Today is the oddly-named “Feast of the Chair of St. Peter,” celebrating Christ investing St. Peter with earthly authority over the Catholic Church. In ancient times, the chair was the seat of authority (akin to how we might say that a judge made the ruling “from the bench,” regardless of the furniture in the actual courtroom). It’s from the Latin (and Greek) word for chair, cathedra, that we get terms like “cathedral” and “ex cathedra.”
In honor of today’s feast, I’ve written a piece for Catholic Answers Magazine Online exploring how St. Peter (and his successors) are both a Rock and a Stumbling-Block for the Church:
In the words of Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, “Has it not remained this way throughout all Church history, that the pope, the successor of Peter, has been petra and skandalon, rock of God and stumbling stone all in one?”[1] What was true of Peter has been no less true of his successors.
The Protestant Reformer John Calvin laughed off Catholic appeals to papal authority in Luke 22 by saying
the thing is too childish in itself to need an answer: for if they insist on applying everything that was said to Peter to the successors of Peter, it will follow, that they are all Satans, because our Lord once said to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto me.” It is as easy for us to retort the latter saying as for them to adduce the former.[2]
What Calvin missed is that this is the whole point. The papacy isn’t the rock because the popes happen to be so holy or brilliant. Several times in history, the papacy has endured seemingly despite the pope. We might want a papacy in which every pope is sinless, or at least a future saint. But the papacy was founded by Jesus, who once said of his hand-picked apostles, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” (John 6:70).
I invite you to read the whole thing, and then come back and let me know what you think in the comments (below).
BY THE WAY: We’re now only four days out from the launch of THE CATHOLIC PODCAST on Monday. Keep an ear out for it, and be sure to download the first three episodes on (1) the state of the Church today; (2) Mary’s experience of Lent and the Passion; and (3) Judas’ experience of Lent and the Passion (and what we can learn from him).
Excellent article! I think you hit the nail on the head in pointing out how even the scandals of the papacy are a testimony to the grace of God.
What a fabulous article/blog! A great explanation of one of the deposits of our faith. Thank you, thank you, thank you! May we spread your words far and wide for the benefit of all Christians.
“St. Peter: Rock or Stumbling-Stone?”
Before Peter was a ‘Rock’, or a ‘foundation’ for the Church, he was a captain of a boat. Which is to say, he was already well practiced in the natural leadership of others, which is a necessary talent for anyone belonging to an institution or community, ie. not ‘loner’ or a hermit. So, Jesus chose a man who had already attained some prerequisite leadership talents; for who’s going deny that a captain of a ship is not accustomed to having his orders fulfilled on his own vessel, and especially in stormy seas?
But Jesus also taught that “those who seek to be FIRST must be the LEAST and the servant of all”. And so, this joining of the first and the last can cause confusion to those who don’t understand the ways and teachings of Jesus Christ. This is to say, that pride and power, the opposite of humility and service to others…are the normal characteristics of kings, moguls, presidents and other such worldly leaders. But a leader of Christ’s Church must be like Christ Himself, who was ‘meek and humble of heart’, who ‘came to serve’….and even as a ‘little child’.
So, this is where the stumbling block seems to come in. This humility of Christ can be a stumbling block for any pope or leader of the Church, because he is put in a position of immense leadership responsibilities, and over multitudes of sheep in Christ’s flock. And the temptation for such a leader will be to copy the leadership ways of the rest of the world, which the Pharisees of Jesus’ times did also, and which is why Jesus was so opposed to their style of governing the ‘holy people of God’. But as Christ warned the Apostles to “beware the leaven of the Pharisees’, this is an admonition to them to always avoid the temptation of power, pride and consequently, hypocrisy; and on the contrary to always seek to be the ‘servants of all’, or the ‘servant of the servants of God’, even as He Himself was while living here on Earth.
Worldly leaders, such as the Pharisees were, don’t understand how political power and true simplicity and humility can coexist, and so this idea is a ‘stumbling block’ for them. They would rather exercise the normal methods and ways of leadership, which has historically been by brute force or political conniving. So, this I think, is why Peter and the Popes that followed him, are ‘stumbling blocks’; because they are called to be two things at once: ‘The First and The Last’. Yes, they are called to be great and powerful leaders, but also ‘meek and humble of heart’ at the same time, even as Jesus their ‘role model’ was. And the ‘world’, without knowing the ways, grace or divinity Jesus, can’t understand how this can be accomplished.
I think Protestants also don’t understand this well, and so they highly distrust temporal power in the Church via a single sinful man, Pope and bishop tough he may be, as Joe notes. But this was the model that Jesus Himself chose to govern the Church when choosing Peter, a ship captain, as His immediate successor. He could have just started a Protestant style, charismatic based, ‘believe as you please’ Church from the beginning, without the need for any stable or identifiable Church leaders or bishops. But, on the contrary, the Church from the beginning grew and evolved through the decisions and leadership of weak sinful men, via the bishops and papacy…but not to say these weak men weren’t at the same time, aided by the gifts and grace of Holy Spirit and also the Divine Providence and Divine promises of God.
Dude, the only record of him fishing was with like four other disciples, his brother and James and John, who were already fishermen. He wasn’t the captain of anything. Rather he proved himself completely inept at leadership. Nearly every time he speaks in scripture(nearly) he shoves his foot into his mouth. He pretty much failed at appointing a successor apostle. And Paul has to knock sense into him when he was too much of a coward to face the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, and was basically set on the back urner while James ran things for a while. And yet in spite of all that God still chose to use him. That’s what i think is the more powerful takeaway. That a man with no leadership, no self-confidence, little faith, and poir decision making, became the great Martyr and champion of the faith.
That being said:
I don’t hold to papal succession because I don’t find any biblical reasoning for it. Sucession of bishops and power is reminiscent lf kingship, which is something God warned against the the Old Testament, as He should have been all that was needed(not a perfect parallel, but I believe it to be one nonetheless). There is no reason to believe that the Keys of the Kingdom were passed on in any way from one man to another.
“There is no reason to believe that the Keys of the Kingdom were passed on in any way from one man to another.”
Yep, it ended with Peter, No succession, no guidance, no leadership, just…every man for himself. Well, maybe not for ~1500 years, it sure is that way today – outside Catholicism, that is.
I am hearing more and more Reformed posit what I feel is a desperation defense of ‘the glory of diversity in the body of Christ’ in response to Catholic’s noting of +30,000 denominations. Really. So there are really that many different Christian paths to salvation? Which one is right? The Baptists (all several dozen flavors of them)? Calvinists (4-or-5 point)? Lutherans (all those synods…)? 7th Day Adventists? Mormons? Jay-Hovers Witnesses? Please don’t say they all agree on ‘core salvific truths.” A quick Google/YouTube will squash that thesis.
Please explain the “Biblical reasoning” …………
1.The Holy Spirit is the guide and the counselor
“Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.” John 16:7
2. I’m pentecostal, i.e. not a cessationist.
3. The Seventh Day Adventists don’t teach that salvation is found outside of Christ, though they do follow the teachings of one E. G. White pretty hardcore, though they see it as just below scripture in authority.
4. Jehovah’s Witnesses are heretics who don’t believe in the Trinity, deny the divinity of Christ, the immorality of the soul, or hell.
5. Mormons are also heretical in that they believe that God was once a man “what we are god once was, what he is we will one day become.” And denies the trinity, among a host of other heretical teachings incompatible with Christianity.
6. 4 or 5 point calvinism doesn’t determine salvation, as that comes through Christ alone. No calvinist would make that claim. No non-heretical(i’m sure you know what this means) evangelical or protestant denomination believes that any of their doctrines provides salvation. The doctrines are points of theology and practice and most evangelical and protestant denominations and groups hold to the same fundamentals: the trinity, salvation through Christ, the bodily death and ressurection of Christ, the inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit(even those who claim it to be inerrant), the divinity of Christ, etc…
7. There is no heirarchy in The New Covenant, no royalty. Nothing is passed on from one person to another. The Spirit is shared in common with all believers. Everything is to be tested by the Scripture to verify whether it is truth.
Eliandr, every one of those sects you just dismissed would have their own ‘terpretation/’splanation why You are Wrong and They, guided by their Holy-Spirit-Inspired Dear Leader, are Right. And why you are a heretic and they are saved. You say the Bible is your Spirit-guided authority to tell them they are Wrong – well, so…do…they, back at ya. No central authority is by definition, a free-for-all….
I would guess as a Pentecostal, you’re by definition not a cessationist.
So five point Calvinists don’t disagree with the four pointers (sounds like we’re talking about deer) on salvific truth, as they see 4-pointers as too cozy with Arminianism as to be a salvific risk? That’s what I get from a devout 5-pointer I know.
“The doctrines are points of theology and practice and most evangelical and protestant denominations and groups hold to..”
If doctrine isn’t important to salvation, only faith in Jesus, then why do different Reformed denominations spew “you’re not saved” vitriol at each other, as I pointed out? Why, indeed, are there thousands of denominations? Why not just one that, in opposition to wayward Catholicism, agrees on those fundamentals you enumerated? Did the Holy Spirit provide extra theological window dressing on top of the fundamentals just for the entertainment of watching fundamentalists battle each other over…fundamentals??
As for 7, we’ll agree to disagree especially on the ‘nothing is passed’ and ‘no hierarchy’ points. Billy Graham said he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. So did Jim Jones. And David Koresh. All of them would argue their interpretation and testing of Scripture was the correct way, as would you. And episcopal appointment/succession is pretty well documented not only in Scripture but in the writings of the early Church Fathers, which has been explored in this blog ad infinitum.
Then there’s that free-for-all thing again, exasperation with which, along with an open-minded study of Church history, sends many a strong Protestant into the arms of Holy Mother Church.
AK
Denominations are a funny thing. Especially if one has next to no understanding of them. They vary by leadership structure, culture, and doctrine. The Assemblies of God is the largest pentecostal denomination, but it has separations in regards to country and region, though all hold to the doctrinal standards set forth at the beginning of our denomination. The baptists are similar in their divisions mainly over structure and some points of doctrine. Episcopalians are just another name for Anglicans. The many reformed denominations share the theological doctrine of Calvin with variations in the borders of their doctrine.
If we’re going to say that only the catholic church has everything right, then what do we say about popes who excommunicated each other, or the trifecta of popes who all coexisted at one time and claimed the others were heretics. How do you define which one was right? How do you know if a pope is correct, or even a council when they disagree with one another? About division? The Catholic church tore at itself in the Middle Ages and a multiplicity of orders/sects arose within it. Does that make the Roman Catholic Church false by fiat? The Catholic Church also claims to be led by the Holy Spirit. If it doesn’t, then we should all be worried.
Divisions are caused by people. We see this in all christian groups and denominations. We have a tendency of throwing out proclamations of heresy at each other because we hate that someone disagrees with us, not scripture.
You know that Jim Jones rejected God completely, or haven’t you done any study on him?(he originally came from my denomination, and my district, a sour point for our denomination if we hadn’t cut all ties with him long before Jonestown)
Also, why the hell did you lump Bily Graham in with Jim Jones and Koresh?
Mormons have to make extra biblical claims to authority, and claim new inspiration when the Bible clearly says that the book is shut. And they have a number of heretical beliefs that are the foundation of their religion, as stated in my previous comment.
Claims have to be supported, which is why christians look to Scripture and the Holy Spirit, and to a lesser extent(in the protestant and evangelical world) tradition and the early church fathers. You are the only one who has said anything about a free-for-all. I stated explicitely that it isn’t. The church has defined doctrines that cannot be transgressed without falling into heresy, as described in the Apostles Creed. Oh yeah, protestant and evangelicals hold to the Apostles Creed too. No reformer or theologian, or even Church has everything correct. I don’t have it all figured out, Calvin didn’t, Luther didn’t, Pope Francis really doesn’t, Neither did Wesley, Aquinas, or even St. Augustine. The importance is whether we hold to the doctrine passed down to us by the Apostles, as laid out in Scripture, especially when it comes down to Salvation. The other arguments are important, but often pur divisions come from what might be best called theological “window dressing.”
Eliandr:
Trying to compare sometimes contentious Church history to the multiplicity of Reformed denominations and their often radically differing beliefs on the path to salvation indicates that you seem to understand the history of Catholicism about as well as you say I(mis)understand the nature of denominationalism. The development of doctrine through the centuries as discoursed by John Henry Newman has always come from and led to one Catholic Church.
Not comparing or lumping the great good of Billy Graham with the evil of Koresh and Jones. You know exactly what I was saying – that the lack of authority does lead to a free-for-all with wide-ranging opposites coming supposedly from the same Sola. Case in point, you say Protestants and Evangelicals holding to the Creed…..That’s true for some, but I have seen fundamentalists – a particularly abusive fellow named Barry – on this very blog claim the Creed is a blasphemous Catholic invention, and quoted Scripture to back it up. I have seen that elsewhere. And those folks would probably call you a heretic.
Obviously there are some very core things on which we agree, given your reference to the Creed. And when the discourse is civil, as this has been, I default to Luke 9:50.
I grew up the son of missionaries to Haiti and France. In Haiti we were part of a fellowship of hundreds of Christians from all corners of the world and all denominational/non-denominational backgrounds who all worshiped together. In France we had many ex-catholics come to our churches, and one Catholic woman tell my dad that she couldn’t keep coming because she “couldn’t abandon Mary.” As well as the opposite. I saw the French Assemblies of God do things only because they were anti-catholic(which was stupid, but some were descendents of the St. Bartholomew Day massacre-i even stayed in the castle of a protestant noble who was slaughtered there). I’ve been to literally hundreds of churches from dozens of denominations. And only a few times have I wondered if we held the same fundamental truths, namely the Trinity, Divinity of Christ, bodily death and ressurection, etc… (now that i’ve given a whole paragraph of anectodal evidence, you have to take me sooper serious, right?)
Just because someone pulls a bible verse out of their butt to excuse stupid doesn’t make them right… Popes have done the same thing and been wrong. That’s why there is the three tiered level as mentioned in a previous comment: Holy Spirit, Scripture, and tradition. We are to “test the spirits” in all things.
About this Barry… What scripture could someone have mangled to condemn the apostles creed?
Hi Eli,
Here is where you go wrong: You claim that the Church is at fault and not to be trusted since it has had problematic sinful popes (and yes, three at once–kinda’ like the Trinity, that, huh???!)
It doesn’t matter that the Church has sinners as popes. We still have the promise from Jesus Himself, that He would not leave us orphans. And He hasn’t. We have the Eucharist, the Holy Spirit, the Visible Body of Christ, and we have history on our side. There’s plenty more where that came from, too.
We also had the Arian heresy which basically left a couple bishops holding to the true faith. And here you are today holding your own crumbs of decay. Good luck with that. Because Catholics will never to away. Despite so very very very very many (50,000+) attempts to knock us down.
Hey Margo,
My point wasn’t that because several popes were bad/confused/other. It was that no person, pope or otherwise is perfect, and no person/church has the fully correct view on all Truth. Also, you realize that protestants/evangelicals share in the history of the church right? We share it with Roman Catholics as well as Orthodox, Copts, Messianic Jews, etc…
“It doesn’t matter that the Church has sinners as popes. We still have the promise from Jesus Himself, that He would not leave us orphans. And He hasn’t. ”
He hasn’t left us orphans, we have the Spirit and the body of Christ, which is the Church. The problem is seeing the Roman Catholic Church, as Mother. The Roman Catholic Church wasn’t even a real thing before Constantine(though the argument can be made that the bishop of Rome held some authority when he would weigh in on matters, but he certainly wasn’t Father). Seeing it this way means salvation can only come by sucking at the tits of Mother Church, putting an artificial barrier before between man and Christ. I have no problems at all with Church structure and unity. Heck, I wish we could all get along better(which is why I have a podcast with a fellow hardcore Catholic believer and close friend, for all three episodes of that, just click on my name on the comment) and join where we agree: all the points i’ve mentioned above. I’m fine with disagreeing with people on transubstantiation(if it is the actual Body of Christ, my believing or not wouldn’t change that and I partake of it regularly as commanded in Scripture), or the Immaculate Conception. But we agree on the fundamentals. We agree on the nature of God, on the nature of Christ and the Holy Spirit(pentecostals and Catholics are actually getting along pretty well around the world… mostly), we agree in the canon of the New Testament and that Christ will Return(how is another matter), that the Church os the Body of Christ to be His hands and feet. God has even used our divisions for His glory, as protestant/evangelicals have spread the gospel around the world in ways that not even the Catholic Church has been able to(and viceversa), though as believers we all share in this Glorious work of God.
“And here you are today holding your own crumbs of decay. Good luck with that. Because Catholics will never to away. Despite so very very very very many (50,000+) attempts to knock us down.”
I don’t want the Catholic Church to go away, as I’m sure it won’t. (And btw, the Roman Catholic Church did way more to knock down any dissent before and after the Reformation. Look at the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, the hundreds of Waldensians killed, the Lollards, William Tyndale, Jan Huss, etc…. and this isn’t to say tha the protestants were great in this regard. But never, never, try to point to protestants as trying to kill catholicism, the RCC has too much blood on it’s hands for that.) Pentecostal denominations/groups are the fastest growing groups of Christians in the world, so I don’t know what you mean by “holding the crumbs of decay.”
“The Roman Catholic Church wasn’t even a real thing before Constantine…”
Eliander – that thoroughly debunked Dan Brown/Alexander Hislop/Book of Mormon “Great Apostasy” stuff…really?
But never, never, try to point to protestants as trying to kill catholicism, ”
Really, again….read a little about the history of England from a fellow named Henry VIII and on. Heard of “priest holes?” Drawing and quartering? Enough of that to go around, and almost always associated with enforcement of state religion, which back then was essentially an expression of national loyalty. That translated to this country as well…read up a little on what it was like to be an openly practicing Catholic both in Colonial times and in history of the Republic up to about mid-20th century.
“The RCC has too much blood on it’s hands for that.)”
Right now, my friend, the virulent secularists, motivated by the guy in red tights, in are trying to kill us all….while we fight amongst ourselves….
AK,
The Church was certainly a thing, but the power and centrality of Rome wasn’t until around the time of Constantine. This has nothing to do with any Dan Brown conspiracy crap. It’s history.
Yeah, protestants were drawn and quartered too, and burned alive, and strangled to death, or slaughtered hy the thousands. And in England whoever was in power, be they catholic or protestant asserted that power by persecution.
And in Ireland both were bombing each other to hell up until fifty years ago. There was also a whole state for Cathoics, and the Puritans persecuted even those who disagreed with them among protestants, which brought around the founding of Pennsylvania as a state with complete(mostly) freedom of religion.
Pointing to Protestant abuses, which I had already acknowledged, to excuse Catholic ones does no one any good. And I agree with you on the ties of nationalism to religion. This is pretty much always a bad thing. That’s one of my greatest gripes with the way the Roman Catholic Church was run. It had political power, which leads to incredible abuses(the Anglican Church was the same and protestantism in the hussite wars and in germany after Luther suffered from the same thing. Hell, Calvin basically created a political enterprise from whole cloth with Geneva). Where I live currently there are still remnants of this when people call themselves Christians and don’t hold to anything that Christians believe. They call themselves Christian because they once went to a Baptist/Assemblies of God church(those are the two big ones in my area).
Ile,
Why do you capitalize Scripture but do not capitalize CHRISTIANS?
Are words more important than people? You seem to wafting a whiff of past history here.
I am “pulling an Awlms” here. With apologies for the length, I hope all may be edified and thereby blessed. From Aquinas’ Catena on Luke 9:45-50.
CYRIL; The devil lays plots of various kinds for them that love the best way of life. And if indeed by carnal allurements he can gain possession of a man’s heart, He sharpens his love of pleasure; but if a man has escaped these snares, he excites in him a desire of glory, and this passion for vain-glory had seized some one of His apostles. Hence it is said, Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be the greatest. For to have such thoughts, belongs to him who desires to be superior to the rest; but I think it improbable that all the disciples gave way to this weakness; and therefore suppose that the Evangelist, not to seem to lay the charge to any individual, expresses himself indefinitely, seeing, that there arose a reasoning among them.
THEOPHYL. Now it seems that this feeling was excited by the circumstance of their not being able to cure the demoniac. And while they were disputing thereupon, one said, It was not owing to my weakness, but another’s, that he could not be cured; and so thereby was kindled a strife among them, which was the greatest.
BEDE; Or, because they saw Peter, James, and John, taken apart to the mount, and the keys of the kingdom of heaven promised to Peter, they were angry that these three, or Peter, should have precedence over all; or because in the payment of the tribute they saw Peter made equal to the Lord, they supposed he was to be placed before the rest. But the attentive reader will find that the question was raised among them before the payment of the penny. For in truth Matthew relates that this took place at Capernaum; but Mark says, And he came to Capernaum, and being; the house, he asked them, What was it that you disputed among yourselves in the way? But they held their peace, for by the way they had disputed among themselves who should be the greatest.
CYRIL; But our Lord, Who knew how to save, seeing in the hearts of the disciples the thought that had risen up thereupon as it were a certain root of bitterness, plucks it up by the roots before it received growth. For when passions first begin in us, they are easily subdued; but having gained strength, they are with difficulty eradicated. Hence it follows, And Jesus perceiving the thought of their heart &c. Let him who thinks Jesus to be mere man, know that he has erred, for the Word, although made flesh, remained God. For it is God alone Who is able to search into the heart and reins. But in taking a child, and placing it beside Him, He did it for the Apostles’ sake and ours. For the disease of vain-glory feeds generally on those who have the preeminence among other men. But a child has a pure mind and unspotted heart, and abides in simplicity of thought; he courts not honors, nor knows the limits each one’s power, nor shuns seeming to be inferior to others, bearing no moroseness in his mind or heart. Such the Lord embraces and loves, and thinks them worthy to be near Him, as those who had chosen to taste of the things which are His; for He says, Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly of heart. Hence it follows, And he says to them, Whosoever shall receive a child in my name, receives me. As if He were to say, Seeing that there is one and the same reward to those that honor the saints, whether perchance such an one be the least, or one distinguished for honors and glory, for in him is Christ received, how vain is it to see to have the preeminence;
BEDE; Now herein He either teaches, that the poor of Christ are to be received by those who wish to be greater simply for His honor, or He persuades men that they are children in malice. Hence when He said, Whoever shall receive that child, he adds, in my name; that in truth they may pursue with diligence and reason for Christ’s name that form of virtue which the child observes, with only nature for its guide. But because He also teaches that He is received in the child, and He Himself was born to us a child; lest it should be thought that this was all which was seen, He subjoined, And whoever shall receive me, receives him that sent me; wishing verily to be believed, that as was the Father, such and so great was He.
AMBROSE; For he who receives the followers of Christ, receives Christ; and he who receives the image of God, receives God; but because we cannot see the image of God, it has been made present to us by the incarnation of the Word, that the divine nature which is above us, may be reconciled to us.
CYRIL; Now He still more plainly conveys the meaning of the preceding words, saying, For he that is least among you all, the same shall be great; in which He speaks of the modest man who from honesty thinks nothing high of himself.
THEOPHYL. Because then our Lord had said, He who is least among you all, the same shall be great, John feared, lest perhaps they had done wrong in hindering a certain man by their own power. For a prohibition does not show the probitor to be inferior, but to be one who thinks himself somewhat superior. Hence it is added, And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in your name, and we forbade him. Not indeed from envy, but to distinguish the working of miracles, for he had not received the power of working miracles with them, nor had the Lord sent him as He did them; nor did he follow Jesus in all things. Hence he adds, because he follows not with us.
AMBROSE; For John loving much, and therefore much beloved, thinks that they should be excluded from the privilege who did not practice obedience.
CYRIL; But we ought to consider not so much the worker of the miracles, as the grace which was in him, who, by the power of Christ, performed miracles. But what if there should be both those which be numbered together with the Apostles, and those who are crowned with the grace of Christ; there are many diversities in Christ’s gifts. But because the Savior had given the Apostles power to cast out evil spirits, they thought no one else but themselves alone was permitted to have this privilege granted to him, and therefore they come to inquire if it were lawful for others also to do this.
AMBROSE; Now John is not blamed, because he did this from love, but he is taught to know the difference between the strong and the weak. And therefore our Lord though He rewards the stronger, yet does not exclude the weak; as it follows, And Jesus said to him, Forbid him not, for he that is not against you is for you. True, O Lord. For both Joseph and Nicodemus, through fear Your secret disciples, when the time came, did not refuse their offices. But still since you said elsewhere, He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathers not with me scatters, explain to us lest the two seem contrary to one another. And it seems to me, if any one considers the Searcher of hearts, he cannot doubt that every man’s action is distinguished by the motive of his heart.
CHRYS. For in the other place when He said, He that is not with me is against me, He shows the Devil and the Jews to be opposed to Him; but here He shows that he who in Christ’s name cast out devils, is partly on their side.
CYRIL; As if He said, On the side of you who love Christ, are all they who wish to follow those things which conduce to His glory, being crowned with His grace.
THEOPHYL. Marvel then at the power of Christ, how His grace works by means of the unworthy and those who are not His disciples: as also men are sanctified through the priests, although the priests be not holy.
AMBROSE; Now why does He in this place say that they are not to be hindered, who by the imposition of hands can subdue the unclean spirits, when according to Matthew, He says to these, I never knew you? But we ought to perceive that there is no difference of opinion, but that the decision is this, that not only the official works but works of virtue are required in a priest, and that the name of Christ is so great, that even to the unholy it serves to give defense, but not grace. Let no one then claim to himself the grace of cleansing a man, because in him the power of the eternal Name has worked. For not by your merits, but by his own hatred, the devil is conquered.
BEDE; Therefore in heretics and false Catholics, it becomes us to abhor, and forbid not the common sacraments in which they are with us, and not against us, but the divisions contrary to peace and truth, wherein they are against us as following not the Lord.
Eli,
As the mother gives birth to the child, so the Church births the body of Christ. So the Church is Mother.
I think that it is important that one believe (in) Jesus’ words in Scripture is important. It is more important than simply following the command but not believing in its importance. (How is following a command but not believing in the reason behind it different from the acting and believing of the Pharisee?)
I think it is important that a Christian believes in what Jesus says. Isn’t that in essence in what faith consists? He said that those who eat his flesh and drink his blood have life within them. So those who do that and do not believe in what they are doing? You call them Christian? A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.
Eliandr said: “Everything is to be tested by the Scripture to verify whether it is truth.”
Eliandr,
How did you know which 27 of the hundreds of 1st century Christian writings were to be Scripture?
Joe (not Joe H, the blog author)
Joe,
The early church was pretty much agreed on what constituted the 27 inspired books of the New Testament. We can debate the canon of the Old Testament, but there is no serious debate on the New. And Martin Luther was wrong when he wanted James out. That was stupid.
The early church pretty much agreed that the Eucharist is the body of Christ, baptism saves, loss of salvation, not imputation etc… so I take it you also believe those things. If not why are you so sure they got the NT right?
Sorry to nit-pick, but i could not help chuckle at your rather startling typo, the immorality [sic] of the soul. Hehe. Presumably there is a missing letter ‘t’ somewhere…^^
Surely the immorTality of the soul, though, which no doubt you meant to type, is actually a pagan Greek conception. St. Paul is definite that one has to PUT ON immortality, that no one of the race of man currently has it. I would be curious to know how you can demonstrate otherwise.
The English word “hell” is an indiscriminate translation of four different words, three being Greek (Gehenna, Hades, Tartarus) and one being Hebrew (Sheol). Whether indeed Christ intended to convey the concept of eternal conscious torment when He uttered the word “Geena” (Gehenna) is actually a crucial question, whereas it seems the early adoption of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, c. 450 A.D., has curtailed a proper examination of these matters. Conscientious modern translations with access to the three oldest codices [Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus], those documents being discovered long after the publishing of either the Catholic Douay-Rheims (1583-? Can someone please verify?) or Protestant KJV of 1611, increasingly are found without the word “hell” altogether. Thus, the JW folks may not be as off their rockers as you are trying to imply.
Now, do not get me wrong: I am certainly NOT a member of the JW sect, and their New World Translation (with its flawed reading of John 1:1 “and the Word was A god”) is NOT what I would group with the “conscientious” translations I alluded to above, since it seems they created a conception of Christ first and then translated in accord with their pre-conceived notions. Arguably, however, both the Douay-Rheims and the KJV versions are guilty of somewhat the same type of offence, since they translate the critical words ‘aion’ [Niftiest transliteration, eon] and ‘aionios’ [eonian] variously as forever or eternal, everlasting, and so forth, to reinforce their translators’ firm belief in the eternality of “hell”, aiming as it were to help God out in explaining what He really meant (They knew a priori that God meant to torment His opponents forever, of course!^^), even though the words themselves, in secular Greek sources, can be shown to refer to periods of limited or time-restricted duration. Further, the noun ‘aion’ (and its English transliteration ‘eon’) can be plural, as in the Biblical phrases the ‘eon of the eons’ and the ‘eons of the eons’, but the idea of foreverS and everS is of course non-sensical.
I sense some serious linguistic nit-picking here. Can you extrapolate your parsing of the Greek in the Jesus quotes in your post, to, say, Revelations 14:11 (“the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night”) and 20:10 (“and the lake of fire, where the devil, the beast, and the false prophet “will be tormented day and night for ever and ever” )? There’s more – a lot more – but you get the idea.
Hi AK (and Eliandr),
So I’m Baptist, which is (in relative terms) a pretty long country mile from a Pentecostal. I also agree with the seven points Eliandr listed, because the differences in the overwhelming majority of Protestant churches are not nearly as severe as you’d make them out to be. I’m a five point Calvinist; my wife is probably around a four-pointer; my mother thinks the whole idea is nonsense. None of us question the other’s salvation for a moment, because we all agree that those doctrines can be important without being salvific.
You say:
why do different Reformed denominations spew “you’re not saved” vitriol at each other
Which denominations teach this? Not individuals, because there’s no shortage of crazy individuals in any of our denominations; which are the Protestant denominations that teach that the others aren’t really saved?
I am hearing more and more Reformed posit what I feel is a desperation defense of ‘the glory of diversity in the body of Christ’ in response to Catholic’s noting of +30,000 denominations.
You have not heard that from me, at least. Truth is singular; some denominations are closer to that truth than others, and in a perfect world we’d all agree perfectly on it. But in this imperfect world, an awful lot of these denominations hail Christ as Lord and depend on his blood alone for the forgiveness of their sins.
Do some of us disagree on finer points, like “Is there anyone with the gift of tongues today?” or “Exactly how much of a guarantee is there that your salvation cannot be lost?” Sure, and in that sense, we’re in good company with you guys. Y’all have your Thomists and your Molinists; your partim-partim and material sufficiency camps; your charismatic and non-charismatic branches; your “Mary as co-redemptress” crowd and your “nah, that’s heresy” crew – to say nothing of your various groups of sedevacantists! (For that matter, we could talk about the cradle-vs.-convert Catholic fights of the last year or two, because that got ugly.)
But we don’t even need to go that far; we can stop at Amoris Laetitia, and talk about the fact that conservative Catholic bishops disagree vehemently on the theological meaning and implication of that letter with the guy who wrote it: that same successor of Peter. It is amazing to me that now – under Francis, of all popes! – that there can be any meaningful appeal that Protestants should join the Catholic church and escape all this division.
But look, hear me here: I know you have answers to all of these. I’m confident that you have reasons that these disagreements – while they might indicate an unhealthy attitude on the part of some individual Catholics – are not proof of a fundamental divide in the unity of the church, no matter how much they might look that way to outsiders. What I’m asking is that you allow us that same response: that we can hail each other as brothers while disagreeing just as Catholics do, even if we call our disagreeing groups “denominations” and you guys don’t. My sense is that the major structural difference here is that you guys would point to the office of the Pope (and more generally, the Magisterium) as the unifying thing that binds you all together as one church, however much you may disagree – and we would point purely to Christ. That doesn’t make either of us right, but let’s be even-handed about it!
And on that note, in fairness, I’d ask that we put to bed the “30,000 denominations” claim. That gets debunked every single time it comes up, and I’ve heard multiple Catholic speakers say it’s not a fair number. Here’s the National Catholic Register saying it’s wrong: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/scottericalt/we-need-to-stop-saying-that-there-are-33000-protestant-denominations, and here’s Patheos saying the same: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/02/33000-protestant-denominations-no.html
Irked,
“So I’m Baptist, […] I’m a five point Calvinist…” = as AK correctly reported above (“Please don’t say they all agree on ‘core salvific truths.” A quick Google/YouTube will squash that thesis”), can you please address these words, from a Southern Baptist seminary president: “I know there are a fair number of you who think you are a Calvinist, but understand there is a denomination which represents that view,” Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, said at the close of Tuesday’s chapel service. “It’s called Presbyterian.”
Furthermore, in the same article, Rick Patrick has reportedly “argued that debate in the Southern Baptist Convention over Calvinism isn’t about just the single issue of how people are saved”. Is how people are saved “important without being salvific”?
Finally, one of his direct quotes (“If we are not careful a myriad of related beliefs and practices will enter our camp, hidden within the Trojan Horse of Calvinism”), as well as other ones in the article, addresses directly your question, “Which denominations teach this [spews vitriol at each other]?”
Hi LLC,
I love Paige Patterson, but he’s not, y’know, infallible; he’s not even accurate, in this case. (It’s a trifle overzealous for a Baptist to gloss over the fact that Presbyterians are pedobaptists!)
But even taking his claim at face value, there’s no argument here that Calvinists aren’t saved, or that they disagree on a core salvific truth; it’s just an argument that they’re, y’know, wrong on some stuff. So, no, that doesn’t address my question, because my question – and, more importantly, AK’s claim – were specifically about salvation.
Are you arguing that there’s nothing comparably vitriolic in conversations between Catholics, here? Because I’m pretty sure I can find nastier comments than that just from Francis – a quick Google turns up this, which is pretty hilarious in its own right: http://popefrancisbookofinsults.blogspot.com/
Sometimes Christians are rude. Sometimes we tell each other we have bad theology on one point or another. That wasn’t AK’s claim.
Irked,
“It’s a trifle overzealous for a Baptist to gloss over the fact that Presbyterians are pedobaptists!” = according to Jason Allen, president of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, while “by definition, a Baptist church does not baptize infants.”, “Within Southern Baptist life, we have been on a steady march towards infant baptism, routinely baptizing children younger and younger in age” which, incidentally, is scriptural.
“there’s no argument here that Calvinists aren’t saved, or that they disagree on a core salvific truth; it’s just an argument that they’re, y’know, wrong on some stuff” = Mr. Patterson evidently disagrees with you, as does Mr. Patrick in the same article (“Southern Baptists cannot help but wonder what is happening as we increasingly embrace the Presbyterian view of salvation doctrine, church government, the mode of baptism, avoidance of the altar call, the use of beverage alcohol, the approval of societal missions funding and so on”).
“Are you arguing that there’s nothing comparably vitriolic in conversations between Catholics, here?” = no. I just refuted your point.
Hi LLC,
according to Jason Allen, president of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, while “by definition, a Baptist church does not baptize infants.”,
Right, that was my point. I don’t think it really matters to our conversation; I was just noting that, contra Patterson, there’s still a significant difference between “Calvinist Baptist” and “Presbyterian.” I’m… not sure what your point is?
Mr. Patterson evidently disagrees with you
He does not, no. Patterson says in the next sentence that he respects Calvinists, and thinks they’re saved.
as does Mr. Patrick in the same article
Your quote says that Patrick is concerned by how much Baptists are (in his view) becoming like Presbyterians. He doesn’t say he thinks this is a salvific issue, and of course he doesn’t, because Baptists generally think Presbyterians are Christians.
Do you have anything that actually says Baptists don’t think other denominations are saved, or just stuff that says Baptists think other denominations are wrong sometimes?
Irked,
“Right, that was my point” = please continue with the quote, which is, “Within Southern Baptist life, we have been on a steady march towards infant baptism, routinely baptizing children younger and younger in age”, which is my point, i.e. Baptists are increasingly accepting Infant Baptism.
“He does not, no. Patterson says in the next sentence that he respects Calvinists, and thinks they’re saved” = Not so. He says, verbatim, “Many of them, the vast majority of them, are brothers in Christ”. Which ones are, and which ones are not?
“He doesn’t say he thinks this is a salvific issue, and of course he doesn’t, because Baptists generally think Presbyterians are Christians” = Not so, again. “Patrick said the New Calvinism and the “traditionalist” position advocated in the past by former SBC leaders such as Herschel Hobbs and Adrian Rogers are “two competing systematic theologies” with disagreements as basic as whether the heavenly Father is a God of love”. Furthermore, your “generally” speaks volumes.
Hi LLC,
please continue with the quote, which is, “Within Southern Baptist life, we have been on a steady march towards infant baptism, routinely baptizing children younger and younger in age”, which is my point, i.e. Baptists are increasingly accepting Infant Baptism.
Eh, or so an alarmist reaction would have it. It’s not my observation, and I’m not sure what relevance this has to our conversation.
“He does not, no. Patterson says in the next sentence that he respects Calvinists, and thinks they’re saved” = Not so. He says, verbatim, “Many of them, the vast majority of them, are brothers in Christ”. Which ones are, and which ones are not?
The ones who genuinely accept Christ are, and the ones who don’t aren’t; you can believe the doctrines of Calvinism are true (or false!) without personally yielding to the risen Christ. This is pretty standard terminology; notably, he and I would probably both say the same about Baptists in general.
But my point is that Patterson is not saying that Calvinists are not saved. He’s explicitly not.
Not so, again. “Patrick said the New Calvinism and the “traditionalist” position advocated in the past by former SBC leaders such as Herschel Hobbs and Adrian Rogers are “two competing systematic theologies” with disagreements as basic as whether the heavenly Father is a God of love”.
Serious question: have you watched the sermon in question, to get a sense of what Patrick thinks? Because it’s harsh. It’s rude. I’d say it’s pretty unfair, in places. But it also has quotes like these:
“We are not part of the New Calvinist movement. Rather, we are an organized, respectful response to that movement.”
“We are not claiming that we are the only tradition in Southern Baptist life. We know that Calvinism is also a tradition. We do believe, however, that our convention will fly higher with two healthy wings instead of just one.”
Are these the words of a man who thinks Calvinists are unsaved, or just one who thinks they’re wrong about important stuff? The concern he presents is that Calvinists may be sinning in places, and that they may be suboptimal in others; it is not that they’re not Christians – and again, that was AK’s charge.
(Also, the author of the article misspeaks: Patrick says that the debate is over whether God has the same kind of love for all people or not. He does not say that the debate is over whether God is a God of love.)
But Patrick’s right – these are different ways of understanding Christianity, with some interesting and different implications. That does not mean that they disagree on: the Trinity; the incarnation; the virgin birth; the literal death and resurrection of Christ; that Christ atones for the sins of those who trust in him; etc.
It does mean they disagree on “what we believe about salvation,” because that includes things like “Can you lose your salvation?” and “Did Christ die to cover the sins for a specific group of people, or for generically anyone who would come to him?”. That’s true! But not all doctrines concerning salvation are necessary for salvation. Again, the Thomist/Molinist divide is a disagreement on a doctrine about salvation; do each of those groups believe the other is damned?
The reason Patrick is so worked up is that the guy who is almost certain to be the next SBC president is a Calvinist, because Calvinism is actually wildly popular in the SBC right now, ,and he’s pushing back. It is simply not the case that the denomination teaches that Calvinists are not saved.
Furthermore, your “generally” speaks volumes.
Yes, it implies that Baptists are individuals – some of whom are crazy, and say crazy things! – and not a Borg hive mind.
To your specific question:
Is how people are saved “important without being salvific”?
So it looks like that’s a paraphrase from the author of the article, not something Patrick said; my guess is that it’s a reference to the question of, “Are people predestined to salvation, or not?” – which is important without being salvific, yes!
I may be wrong on that, but without an actual quote from Patrick I don’t have anything to go on here. If you want to give something more concrete, feel free!
Hello Irked,
Jesus prayed: ” And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.” John 17:11.
You said: “Truth is singular; some denominations are closer to that truth than others, and in a perfect world we’d all agree perfectly on it.”
I ask: Do you think it’s acceptable to disagree (to the point of setting up separate places of worship based on our individual opinions of Christianity – no matter how “close to the truth” they appear to you?
If the First and Second Persons of the Trinity are “one” – even in matters that “are not salvific” – and Jesus desires that the ones that the Father has given Him are likewise “one”, does that mean they can stray from His definition (“as we are one”)?
You made the point that Catholics squabble about “minor” issues too. True. That’s quite a different animal than breaking off from the Church He established and developing doctrines based on an individual’s interpretations of the Bible – the method that generates very diverse Protestant denominations.
Peace,
Joe
Hi Joe,
I ask: Do you think it’s acceptable to disagree (to the point of setting up separate places of worship based on our individual opinions of Christianity – no matter how “close to the truth” they appear to you?
I think Catholics read quite a bit into “setting up separate places of worship” that’s not really accurate – our Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc. brothers are welcome at our communion table as long as they claim Christ as savior (and generally vice-versa, though I don’t want to speak for everyone here). Separate denominations are convenient for identifying schools of thought, worship styles, etc.; they aren’t declarations that every other church in the city is going to hell.
So to your question, yes, I think it’s appropriate that Christians may disagree on some of the non-salvific truths of Scripture – as happens within both Protestantism and Catholicism. As I argued at length the other day in Joe’s post “The Gospel Call to Christian Unity,” I don’t think “oneness” requires either absolute agreement or a temporal monarchical hierarchy.
That’s quite a different animal than breaking off from the Church He established
I’m not going to pre-concede that Catholicism uniquely is the Church Christ established, nor that Protestants are the only ones to imperfectly develop doctrines based on their limited understandings of the truth; I don’t believe either of these things are true. If you want to introduce this as an argument, you have to establish it first.
“….they aren’t declarations that every other church in the city is going to hell….”
I can provide references from multiple denominations saying-just-that. Baptists saying Calvinists are hell-bound, and vice versa. Remember Barry, Calvinist who said that Martin Luther was burning in hell because he was too Catholic.
As for divisions within Catholicism, a little illustrative story. Here in Colorado Springs,there are two Latin Mass parishes. In the first, talk to the priests….they are not crazy either about Pope Francis or the way some of the Vatican II reforms were implemented. But they submit both to Episcopal and Magisterial authority,belief, and practice and are in full communion. The other, to put it mildly, does not submit,and has in multiple ways ‘gone rogue’ against both Episcopal and Magisterial authority. They have had all their faculties removed by our Bishop, are out of communion, and are no more Catholic than the pentecostal New Life big tent a few miles east.
Hi AK,
I can provide references from multiple denominations saying-just-that. Baptists saying Calvinists are hell-bound, and vice versa. Remember Barry, Calvinist who said that Martin Luther was burning in hell because he was too Catholic.
I remember Barry well, yes. But BB was an individual, not a denomination, and it’s possible to find individuals with all manner of crazy opinions – they don’t really prove anything. That’s the point of Joe’s original post, isn’t it – that the existence of popes who were crazy, or evil, is not a black mark against Catholicism as a whole? Surely if we’re going to make those kinds of concessions for the pope, we can make them for Some Internet Guy.
My question is which denominations declare the others to be hellbound. If that’s a mainstream position in Protestantism, and not a crazy fringe (which all our traditions have), it shouldn’t be hard to find a decent-sized denomination making the claim. So who says it? The PCA? The SBC? The UMC? Who?
They have had all their faculties removed by our Bishop, are out of communion, and are no more Catholic than the pentecostal New Life big tent a few miles east.
I think that’s very illustrative, because it makes the basic point I’m trying to: there are things you have to believe to be counted as Catholic, and even if you describe yourself as Catholic, if you don’t believe those things, you ain’t in the category. It would be unfair of me to point to this parish you mention and say, “See, there are crazy beliefs like this, and this is part of Catholicism.”
In the same way, “Protestant” is just a category that means, roughly, “non-Catholic/Orthodox Christian,” and I don’t think it’s fair to include in that category people who don’t hold to the basics of the saving work of Christ. It makes as much sense to critique Protestants for the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses as it does to critique them for the beliefs of Hindus – or to critique the Catholic Church for Haitian Voodoo. It’s a distraction.
Irked said: “I think it’s appropriate that Christians may disagree on some of the non-salvific truths.”
Jesus prayed:
“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.” John 17:20-23
If Christ prayed for us to be “perfectly one”, why do you say it’s appropriate to disagree on non-salvific truths? He didn’t say that.
Do you think the world looks at all the versions of Christianity – that are VERY different when viewed by the “world” – and concludes:
1. “Well, they really are ONE on matters that are salvific, and that’s all I’m looking at – so I guess the Father really DID send Jesus into the world. Hey, sign me up!!”
-OR-
2. “These Christians can’t even agree amongst themselves.
Some baptize infants – others say wait til they understand it.
Some say Communion is just symbolic – others say Christ is really present.
Some say the truly saved must show a gift of the Holy Spirit – others say it’s optional.
Some say you get to heaven simply based on faith alone – others say deeds play a role in salvation.
Some say you can never lose your salvation – others say you can choose to turn away from God.
Ahh, the heck with it.”
If it’s #2, (and I think that’s the majority view of the world) then shame on us for continuing the divisions (denominations) based on our individual opinions.
Peace,
Joe
Hi Joe,
If Christ prayed for us to be “perfectly one”, why do you say it’s appropriate to disagree on non-salvific truths? He didn’t say that.
Because “oneness” is not a function of perfect theological agreement – it had better not be, or no room with two Christians in it has ever been “one.” God did not choose to specify all theological truths to maximal detail, leaving room for some degree of debate on this side of heaven – and that’s, again, as much a true thing in Catholicism as it is in Protestantism.
If it’s #2, (and I think that’s the majority view of the world) then shame on us for continuing the divisions (denominations) based on our individual opinions.
Look, if you guys want to all become Southern Baptists, we stand ready to receive you as brothers! But as long as we both genuinely believe we’re rightly divining God’s truth, and the other is mistaken, I don’t see that there’s anything to do but hail each other as brothers and also disagree on some non-salvific stuff.
Let me cut to the chase a little: I am persuaded, down to my bones, that some of your creeds are in contradiction with the plain truth of Scripture. I’m not interested in broadening this debate to “Which ones?” or “How?” right now; let’s just take that as a premise, as a true description of my beliefs. (I may, of course, be mistaken in these beliefs, but they are sincere.) I’m likewise sincerely convinced the Baptists are a lot closer to those truths. Given those sincere beliefs, what is my morally correct course of action as a follower of Christ?
“Let me cut to the chase a little: I am persuaded, down to my bones, that some of your creeds are in contradiction with the plain truth of Scripture. ”
So, does that mean the eternal salvation of those who believe those creeds is in peril?
“Look, if you guys want to all become Southern Baptists, we stand ready to receive you as brothers!”
Likewise 😇
So, what I am getting from your responses is this: Catholic belief and practice is non-Scriptural, and depending on your answer above, non-salvific. Pretty much, though, a majority of not all Protestant denominations are in agreement on ‘those core salvific truths’ and really, despite those ‘ignore the man behind the curtain’ difference, are all one and brothers and sisters in salvific belief.
Just….wow.
You named multiple conventions and synods, asking which of them is willing to go on record as saying the other is going to hell…..one of my responses it, the disaffection with the Protestant mainstream establishments meteoric growth of non-denoms which have doubled between 2000 and 2016. Less than 30% of American Protestants identify with a mainstream denomination.These are the sources of much of the dissension and vitriol on what is salvific, not just “incidental stuff on which we disagree.”
Do you want to dismiss either the theological effect of this Reformed fractionating – which was my original point – or pooh-pooh the storefront non-denoms as some kind of fad not worth noting?
AK,
So, does that mean the eternal salvation of those who believe those creeds is in peril?
No. That’s what I’ve been saying for the whole thread: not every disagreement is proof that one side or the other is damned.
Pretty much, though, a majority of not all Protestant denominations are in agreement on ‘those core salvific truths’ and really, despite those ‘ignore the man behind the curtain’ difference, are all one and brothers and sisters in salvific belief.
In the vast majority of cases, yes. Notice that both the Baptist and the Pentecostal in the thread agree on this point; to be a little flippant, I’m pretty sure that if we both think we’re one in Christ, you’re not going to be able to persuade us otherwise!
one of my responses it, the disaffection with the Protestant mainstream establishments meteoric growth of non-denoms which have doubled between 2000 and 2016.
Are you arguing nondenoms think the denominations are going to hell? Because if not, that’s still not an answer to my question.
Do you want to dismiss either the theological effect of this Reformed fractionating – which was my original point – or pooh-pooh the storefront non-denoms as some kind of fad not worth noting?
No, why would I? I think nondenoms are great! Denominations are a choice, not a mandate; organization above the local church level is voluntary, because we don’t ground our unity in that.
From here, it feels like you are reading Protestant denominational interactions as though we thought about them the way Catholics do. We don’t; I am not scandalized by nondenoms because I don’t think denominations matter, except as useful organizational shorthand. I don’t define my unity (or lack thereof) to fellow Christians in terms of them, but in terms of our shared submission to our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who died to pay the price for our sins.
Irked,what I am getting from your responses is that denominations, practices, Scriptural interpretations, etc., all don’t really matter as long as one believes in Jesus Christ. There should, therefore,be no denominations at all (which makes me wonder why you call yourself a Baptist). Interestingly enough, it is the nondenoms from whom I have seen the most accusations of sin, damnation, and ‘not saved’ tossed around usually against the mainstream denominational beliefs like Calvinism.
My humble observation is, your belief in Reformed majority amiable syncretism might be a bit…optimistic.
And as well, I guess I don’t really understand why I see you discourse so energetically on this blog if you really don’t hold that Catholic dogma, unscriptural as you believe it to be, is an impediment to salvation. Isn’t that the bottom line? Why then bother course-correcting us Catholics? As long as we all believe in Jesus, the kids are allright, and all the rest – like those silly beliefs in Apostolic succession, Papal primacy, and the Real Presence – are just incidental and really not worth your time. I mean, I enjoy the interaction, but on any real level, it’s a semantic exercise. Right?
In any case, regarding other faith traditions, I personally work hard to internalize Matt 7: 1-5, and in the absence of conflict, Luke 9:50.
What’s hard is, living Matt 5:39 when confronted with one of the many BB’s I have encountered in both my and my family’s lives.
Given those sincere beliefs, what is my morally correct course of action as a follower of Christ?”
Come to RCIA. I promise we’ll take good care of you – and we have cookies. 😃
Hi AK,
Irked,what I am getting from your responses is that denominations, practices, Scriptural interpretations, etc., all don’t really matter as long as one believes in Jesus Christ.
No, that bundles up a lot of different ideas that can’t all be treated the same way. Denominations don’t matter, because “a denomination” is just a shorthand way of identifying patterns of belief, practice, and organization. God’s not going to turn to anyone and say, “You really should have been Methodist.”
But those underlying beliefs themselves do matter. It is important how you read Scripture; Christ held the Pharisees to account for how they read (or failed to read) the Scriptures, and the same will be done for us. But not all doctrinal disagreements are salvific in nature; the former are of much value, and the latter of literally infinite value.
So I don’t care whether you’re nondenominational or not. I do care whether you believe in forensic justification, or limited atonement, or the immaculate conception of Mary. But I’m not disunified from you just because we disagree on some of those subjects (any more than two Catholics are disunited because one is a Molinist and one’s a Thomist), and that calculation isn’t changed by which denominational shorthand we use to describe ourselves.
Can I express some frustration here? It seems like the only views you’re willing to grant are that either all Protestant denominations are permanently at war with each other, in a state of constant disunity, or that we’re some sort of antinomian doctrine-doesn’t-matter free-love hippies. There’s a heck of an excluded middle there, and it’s the exact excluded middle into which two disagreeing Catholics fall: differences matter, at least one person is wrong, but we’re still members of the same body.
And as well, I guess I don’t really understand why I see you discourse so energetically on this blog if you really don’t hold that Catholic dogma, unscriptural as you believe it to be, is an impediment to salvation.
Because it’s informative. Because it pushes me to understand the early church better. Because I work with Catholics, and I’d like to understand their theology more. Because it helps me confirm that what I understand of the truth can go toe-to-toe with the best arguments for Catholicism and not be found lacking. Because I follow a couple of guys on Twitter who link here all the time. Because I hold out hope that someone is going to go, “Huh, that’s a really good point,” and change their thinking about Protestantism. Because Barry shouldn’t be the only Protestant you guys see.
On the best days, because it’s fun!
Right?
Theology is no more a semantic exercise than “Wonder if I should commit this sin, given that I’ll still go to heaven” is an intellectual exercise.
Hey AK,
Sorry, missed this!
Come to RCIA. I promise we’ll take good care of you – and we have cookies. 😃
Well, sign me up!
But more seriously, let’s say I come; I go through the process; I eat the cookies; I’m still solidly convinced the other way. Now what?
You can probably see where I’m going with this: I think there’s a point where the only reasonable response is to say, “Well, then in good conscience, you should not be a member of the Catholic Church; you should be a [denomination] instead.”
Read an interesting elegy on Billy Graham this AM in our local Catholic Herald by Bishop Robert Barron of “Word on Fire.” The last paragraph on the lifelong friendship through theological difference between Graham and Bishop Fulton Sheen is probably the best we’re going to do here.
Much of what you have said, though sensible, is at odds with some of the manifestations of denominationalism I have experienced, which are for all appearances, angrily tribal contra your experience of civil, gentlemanly interdenominational coexistence. Several of the formerly evangelical families in my RCIA class are here for just-that reason.
The world you describe reminds me of my youth in 50’s/60’s New Jersey, where churches of all stripes lived side-by-side in amicable coexistence. Maybe your Pennsylvania hasn’t “caught up” (no implication of positive progress, BTW) with what I see in rapidly urbanizing Front Range Colorado – if true, may it stay just-that-way.
I’m probably guilty of idealizing somewhat, too; this is definitely not a universally followed principle. (I wince a little bit every time I drive past a “Bible Believing Baptist Church”; sure, guys, and what are the rest of us?)
But I guess the point I’m trying to make is that there’s nothing inherent in the structure of Protestantism, or of denominations, that forces disunity – and indeed, that as a practical matter, there are an awful lot of us who would say we’re all on the same side. We fight – but they’re “in-family fights,” with all the occasional viciousness but ultimate comraderie that implies. In that regard, I doubt we’re all that different from you guys.
God grant we all live more purely the principle of being united to each other, by being more fully united first with the mind of Christ.
Irked – gotcha.
“I’m probably guilty of idealizing somewhat, too;”
I’m a lot older than you…it took me awhile to get past that-same-thing. I have because of what I have seen and internalized, that the clay with which God works sometimes has lumps…lots of them….
“God grant we all live more purely the principle of being united to each other, by being more fully united first with the mind of Christ.”
Amen.
Hi AK,
Not meaning to restart any arguments, but I thought of you during the service this morning on a couple of points.
A few posts ago, you said:
Much of what you have said, though sensible, is at odds with some of the manifestations of denominationalism I have experienced, which are for all appearances, angrily tribal contra your experience of civil, gentlemanly interdenominational coexistence. Several of the formerly evangelical families in my RCIA class are here for just-that reason.
Funnily enough, we have a couple of families of ex-Catholics in our church – one of whom this morning gave as one of her reasons for leaving that “in the Catholic Church, they don’t encourage you to read your Bible.”
And it clicked for me a bit that I suspect folks on all sides of this debate have something of a… selection bias, if that makes sense? The “refugees” we’re most likely to see crossing the Tiber, in either direction, are those coming out of really bad churches on the other side; we see people who leave dead Catholic churches, and you see people who leave fractious Protestant ones. That doesn’t necessarily indicate either that Catholic churches are inherently dead, or that Protestant ones are inherently fractious – just that there are enough of each in the respective denominations to push some people away.
Which I imagine we’d both condemn pretty hard! Again, there’s no critique intended here – just pondering a little on how circumstances might conspire to give us both the most negative impression of “the other side.” Does that make any sense?
Also, the SS message this morning was in part from 2 Thessalonians 3: “Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.”
And it occurred to me that the principle Paul outlines here is part of how we-as-Protestants view other denominations, sometimes. I do think that some denominations don’t obey portions of Scripture – I think credobaptism is pretty firmly commanded in the New Testament, for instance, so obviously I think a pedobaptist denomination is misreading (and to some extent disregarding) Scripture on that point. So I associate separately from them, but they still aren’t my enemy: they’re my brothers, whom I hope to persuade of their error.
Anyway! Like I say, I couldn’t help flashing back to our conversation; don’t know if this helps clarify my position at all or not.
Irked:
See my latest. It does help. I have to comment on the observation that ‘Catholics are not encouraged to read the Bible.” She *was* right, and may still be in some as you say, “dead” churches that engage in poor or nonexistent catechesis.That is changing with the New EVangelization (did we learn something from the admirable fervor of evangelicals? I would not be the one to say “no”).. In the RCIA class I taught this AM, on the Creed, I used a lot of the information I got from the Augustine Institute’s Denver Catholic Biblical School 4-year program, from which I graduated in 2017. They are offering two more classes starting this year in Colorado Springs, lots in Denver, and from what I understand, there are satellite programs springing up around the country. Several hundred have gone through the program here in the Springs, and I see in just about every parish, DCBS-grad-led Bible studies…unheard of a few years back when your fellow congregant was making a decision to leave.
I can tell you when my son was in seminary, the idea of evangelizing Scripture was a hot topic. And this was a very conservative seminary….for another good example, look at Joe….
I can fall back on the old saw that just by going to Mass, one hears Bible passages. It is essential, and traditional, but it’s not enough, and I do believe thanks in large part to the good example of fired-up evangelicals, that is changing in a big way. God works in funny ways…..
Joe,Margo and awlms – you’ve provided some of the responses I might’ve done, had I not had to take a day off work to prep for the RCIA class I am teaching this Sunday.
I will address one point,the infamous “33,000.”
From the NCR article – asterisks mine:
*******************************
Catholics need to stop citing this number, not only because it is outlandishly false but because it is not the point how many Protestant denominations there are. The point is the **scandal of division** and the **love of private judgment** that has caused so much of it. The scandal would be no less **if there were two denominations,** and no greater if there were two million. **Any division in the body of Christ is a scandal.** To argue over how many is a red herring. It is an argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Protestants don’t need to answer to an Encyclopedia; **they need to answer to St. Paul.**
*****************************
As well, read especially the last paragraph in the Dave Armstrong article, concerning the validity of the Catholic apologetic in the unarguable fact of multiple divisions of Christianity.
Irked, you win on the 33,000 number, because it implies everyone of that 33,000 believes something different when *some* of that number believe similarly, no telling how many. In the end, the number is unimportant; the division, monumentally so.
Hi AK,
Cool, thank you.
As I say upthread, I think I have answered the charge of division, at length – but the short version is, “The Catholic understanding of ‘oneness’ is neither biblically necessary, nor universally accepted, and absent that understanding there is no scandal here.” I proudly stand in Christian unity with my brothers and sisters of many denominations, despite our disagreements on the finer points of theology – just as Thomists and Molinists do, or partim-partim and material sufficiency believers do, or co-redemptress/non-co-redemptress Catholics do, or…
Maybe instead of a specific number, such as 33,000, we can refer to ‘thousands’ or ‘a great multitude’. There is really nothing wrong with stating the truth reading the relative difference in ecclesiastical unity between the multitudes of denominations spawned by Martin Luther, as compared too the doctrinal unity of the One Church led from Rome by the pope. All modern Catholics have a Catholic Bible for scripture, a Catholic catechism for doctrine, a missal for liturgy, A code of canon law governance and canonized saints for good example and imitation. These elements provide a great deal of worldwide unity to Christ’s Church. But the Protestant denominations are so separated due to the very lack of such ecclesiastical institutions and structure, that for the most part, they are basically ‘free lance’ in character, with each denomination, ‘micro’, or ‘street corner’ Church developing it’s own doctrine and liturgy for their own particular congregations.
Thus, there is obviously a very big difference between the two hermeneutics.
must remember…”Edit more often than 1 time!”…. 🙁
Patheos suggests “hundreds” is closer to the mark. I’d have no objection to “lots.”
But again, the relevant fact here is that multiple denominations is no guarantee of disunity, any more than a single denomination is a guarantee of agreement. If we say each of our separate theological camps is a separate denomination, and you don’t… well, what of it? The number of separate camps is neither multiplied nor diminished by that labeling. Is it so inaccurate to describe the number of different theological positions within Catholicism as “lots?”
I don’t think it is, and I’ve provided (very partial) lists of some of the most prominent points of division already. It seems to me that the scandal here is not so much that we disagree with each other just as you guys do, but that we view the act of “denominationing” itself as a voluntary thing, rather than a mandated submission to an inter-church hierarchy.
Irked:
At this point, I am pretty close to live-let-live on this one. However…when you say “you guys” the example you use most is Thomists vs Molinists. Really. How many modern Catholics would know even who the Jesuit Molina was (or ‘counterfactuals,’ or “middle knowledge”) much less espouse it, much less take a vehement position against other Catholics the way I have personally seen (and not just on YouTube, but it’s there) **some** (carefully making that distinction, please note) Baptists say Calvinists worship a monster God and are not saved because of it, and vice versa.
Sedevacantists/SSPX trads? I have given an an example of what happens to them when they take it public and too far – they are no longer in communion with the Church. Pope Francis’ quips? When I see them in the Catechism (along with Alexander VI mistress with a “this is OK to do”), then I will wonder WTH. In the meantime, we have that lovely document (theologically), along with the rest of the Magisterium, unifying and controlling, zombie-like, our Catholic hive minds. 😲
The Molinists and the Dominicans, while they got pretty heated, seem to have found some level of common ground with the Thomists on the issues of predestination and opposition to reprobation. The Molinists did not to me seem to be proto-Calvinists – your mileage may vary. In any case, Pope Paul V seems to have ended the quarrel by telling both sides to play nice,and adopting an Acts 5: 38-39 approach…to me, it worked…not much of note going on in this arena in the Catholic Church today. Development of doctrine and all that.
As I said, I can agree that the +33,000 number, and how many of them are at real theological odds on salvific truths, is a guess. No one **really knows.** As the articles quoted say,any is to much from a Catholic perspective. Notionally, I see various flavors of Reformed folks, especially ones forced into a lot of moving in a military community like Colorado Springs, coming to Catholicism because they like the institutionalized, codified unity of doctrine and liturgy they see there, and are tired of ‘church shopping.’ That and study of the Church history and the Fathers seems to be a main motivator in some of the more famous Catholic theologian converts. Is it a mainstream trend? Only time will tell how many are affected either by ‘denominationalism is not important, most of us basically agree,’ or ‘denominationalism is a show-stopper…’ and in what way. Acts 5: 38-39 again….
And I still can’t believe anyone still holds to the debunked old saw that “Constantine did it….”
Hi AK,
How many modern Catholics would know even who the Jesuit Molina was (or ‘counterfactuals,’ or “middle knowledge”) much less espouse it
Heh. To our shame, I think you’d find that most Baptists don’t know much about who John Calvin was, or what “limited atonement” entails, either.
But, like, I have a Catholic friend who goes on periodic “Suppress the Jesuits” rants, and I know some Catholics who were furious after Francis interfered in the Knights of Malta. Those are good, faithful Catholics I know personally; if we want to go to people we don’t, I’m pretty sure Thomas Weinandy stacks up against Rick Patrick in the “shockingly forceful comment” department.
I’m not trying to make more of these than they are. I’m just saying that I think we have a lot in common: that both our churches are made up of people, and people sometimes tick each other the heck off until they say some pretty extreme things. And it seems like this has always been the case – we can definitely find church fathers using language of each other that would be right at home in a “10 Reasons Stephen Needs To Go (#5 Will Surprise You!)” list.
But as you note…
When I see them in the Catechism (along with Alexander VI mistress with a “this is OK to do”), then I will wonder WTH.
… well, and when the Baptist Faith and Message says Calvinists are going to hell, I’ll be right there with you!
And I still can’t believe anyone still holds to the debunked old saw that “Constantine did it….”
I think we can agree on that. (Debunking that was last week’s Sunday School lesson, funnily enough.)
After reading through all of this, guys, how do any of us(me most of all) have any lives??
This will be my last comment on this thread. If you want to hear a Catholic and (evangelical pentecostal) Protestant talk about three episodes worth of stuff or the entire reading of the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, feel free to go to soundcloud.com/catholicandprotestant … or not…
“So we should take care not to be scandalized by Christ and his decision to use the papacy and to allow the Chair of Peter to be occupied by sinners. After all, it’s his peculiar love for sinners that allows us to have the confidence to “draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need”
By what authority do you claim that Christ has made the “decision to….allow the Chair of Peter to be occupied by sinners”? All men and women have free will if they are of sound mind. Those who have read or had the Gospel preached to them have had the opportunity to hear it, to embrace it and to follow it as best they can.
The responsibility for sin does not lie with the Father or the Son, but with the sinner. Those who are blamelessly without knowledge of sin are without sin, according to Scripture. Those who have feigned ignorance or chosen not to see or hear are obviously not without blame and therefore have sinned.
Did Christ choose that woman pope who gave birth in a papal procession and was stoned to death by the mob? I don’t think so. Nor did he choose the Borgias or any of the other stumbling blocks who have been appointed pope by their fellow cardinals. Men chose them and they in turn chose their own behaviour.
The injury that their behaviour has done to the Body of Christ, those whose faith they harmed or destroyed by their sins, these are the things for which they will be judged, and I suggest to you that they will pay to the last farthing.
“Offences must come, but woe to him by whom they should come.” They do not come from Christ, or by the “permission” of God, and anyone who pretends they do blasphemes, in my humble opinion.
“By what authority do you claim that Christ has made the “decision to….allow the Chair of Peter to be occupied by sinners?”
What authority? It’s an interpretation – you Protestants understand that ‘terpretashun thang”, there are +30,000 of them out there – and our interpretations are a lot more authoritative then yours?
BTW….by whose – or more likely, what – authority does every theologically self-eddicated Ozark home-school dropout get to schism off and start his or her own ‘lil storefront Bah-bule Charch, and preach his or her own ‘terpretashun of Scripture? In that vein, by what authority did Martin Luther do the same?
If’n I were you, I’d re-read Matt 7:3 before I started pointing fingers about “authority.”
If you believe that Christ permits Borgias and fornicators to sit in the chair of St. Peter as you like to call it, then presumably you also believe that He permits the “30,000” denominations you refer to?
I can see that He might have a purpose in the Mormons and the JWs: to convict the rest of us for our sloth in failing to spread His Gospel the way they spread theirs, but as neither you, I, nor the pope know the mind of God, so that is pure conjecture.
I can’t help you with the Ozarks, not being American, but the arrogant flavour of your comment does you no favours. The only sophist among the disciples was the one who was of the devil, remember?
Better to be an ignorant sinner than a well educated one, for what defence will the latter have for his sins and omissions?
“Out of the mouths of babes” again.
And as for Matt. 7:3, perhaps you could ask the site owner to make it a banner headline on every page? Then we might hear less RC self-congratulation and more self-criticism, though I recognize that the site was created in a spirit of self-congratulation so one cannot expect too much.