no mutual agreement as to what was authoritative and what wasn’t. Even Jesus acknowledged the seat of Moses (occupied at the time the Pharisees), which would reinforce His recognition of the need for a living teaching authority. Nevertheless, the Pharisees were always setting traps for Jesus. Once they came to Him with the question of the legality of divorce. Jesus answered that Moses allowed it due to the hardness of there hearts, but went on to state what God intended. So where would that leave the pre-Christian Jew?
In Heaven there is complete unity. Jesus prayed for unity knowing that it’s a prerequisite and therefore should be a priority for us. Not all differences reflect disunity, because they’re often two views of the same thing. The differences that are divergences from the Truth are reflections of disunity and their resolution deserve to be put on our priority list and not just whitewashed. Jesus set up His Church with the identifiable vested authority needed to do this as new challenges are always emerging. One may squabble the Catholics disagree among themselves. Often this over differences of the first kind. It’s easy to find objectively what the Church teaches, and there are always many “Catholics” who would prefer to live otherwise and are to that extent hypocrites. The Protestant Sola Scriptura model tends to either whitewash differences or further divide.
John,
Protestantism with or without the Solas… Unless the validity of the Solas are established, they are worthless.
I concur. But it’s still true that if you present Protestantism without mentioning them, you’re… not really presenting Protestantism? You can then say, “Well, and these don’t work, either,” but you can’t just pretend (a)-(c) are the only options available when Protestants actually use something else.
I mean, T very graciously acknowledged that he(?) should have included sola Scriptura in his original formulation, so I’m not sure what we’re still arguing about.
My contention isn’t that there was no ‘scripture’ available to the pre-Christian Jews, but that there was no mutual agreement as to what was authoritative and what wasn’t.
Not to be redundant, but I don’t see that that’s an answer to my questions. Did Jesus expect that the pre-Christian Jews knew that the Old Testament Scriptures were the word of God, or not? Doesn’t he repeatedly speak with the assumption that they do, in fact, know that these things are the word of God, and condemn them for their failure to act in accordance with them?
Here, let’s try this: what is the earliest date that anyone has for confidently believing that some book is the revelation of God, per the standards you’re using here?
One may squabble the Catholics disagree among themselves. Often this over differences of the first kind… The Protestant Sola Scriptura model tends to either whitewash differences or further divide.
This seems like the assertion that, when Catholics disagree, it’s an okay kind of disagreement, but when Protestants do, it’s sign of deep spiritual division. That… seems like it would have to be proven, rather than just asserted.
I don’t see where knowing when some scriptures might or might not be acknowledged as inspired does much for you. Even now both the canon and its interpretation are contentious. As I said before, Jesus also really expects us to follow the laws written on our hearts. As a sole “rule of faith”, both are way too loose when it comes to being useful/practical, comprehensive and authoritative definition.
With regard to substantial disagreements within the church, the Catholic Church has an objective touchstone when it comes to teachings and their level of authority that allows you to discriminate how close or far anyone is in faith and practice. Not all questions are resolved and there’s plenty of room for discussion in the mean time. Often this becomes appreciation of just how rich the faith is. The Protestant Sola Scriptura model doesn’t really resolve anything leaving the edge of the cliff so ill defined that it’s easy to jump or fall off. If you think the Protestant model is a viable model for resolving significant widespread disagreements over faith and morals, I’d like some examples. I see doctrinal chaos generated by the Protestant model to leave even the Trinity and divinity of Jesus open to error.
John,
I don’t see where knowing when some scriptures might or might not be acknowledged as inspired does much for you. Even now both the canon and its interpretation are contentious.
To be clear, then, are you saying you don’t think there has ever been a point where anyone has been able to be confident as to what is and is not the canon – or are you just refusing to answer my question?
As I said before, Jesus also really expects us to follow the laws written on our hearts.
Didn’t Jesus also expect people to follow the written law, and to acknowledge that it was of divine origin: “Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?”
With regard to substantial disagreements within the church, the Catholic Church has an objective touchstone when it comes to teachings and their level of authority that allows you to discriminate how close or far anyone is in faith and practice. Not all questions are resolved and there’s plenty of room for discussion in the mean time.
Which part of this description can I not also apply to Scripture?
Irked,
With regard to the canon of scripture, I’m saying that it was an open question until the Catholic Church closed it. If you’re not Catholic and don’t accept its canon, then the question is still open or you have some other authority (??) that has defined a canon that you accept. That would imply the canon is open across the broader Christian community.
You ask what’s different between the Church being the arbiter and scripture. The difference is that Church has the authority invested in those given be Jesus with the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit, not the self. They have the training and full revelation passed down, which is most important when it comes to proper interpretation/understanding. Lastly, there is one person with the keys that can make the final hard calls, and that’s absolutely necessary to preserve unity and prevent the chaos of fracture. I again ask you to validate your model with examples that have worked for resolving significant issues in faith and morals to maintain unity across the Protestant community.
The only reason that the definition and closure of the scriptural canon became an issue for resolution within the Church has been the misuse of scripture. It seems to me that Martin Luther had an agenda in disparaging James and discarding the Deuterocanonicals, when they didn’t support his novel ideas. When you claim you are only accountable to scripture, but don’t want to be accountable, then you’re only resort is to take it upon yourself to define the canon to your liking.
John,
With regard to the canon of scripture, I’m saying that it was an open question until the Catholic Church closed it.
Which does not happen until the Council of Trent, ca. 1550, yeah? So when you say that Protestants can’t authoritatively appeal to Scripture, that means they’re in exactly the same position that:
1) all of Christendom was for 1500 years, and
2) Judaism was for its entire existence prior to that.
I’d say only that, overwhelmingly, during those periods the followers of God believed it was possible to appeal to the authority of Scripture as the very words of God without appeal to any council. The Jews did it; the early church fathers did it; the authors of the New Testament do it; Christ does it. I do it, too; if you don’t think this is permissible, that puts you solidly outside the tradition of the fathers.
I again ask you to validate your model with examples that have worked for resolving significant issues in faith and morals to maintain unity across the Protestant community.
I feel like I already did this in my opening posts. Protestants have historically overwhelmingly agreed on: the existence of the Trinity, the eternality of God, the divine and human nature of Christ, the details of Christ’s life and death and resurrection, the action of God to woo a people to himself, the necessity of personal repentance and submission to Christ, the inspiration of the same canon, the efficacy of the blood of Christ as an offering for sinners, the benefits of eternal life given to believers, the condemnation awaiting nonbelievers, the believer’s obligation to live a righteous life – and of course: that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, that Scripture is the sole essential rule for proper life and practice… how long do you want me to keep going?
And that’s even working on the premise of treating “Protestant” as if it were a single group, which I don’t think is particularly useful. If we actually compare apples with apples – one Protestant denomination against one non-Protestant denomination – the agreement within, say, American Baptists is tighter yet.
Do we have prominent people who don’t believe these things? Yes, just as there are still plenty of pro-choice Catholics, whatever Humana Vitae says. Do we still disagree on lots of other things? Yes, as we’ve established that Catholics do, too. So what?
It seems to me that Martin Luther had an agenda in disparaging James and discarding the Deuterocanonicals, when they didn’t support his novel ideas.
One supposes that Athanasius, Jerome, the Glossa Ordinaria, Cardinal Cajetan, Pope Gregory the Great, the entire Jewish faith, etc. were similarly agenda-driven in declaring that the Apocrypha were not part of the rule of faith?
I’m not saying scripture hasn’t been useful as an appeal, but that it has its limitations and it has an inherent capacity to be misused. If you’re claiming that it’s your sole authority, that’s a big problem. Even scripture recognizes that.
As to your examples, they’re very broad and things almost any who claim the mantle of “Protestant” believe; however, Catholics and Orthodox would dispute Sola Scriptura & the same canon. You can say this is a result of the application of the Sola Scriptura model, but there are also many who do not believe even the fundamentals that Catholic, Orthodox and most Protestant agree on based on the Protestant legacy and their application of the same model. Also, there remains many extremely significant issues of faith and morals that aren’t dealt with and continue to hemorrhage into disunity.
You note the disagreements within the ranks of those who claim to be Catholic. What’s important is what the Church teaches as doctrine and dogma and that is well documented. If you take exceptions or don’t practice, it’s a divergence from being truly Catholic. In Protestantism, you may have some agreement within certain circles. Where there’s significant disagreement using the Sola Scriptura model, there’s no basis for resolving the differences and both can legitimately claim the Protestant mantle. Isn’t that the legacy, progressive fracturing and/or watering down to the lowest common denominator?
With regard to the definition of the canon, it only becomes an issue when scripture is misused, in this case claiming it as a sole rule of faith and supporting novel innovations. Regardless of whether the Deuterocanonicals were in or out doesn’t change the facts contained therein that support the Catholic positions. Turning that into a canon issue only makes sense if you are desperate to dismiss them as somehow irrelevant, because you don’t want to live with the implications, i.e. your own sola scripture model contradictes you. The same with Jame’s “epistle of straw” that outright contradicts “sola fide”.
John,
I’m not saying scripture hasn’t been useful as an appeal, but that it has its limitations and it has an inherent capacity to be misused.
Sure. These things are also true of magisterial teaching; they are, indeed, true of any conceivable source of authority.
As to your examples, they’re very broad and things almost any who claim the mantle of “Protestant” believe
Right. That’s my point: you asked for examples where we maintain unity, and these are a few of them.
but there are also many who do not believe even the fundamentals that Catholic, Orthodox and most Protestant agree on based on the Protestant legacy and their application of the same model.
You would have to show me these “many others” who both affirm that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith, and also diverge widely on the fundamentals.
Also, there remains many extremely significant issues of faith and morals that aren’t dealt with and continue to hemorrhage into disunity.
This is also true of appealing to Rome, as I think I’ve argued at length now; indeed, of late the See of Rome seems to be producing new disagreements.
You note the disagreements within the ranks of those who claim to be Catholic. What’s important is what the Church teaches as doctrine and dogma and that is well documented.
Likewise, as a Protestant, what’s important is what Scripture teaches.
If you take exceptions or don’t practice, it’s a divergence from being truly Catholic.
Likewise, if you don’t actually apply all of Scripture, you diverge from being truly Protestant.
Look, can we cut to the chase? Your argument seems to boil down to, “We Catholics have a single revealed truth, and there are only disagreements because some people don’t pay attention to that truth, or don’t really believe it, or bring their own biases to it, or etc. – but to the extent they do that, they aren’t really holding to the Catholic position.”
But that’s our argument too, only substituting Scripture for the authority of Rome.
Where there’s significant disagreement using the Sola Scriptura model, there’s no basis for resolving the differences and both can legitimately claim the Protestant mantle.
On the contrary, there is such a basis: Scripture. At most one side is accurately interpreting Scripture; at most one side can legitimately claim such. Both sides “claim the Protestant mantle” only insofar as we don’t think Christianity requires absolutely perfect doctrine.
With regard to the definition of the canon, it only becomes an issue when scripture is misused, in this case claiming it as a sole rule of faith and supporting novel innovations.
On the contrary, I think knowing whether a book is or is not the actual word of God is an important issue entirely apart from whether sola Scriptura is true. So did the men I cited, apparently.
Irked,
You ask for and example of major divergences in Christian belief based on the Protestant legacy/model. I’d say the Jehovah Witnesses is a good one (https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jehovah-witness-beliefs/). The Mormons are an outgrowth that managed to stretch existing scripture into adding a whole new scripture, demoting Jesus to a level with Satan and making God just a more mature version of ourselves.
The topic is visibility, and visibility is important for unity. When it comes to unity, it’s pretty clear to me from its fruits that the Protestant model is fatally flawed. If you don’t see that, I’ve said enough and will step back for now.
John,
You ask for and example of major divergences in Christian belief based on the Protestant legacy/model.
I actually tried to word this pretty carefully: I asked for those “who both affirm that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith, and also diverge widely on the fundamentals.” LDSs and Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t; they both pretty pointedly have some other source of revelation that’s functionally superior to Scripture. Not shockingly, they reach wildly different conclusions!
You can’t indict Protestantism with groups who reject the core Protestant distinctive; that’s like describing Muslims as Catholic.
I don’t see that you’ve replied to my basic rebuttal: that you’ve yet to charge Protestantism with any flaws not also possessed by Catholicism, or to assert any Catholic strengths not also possessed by Protestantism.
Irked,
For Muslims to acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church and accept what it teaches would be contradictory to the distinctives that make them Muslim. They’d be Muslim in name only. Your rejection of Jehovah Witnesses and Mormans illustrates my point nicely as a “pontifical” assertion as to the validity of their use/understanding of scripture. The difference is that my priests/bishops/pope have their authority to make that call traced back directly back to Jesus. Otherwise in the Protestant legacy, who’s to say whether they get scripture right or you do? They’re extreme examples, but that’s the Protestant legacy that continues to diverge.
John,
Our debate was whether belief in sola Scriptura leads to doctrinal chaos. If your best evidence is people who don’t actually believe in sola Scriptura, then I have to assume we’re actually doing okay. Is that all you have?
as a “pontifical” assertion as to the validity of their use/understanding of scripture.
I’m not doing any such thing. I’m noting that by their own self-description, they have other sources of authority. I did not say, “Well, but they misinterpret the Scriptuers”; I said they explicitly follow something else.
Did you read “2. Bible” on the JW website link? They say they agree with your 66 book canon, yet conclude from it that there is no Trinity and Jesus is not divine. If that’s not a failure of Sola Scripture, what is? That’s the problem with being your own authority to both define and interpret scripture apart from those actually given the authority with the safeguarding promise of the Holy Spirit. It even opens the door to new “scripture” in the case of the Mormons. The Catholic Church dealt with similar challenges long ago. If Protestant model doesn’t get these right, it’s no surprise that what is taught with regard to faith and morals is all over the map. Despite appearances, Jews and Muslims have more in common with true Christianity than Mormons.
John,
Did you read “2. Bible” on the JW website link? They say they agree with your 66 book canon
Yes, as do Mormons. But both also accept something more as the rule of faith. For Mormons, it’s the Book of Mormon; for Jehovah’s Witnesses, it’s the teachings of the Governing Body, an earthly hierarchy whose interpretations are claimed to be the true revelation directly from God, based on a tradition that descends from the apostles, and to which the rest of the church is to submit. See, for instance, here.
In other words, they have basically the same system you guys do, and we object to it on basically the same grounds. Whatever that is, it isn’t Protestant.
That’s really no different than buying into Martin Luther’s or John Calvin’s or any anyone else’s take since then in the Protestant legacy as captured in their writings. They all claim their interpretation and/or selection of a canon is correct. Often there’s an accompanying claim to divine inspiration; but even if not, it’s effectively a claim of personal authority. Unless those claims are coming from those given the responsibility in line by Jesus Himself, there’s no guarantee any of it is correct.
John,
That’s really no different than buying into Martin Luther’s or John Calvin’s or any anyone else’s take since then in the Protestant legacy as captured in their writings.
Protestantism has never considered either of these men to be inspired or authoritative. Either offer an argument based on something I actually believe, or let’s be done here; “The problem with Protestantism is [something that rejects or ignores the core tenets of Protestantism]” is a waste of both of our times.
Who speaks for Protestantism? Otherwise, it’s a “sez who?” with regard who does and who doesn’t follow core principles/tenents. From my perspective, the Protestant experiment has born fruit that ever divides with core principles/tenets/faith/morals distributed across an ever broader spectrum. Good luck trying to find the ‘real’ Protestant and more importantly the Church that Christ founded in that.
John,
Who speaks for Protestantism?
As I say, I don’t think “Protestant” is a particularly useful label. It frames Christendom as “Catholic(ish)” and “Not Catholic-ish,” and I don’t think that’s especially representative in 2018. I think it’s far better to compare apples with apples: one denomination to one other denomination. Does Catholicism have more or less doctrinal variation within its ranks than, say, Southern Baptists? I don’t know – do you?
This, again, is why I didn’t say to you, “Find me a Protestant…” – because that’s somewhat subject to interpretation today. I asked you to back up your perspective by showing me these supposed many people who believe in sola Scriptura and yet have wildly divergent theology.
You haven’t.
Irked,
I cited the Jehovah Witnesses as an example. From their website (https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jw-doctrine-changes/), “We have always used the Bible as the sole authority for our beliefs, so we have adjusted our beliefs as our understanding of the Scriptures has been clarified.” That sounds like they claim they’re sola scriptura.
As far as what the Catholic Church teaches, it’s well documented…the Catechism is an excellent resource. As I said before, not everything is fully defined and there’s plenty of room for debate within the Church as the revelation unfolds where different people see the reflected light differently from the same thing or as new situations/questions present themselves. There’s also lots of people who chose to ignore Church teaching to their own detriment.
John,
I cited the Jehovah Witnesses as an example. From their website
Yes, and I linked another of their pages back to you to demonstrate that they lack the sola part of sola Scritura. You’ve not addressed that, except to suggest (erroneously, and without evidence) that Protestants think Martin Luther is authoritative. Would you like to do so?
As far as what the Catholic Church teaches, it’s well documented…the Catechism is an excellent resource. As I said before, not everything is fully defined and there’s plenty of room for debate within the Church as the revelation unfolds where different people see the reflected light differently from the same thing or as new situations/questions present themselves. There’s also lots of people who chose to ignore Church teaching to their own detriment.
Again, which of these things can I not say as a Protestant, substituting “Scripture” for “the Catechism” or “Church teaching?”
I read your link to the JW’s that you use to assert that they are not sola scriptura. It looks like they have people that define their version of scripture interpretation. That’s no different than Martin Luther or John Calvin or any TV evangelist. They all claim to be drawing their conclusions directly from scripture alone, yet with dramatically different conclusions. They preach their version and the fact that their followers trust them gives them de facto authority.
You can substitute the word scripture for catechism, but all that does is disguise the fact that it doesn’t capture the interpretation/extrapolation that necessarily gets done by people to apply it and sold to their followers or to themselves individually.
John,
I read your link to the JW’s that you use to assert that they are not sola scriptura. It looks like they have people that define their version of scripture interpretation.
And who are accepted as authoritative, such that “Even if we do not fully understand the reasons behind certain decisions, we know that upholding them will be for our lasting good.”
This is quite literally the Catholic model; the Witnesses have a Magisterium. That Protestants do not is… the thing you’ve been criticizing us for in a dozen posts now?
You can substitute the word scripture for catechism, but all that does is disguise the fact that it doesn’t capture the interpretation/extrapolation that necessarily gets done by people to apply it and sold to their followers or to themselves individually.
As you just noted, there’s interpretation in both our models: “different people see the light reflected differently from the same thing.”
Jordan posed a question regarding authority and your response illustrates the sola scriptura problem. Irked: “Again, I’m not trying to say the verse is no longer relevant – just that it’s harder to accomplish the ideal it describes. Given that this approach would have been much more successful in the first century, though, I don’t think we could fairly say, ‘Well, this is a rare ideal now, so this must not be what was meant.'” In fact, it’s effectively impossible under sola scripture and that is a very fair conclusion. You can see it in conflicting/contradicting faith and morals across the spectrum. Scripture is just ink and paper without people, and they are the active ingredient when it comes to interpretation and application. Unless you have a hot line to the Holy Spirit, everyone defers to someone when it comes to authority. The high sounding sola scriptura mantra does nothing but disguise whose authority you accept, including your own. Jesus invested with His authority including the keys with the promise of the Holy Spirit to His apostles and their successors in the Catholic Church…I’ll go with them.
John,
Inasmuch as we seem to have entered the phase of the conversation when you’re just accusing me of things, despite repeated requests for evidence, I think I’ll bow out here.
It is my mistake not to have included scripture as the authority for model 2. But that is the point of the argument. If scripture is the authority in model 2, then why so many competing interpretations and contradictions and churches in Protestantism? One may claim scripture is the only source that authoritatively determines truth, but that obviously does not work. Unless you claim that you personally infallibly determine truth according to scripture. Is that what you claim? I heard you say something about essential and non essential truths. What are those? Are they listed in the Bible? So unless you take the position that you personally have the ability to infallibly determine biblical truth, then your church model falls into model 2, a or b.
Model 3 says there is a divine institution set up by Jesus that gives the church the ability to come to know truth and speak authoritatively on it and interpret the scriptures. The church came before the Bible. If there is error in the teaching of church authorities then it gets sorted out by the pope and the bishops. If there is consistent error in teaching by clergy, then they are in some way departing from Christ’s church. This then becomes a question of can a clergy member sin, which would be the case if they are knowingly teaching something other than what Christ’s Church has declared as true. This is the same for lay people. If there are different opinions on what is true and those are at odds with what the church teaches then those opinions are wrong and if the dissenting lay person has been told as much then they are no longer united entirely to Christ ‘s church. Model 2 does not have this ability and therefore there is no way to fulfill Christ’s desire that we are one in that model. This is the entire point of the argument and any claim that model 2 and 3 end up having the same problem is demonstrably false.
Hi T,
I’m assuming I’m the “you” in context of this post, and I’ll respond in that vein.
If scripture is the authority in model 2, then why so many competing interpretations and contradictions and churches in Protestantism?
Because human interpretation of infallible truth is, itself, fallible. Let me try for a metaphor: I can hand two different students the exact same math book, which contains a perfectly precise definition of certain mathematical operations, and receive back two entirely different (and wrong) understandings, because students make mistakes. But if those students then go back to the book again and again, holding it up as the standard, they become the pillar upholding the truth it presents – and we might hope that in time, they gradually come to understand it better.
Let me turn that around on you: why are there so many competing interpretations and contradictions in Catholicism? I’ve referenced Amoris Laetitia, but we could talk about a dozen other topics. There are “red letter” Catholics who said Paul’s writings are less reliable than Christ’s; Thomist and Molinist Catholics who disagree on the basics of how God’s foreknowledge works; sedevacantist Catholics who hold that Peter’s seat has been empty for decades; Catholics who firmly believe (or firmly don’t) that Mary was coredemptrix with Chris; Catholics who believe that is an infallible teaching of the ordinary Magisterium that the death penalty is moral (and, heh, popes who don’t); Catholics who believe that Francis could “de-pope” himself by teaching heresy, and Catholics who believe that to be a theological impossibility – and that’s just a beginning, mostly consisting of folks I’ve actually talked to! That’s the theological diversity today, never mind the historical record of Catholic popes and theologians who disagreed on infallibility, on the canon, on the bodily assumption of Mary, etc. etc.
You guys have a wealth of theological disagreement, just as we do. If that’s the grounds for disqualification, we are both disqualified.
The church came before the Bible.
But not before the divine revelation; God speaks in the person of Christ before there is a church, and the Scriptures are a record of that revelation. When we appeal to Scripture as the foundation, we appeal to the fact that the Word of God comes first, and the people of God come after.
If there is error in the teaching of church authorities then it gets sorted out by the pope and the bishops. If there is consistent error in teaching by clergy, then they are in some way departing from Christ’s church.
Inasmuch as this error continues up through the present day – inasmuch as your own pope seems to be teaching against the RCC’s historic positions on, say, giving communion to the remarried, or the eternal fate of atheists, or the morality of the death penalty, or plausibly the existence of hell – how is this position any different than mine? I fully believe some Protestants are wrong to greater or lesser degrees, almost certainly including me – but since I also have an infallible standard against which I’m measured, how is this situation different?
Model 2 does not have this ability and therefore there is no way to fulfill Christ’s desire that we are one in that model.
Do you believe “oneness” requires perfect theological agreement? If so, is the Catholic Church “one?”
Hi Irked
I have to chuckle as there is a certain amount of essential vs non essential involved in church theology. The difference is what authority delineates them. The church calls this dogma and doctrine. There is also room for free theological thinking as long as it doesn’t affect revealed truth. Most of the internal “disagreements “ you mention fall into that category. Others may fall into a juridical or disciplinary category. To my knowledge, the sedevacantists separated themselves from Rome, but I could be wrong in that. I’m not saying you were…but I’d be careful if anyone is claiming Pope Francis believes the death penalty is intrinsically immoral. Because he didn’t say so.
Your point is taken that there is a lot of theological disagreement. The difference is that the Catholic Church uses the model that Christ set up in the Bible, namely an authoritative church. This model authoritatively keeps out lasting heresy. Protestantism can’t do this. You mentioned “When we appeal to Scripture as the foundation…”. (Please understand I’m not trying to take you out of context, I just did … for brevity). The problem is that scripture calls the Church the foundation. 1 Tim 3:15. This is again the point. The Church holds everyone (if they’re willing) in check. It authoritatively says this is binding or that can be disagreed upon, all under one roof in One Body.
So to your final question, no I don’t believe oneness requires perfect theological agreement unless we have been bound to believe said subject/article by the Church. It requires faith and obedience in the Body of Christ, the Church, and her authoritative hierarchy to what they bind or loose.
I really appreciate your input Irked. Thank you very much. I’ll have to bow out of any further discussion because of time. Thanks again. God bless you and I wish you the best as a brother in Christ.
Hi T,
I have to chuckle as there is a certain amount of essential vs non essential involved in church theology. The difference is what authority delineates them.
Hey, so we agree! Are we… are we allowed to do that? 🙂
But so disagreement is not inherently a problem, and (like you!) we Protestants do believe we have an authority to mediate these disagreements – albeit one that not everybody listens to the way they’re supposed to.
The difference is that the Catholic Church uses the model that Christ set up in the Bible, namely an authoritative church.
Okay, but so now we’ve moved away from your original argument (roughly, “You can’t use your system, because there will be lots of disagreements, unlike our system”) and to a new one (“You shouldn’t use your system, because it’s not the one Christ set up”). I’m sympathetic to that, but I’d point back to my comments upthread: I don’t think that case has been made, and indeed I think Galatians flatly denies the argument. (I think it’s also contrary to a lot of the working of the early church.)
I’d be careful if anyone is claiming Pope Francis believes the death penalty is intrinsically immoral. Because he didn’t say so.
I know you’re out of time, but I guess it kind of seems to me like he did. Here he is Oct 11 of last year, emphasis mine:
“It must be clearly stated that the death penalty is an inhumane measure that, regardless of how it is carried out, abases human dignity. It is per se contrary to the Gospel, because it entails the willful suppression of a human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator and of which – ultimately – only God is the true judge and guarantor… No one ought to be deprived not only of life, but also of the chance for a moral and existential redemption that in turn can benefit the community…
“Let us take responsibility for the past and recognize that the imposition of the death penalty was dictated by a mentality more legalistic than Christian… Nowadays, however, were we to remain neutral before the new demands of upholding personal dignity, we would be even more guilty.
“Here we are not in any way contradicting past teaching, for the defence of the dignity of human life from the first moment of conception to natural death has been taught by the Church consistently and authoritatively. Yet the harmonious development of doctrine demands that we cease to defend arguments that now appear clearly contrary to the new understanding of Christian truth.”
I don’t know how else to read that, and there seem to be a fair number of Catholics in the same boat.
I really appreciate your input Irked.
My pleasure. Thanks for a good conversation!
Okay, so weird question: I seem, from my icon, to have turned into some kind of horrible monster. I don’t have any idea how this has happened, or indeed how I would set that icon in the first place.
Anybody know what’s up?
(If this critter is a troll, that’s… pretty funny, actually, albeit inaccurate.)