The doctrine of purgatory remains a troubling idea for many Roman Catholics. One bulletin from a local Catholic church included the following: “Why do we pray for souls in Purgatory? When we die in God’s friendship, we know that we’ll eventually go to heaven. However, if we haven’t properly atoned for certain sins, we have to be purified in Purgatory first. The Catechism of the Catholic Church calls it, ‘a final cleansing of human imperfections before one is able to enter the joy of heaven.’ We pray for the souls in Purgatory, especially during the month of November, to help them pass through to heaven faster than they would on their own.”¹ Some Catholics question this doctrine, and more than a few challenge its legitimacy, based on their understanding of Scripture. At the Web site www.catholic.com, a site devoted to “Catholic answers, Catholic apologetics, and Catholic evangelism,” Christine Pinheiro and Kenneth Howell defend the Catholic doctrine of purgatory.² “All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.”³

Four False Ideas. The Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory is covered in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in just three paragraphs on two pages (paragraphs 1030-32; pp. 268-69). The concepts that have necessitated the doctrine of purgatory, however, are found throughout Catholic dogma. The idea of purgatory grows out of four mistaken ideas about man, sin, and salvation. First, Catholic theology does not accept the final and full sufficiency of Christ’s once-for-all atonement (1 Pet. 3:18). The Catholic soteriological system is fraught with ideas of self-atonement-works that must be done to merit forgiveness for past sins. Purgatory allows for those meritorious efforts (i.e. suffering) to atone for sin after death. Second, Catholic doctrine teaches an unbiblical idea of penalty and guilt. It holds that “absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused…he must ‘make satisfaction for’ or ‘expiate’ his sins. This satisfaction is also called ‘penance.’”⁴ Purgatory is the final act of penance that removes the penalty of sin. Third, Catholic doctrine distorts the biblical concept of grace by adding human merit to it: “Moved by the Holy Spirit and charity, we can merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.”⁵ Purgatory helps to earn enough merit, over time, to overcome the punishment of God. Fourth, Roman Catholic theology confuses the biblical doctrine of judgment. It teaches that judgments after death include a remedial judgment that sends some people to purgatory, and a final judgment that occurs at the second coming of Christ. These four notions of self-atonement, penance, merit, and remedial judgment run contrary to the teaching of the New Testament, and they cause the gospel message to pass through a distorted grid that leads only to defective interpretation and understanding of Scripture. There are four key passages in which this occurs.

First Corinthians 3:13-14 and the Idea of Purgation. The apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 3:13-14, makes this statement: “Each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”⁶ Paul’s statements are clear. It is the man’s works that are being judged, not his person or soul. The issue at stake is not his salvation or eternal state (heaven or hell), but his rewards. The fire of Christ’s judgment will test the nature of his earthly works; this judgment does nothing to the sanctification of his soul. In fact, Paul makes it very clear that though his rewards may be lost, yet “he himself will be saved.”When Paul mentions “the Day,” he refers to “the Day of the Lord”: the day of the return of Christ and the final judgment of the living and the dead. Verse 14 simply amplifies and explains verse 13.⁷ Paul’s point is obvious: not all Christian ministers (or saints) will receive the same reward. The final judgment will test the nature of our life’s work. Some men’s work will prove to be as pure as gold, silver, or precious jewels and will be greatly rewarded. Other Christians will do little with their lives, and their works will be like wood, hay, and straw-consumed by Christ’s fiery judgment. The person who has trusted in Christ, however, will be saved and brought through the fire of judgment because of his faith in Christ. Some will have greater rewards, some will have lesser rewards, but the works of a man do not determine if he goes to heaven or hell. Faith in Christ (or not) seals a person’s eternal destiny. David Prior summarizes well what Paul is saying: “These verses in 1 Corinthians 3 urge us to take with full seriousness both the certainty of eternal life and the scrutiny which the Lord will bring to our daily service as Christians.”⁸

Second Maccabees 12:39-46 and Prayers for the Dead. This passage from the Apocrypha says nothing about purgatory. It is merely the interpretation of the writer concerning a bizarre incident. A closer reading of this text indicates four things. First, Second Maccabees makes no direct reference to purgatory. Second, the passage is self-contradictory and inconsistent. It states that these dead “had gone to rest in godliness” (v. 45), but then it tells us that these dead warriors were idolaters, killed by God due to their idolatry. Third, there is nothing in the law of Moses that comes close to advocating prayers for the dead. What we find in Second Maccabees and the rabbinical writings surrounding these events are the syncretistic merging of pagan ideas with Israelite religion. Fourth, the Apocrypha, while useful for background information, is full of historical inaccuracies, myth, superstition, and ideas contrary to the rest of Scripture. The anonymous author of Second Maccabees does not purport to speak for God, but rather merely to condense some five volumes of a man named Jason of Cyrene (2 Macc. 3:23).⁹ We cannot and should not look to Second Maccabees for Scripture-based doctrines.

First Peter 3:18-22 and the Idea of Post-Death Probation. What Peter sets forth in this passage is not Jesus Christ going to purgatory or hell to preach to people in order to help them get to heaven. Peter simply states that the crucified and dead Christ was raised by the Holy Spirit, the same Spirit by whom Noah preached to the people of his day prior to the flood “long ago” (v. 20). Those souls now in prison (hell) are there because they refused to heed Noah’s call to repentance and faith. Christ is compared to the ark of Noah-if people enter into Christ by faith and baptism, they will be saved from God’s final judgment just as Noah and his family were saved from the flood by faith and the ark. “The passage describes no second chance for repentance after death. Even less does it promise universal salvation.”¹⁰

Matthew 12:32 and Salvation after Death. Finally, when Jesus says that those guilty of the sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven “either in this age or in the age to come,” Christ is not pointing to purgatory. Our Catholic friends are incorrect to say that “this suggests that there are some sins that will be forgiven in the age to come. If there is no purification after death, then this passage doesn’t make sense.”¹¹ To the contrary, Christ’s statement makes perfectly clear sense, and the introduction of the concept of purgatory merely confuses the plain meaning of Scripture. Leon Morris interprets the passage easily: “This does not, of course, mean that some of those who are not forgiven in this world may hope for forgiveness after death. Such a possibility is not contemplated. The meaning is something like ‘neither in time nor eternity; never!’”¹²

The Laws of Hermeneutics. The interpretation of Scripture (called hermeneutics) is built on three preliminary laws. The first is this: Scripture interprets Scripture, called “the rule of analogy.” The second law of hermeneutics is this: The plain meaning of Scripture is usually the true meaning. The third rule is this: Simple passages of Scripture help explain complex passages of Scripture-the simple informs the complicated. Roman Catholic hermeneutics concerning supposed proof texts for purgatory violate all of these laws of hermeneutics. There is no clear, plain, and simple text about purgatory, as there is about both heaven and hell. The Apocrypha cannot be placed equal to inspired Scripture. The Bible plainly speaks about life, death, and judgment: “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27). We live, we die, we are judged, we go to heaven or hell; and when Christ comes a second time the final judgment, final hell and final heaven arrive. There is no mention of postmortem purgation at all. Purgatory is an extrabiblical idea, imported into the church in the Middle Ages-a product of tradition but not Scripture. And the Catholic efforts at grasping for hermeneutical straws to support this false belief-”fire,” “the age to come,” “souls in prison”-betray a lack of clear, precise, and biblical evidence for that place called purgatory.

-Michael F. Ross

Michael F. Ross is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in America. He was reared as a Roman Catholic and studied in high school for the Roman Catholic priesthood, at the Divine Word Seminary, in Perrysburg, Ohio.

NOTES

1. Quote taken from a weekly Sunday bulletin of the Immaculate Conception Roman Catholic Church in Columbus, Ohio.

2. Christine Pinheiro and Kenneth J. Howell, “Is Purgatory Found in the Bible?” http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp.

3. Catechism of the Catholic Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), 268-69.

4. Ibid., 366.

5. Ibid., 486.

6. All Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version.

7. Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 58.

8. David Prior, The Message of First Corinthians, The Bible Speaks Today Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 60.

9. James G. McCarthy, The Gospel according to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and the Word of God (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1995), 109.

10. Edmund Clowney, The Message of First Peter, The Bible Speaks Today Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 163-64.

11. Pinheiro and Howell, “Is Purgatory Found in the Bible?” http://catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp.

12. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 320.

Roman Catholic theology often parallels Mary the mother of Jesus with Jesus Himself in His work of redemption. For example, Jesus is born without the stain of original sin, and so is Mary. Jesus lives a sinless life; so does Mary. Jesus remains a virgin all His life; Mary is Ever-Virgin. Jesus is the Redeemer; Mary is Co-Redemptress. Jesus is the one Mediator between man and God, yet Mary, too, is Mediatrix. Jesus is bodily assumed into heaven; so is Mary. Ascribing Christological attributes such as these to Mary historically has been a source of contention between Protestants (who see no basis in Scripture for these beliefs), and Roman Catholics (who emphasize the role of “Tradition” in these matters).

Defining Terms. All of these beliefs, save two, are official Roman Catholic dogmas. The exceptions—Co-Redemptress and Mediatrix—are nevertheless hallmarks of Roman Catholic devoutness that many believe to be ripe for dogmatic definition.

These two titles, often considered as a single role for Mary, are technically distinct. Redemptress broadly involves Mary’s active decision to bring redemption to the world by agreeing to become the mother of Jesus, whereas Mediatrix has to do with Mary’s active work in continually advocating for the salvation of those who take refuge in her. The Roman Catholic teaching for both is summed up well in the document Ineffabilis Deus: “All our hope do we repose in the most Blessed Virgin—in the all fair and immaculate one who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world [hence, Redemptress];… in her who, with her only-begotten Son, is the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the whole world;…in her do we hope who has delivered us from so many threatening dangers.”¹

Despite efforts by some Roman Catholic scholars to downplay statements such as these and to mitigate the excesses that plague these roles for Mary, traditional Roman Catholic piousness still rules in defining what Catholics believe about these issues; namely, that Mary plays a part in objective redemption, in her role as Redemptress (in that apart from her consent to bear the Son of God, the entire world would be forever lost) and in her role as Mediatrix (in that she actively dispenses salvific graces to the faithful and intercedes to her Son on their behalf in such a way that Christ cannot resist her intercession).

Eadmer (A.D. 1060–1124), an English monk and student of Anselm, illustrates well the excesses of this view: “Sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary’s name than if we invoke the name of the Lord Jesus.” Roman Catholic apologists express these sentiments in a different way today, but that should not be misconstrued as constituting a disagreement with these statements of Marian piety. When confronted with these statements about Mary, Roman Catholic apologists are quick to attempt to justify them even from Scripture itself.

The Alleged Scriptural Basis for a Redemptress. The main proof text for viewing Mary as a Redemptress is found in the first chapter of Luke’s gospel. This single chapter acts as the primary scriptural basis for Mary’s supposed immaculate conception (“Hail, full of grace,” v.28, Douay-Rheims), her special status among believers (“The Lord is with you,” v.28), her perpetual virginity (“How will this be since I am a virgin?” v.34), her status as “mother of God” (“Why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” v.43), her unique “blessedness” (“Blessed are you among women,” v.42, and “All generations will call me blessed,” v.48), as well as her role as Redemptress. A full examination of this chapter as a support for these beliefs is not possible in this brief article; I refer you elsewhere for a fuller treatment. We will instead focus on the single verse in this chapter that is alleged specifically to support Mary’s role as Redemptress.

In Luke1:38, after the angel announces to Mary that she by the power of the Holy Spirit would conceive a child who would be called the Son of God, Mary responds simply, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” Roman Catholic scholar John McHugh sees in Mary’s statement a fiat (i.e., a consent to participate in the divine plan) rather than simply a humble submission to God’s will. Catholic theologian Tina Beattie goes so far as to insist, “There was no implicit threat in God’s invitation, and no fear of punishment. If she chose the quiet life, she would be left at peace. The decision was hers and hers alone.… The history of the world hung in the balance as a young girl considered the options before her.”

Catholic New Testament scholar Francis Moloney contends that “Mary must be seen as free to respond or not to respond to this initiative of God.” Catholic author Neal Flanagan, in his Marian Creed, writes, “I believe that Mary’s Fiat initiated the Christian era….and inserted her intimately into Christ’s salvific work.” The tacit assumption of Moloney (and the not so tacit assumption of Flanagan and others who make this point) is that the redemption of the world is contingent upon Mary’s decision to accept God’s course for her life.

A Biblical Response. These examples are all instances of pressing Scripture far beyond the intent of the writer to engage in special pleading in the case of Mary. Special pleading is a form of logical fallacy that applies when someone argues for an exemption of his case from a generally accepted rule or principle without justification for that exemption. Other biblical characters may be found in circumstances similar to Mary’s, and thus we should apply the same hermeneutic we apply in those cases to the case of Mary. The Catholic writers mentioned in the previous section fail to do so, however, and instead interpret Luke1:38 with a special significance. If we apply their hermeneutic to Mary’s choice to accept God’s plan for her to bear His Son, and thus label her Co-Redemptress, then we must apply this same hermeneutic to Paul’s decision to accept God’s charge for him to take the gospel to the Gentiles. Are we to conclude that, had Paul refused, God would have counted His losses and worked only with the Jews? Mary’s “decision to cooperate” is irrelevant in God’s salvific plan. God simply announces that Mary will bear His Son; He does not ask her permission.

Mary’s cooperation can be no more significant here than Joseph’s cooperation in Matthew’s account, according to which it is Joseph who must make the decision to take Mary as his wife. If Joseph had refused, Mary (as an unwed, pregnant woman) would have been accused of adultery and ostracized—perhaps even stoned, which would have killed both mother and child! None of the exegetes who see special significance in Mary’s “fiat” in Luke1, however, go so far as to speak of Joseph’s “fiat” in Matthew1, or to conclude that Joseph is somehow a “Co-Redeemer” because of his decision to stay with Mary.

There is, further, no basis for viewing Mary’s cooperation in God’s plan of salvation as any more significant than that of, say, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, or Jeremiah. Each of them was equally instrumental in effecting that same plan throughout salvation history.

What, moreover, are we to make of those examples where God’s purpose is accomplished in spite of—or perhaps even because of—an agent’s disobedience? Tamar, by posing as a prostitute, conceived an illegitimate son who was in the direct lineage to the Messiah (Gen.38; cf. Matt.1:3). God put to death two of Judah’s sons because of their disobedience, and Judah himself unwittingly became the father of Tamar’s children through his own sinful relationship with her. Pharaoh, similarly, attempted to thwart God’s purpose by refusing to comply with His plan to free Israel; yet Paul could cite this episode as an integral part of God’s plan: “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth’” (Rom.9:17).

I could add multiple examples without difficulty, including that of Jonah, who complied with God’s plan only with great reluctance—and even of Judas, whose betrayal of Jesus is seen by the New Testament writers as entirely necessary in redemption: “The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him” (Luke22:22; cf. Matt.26:23 and Mark14:20). Far from endangering the preservation of God’s people through their unwillingness to cooperate with God’s plan, these individuals either were chastised until they did cooperate, replaced by others who would cooperate, or compelled to cooperate unwittingly as agents of the very plan they opposed! The suggestion that God requires Mary’s cooperation to bring about redemption for His people is little more than a gratuitous (and quite unbiblical) assumption.

Catholic theologian Richard Sklba’s comment on Mary’s response in Luke1:38 seems on the whole much more reasoned: “She took her place among [those] who had no recourse except to respond, ‘be it done to me according to your word’ (Lk1:38)….She awaits the command of another. The last word on the subject is not really her own.” Certainly, this is the intent of Mary’s response; not the theologically bloated fiat “exegesis” offered by Rome. Mary, as a “bond servant [slave] of the Lord,” does not presume to hold God, His salvation, and the rest of the world at bay while she ponders a decision; rather, she humbly submits to the plan of God because it is the only response that is fitting for a servant of the Lord.

— Eric D. Svendsen

NOTES

1. Pope Pius IX, Mary Immaculate: The Bull Ineffabilis Deus (Paterson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1946), 23.

2. Eadmer of Canterbury, Liber de Excellentia Beatae Mariae in Jacques-Paul Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol 159 (Paris: J. P. Migne, 1844–1855), 309, quoted in J. Shinners, “The Cult of Mary and Popular Belief,” in Mary, Woman of Nazareth: Biblical and Theological Perspectives, ed. Doris Donnelly (New York: Paulist, 1989), 170.

3. Unless otherwise noted, all Bible quotations are from the English Standard Version.

4. For an exhaustive treatment, see Eric D. Svendsen, Who Is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2001).

5. John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1975), 65. Cf. William G. Most, “Unscriptural Marian Doctrine?” Homiletic and Pastoral Review 94 (May 1994): 61.

6. Tina Beattie, Rediscovering Mary: Insights from the Gospels (Liguori, MO: Triumph Books, 1995), 23.

7. Francis J. Moloney, Mary: Woman and Mother (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1988), 19.

8. See Neal Flanagan, “Mary of Nazareth: Woman for all Seasons,” Marianum 48 (1986):167.

9. Richard Sklba, “Mary and the ’Anawim,” in Mary, Woman of Nazareth: Biblical and Theological Perspectives, ed. Doris Donnelly (New York: Paulist, 1989), 124–26.

SYNOPSIS

In recent years there has been a steady migration of prominent evangelical leaders into the Roman Catholic Church. Frank Beckwith, J.Budziszewski, Thomas Howard, Peter Kreeft, and Richard John Neuhaus, to name a few, have startled, even upset, many in the evangelical community by their move to Catholicism. Prominent evangelical leaders such as Charles Colson and J.I. Packer have led the way in seeking to bring together Catholics and evangelical Protestants, claiming that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. Catholics and evangelical Protestants have worked well together for the well-being of society because of our mutual agreement on key moral and social issues, but there still remain significant doctrinal differences between us. The Reformation set forth key doctrines that denounced established Roman Catholic teachings, and in response the Catholic Counter-Reformation and the Council of Trent reaffirmed the tenets of Roman Catholicism and anathematized or accursed those who embraced the doctrines of the Reformers. Despite progress in ecumenism since Vatican II, this doctrinal divide between Roman Catholicism and orthodox Protestantism remains to the present day.

This being the case, the only way an evangelical can convert to Roman Catholicism is if he or she abandons the Reformation. Likewise, no Catholic can be considered an evangelical and still adhere to the teachings of the Council of Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II. On the basis of the clear teachings of Scripture, evangelicals should recognize the historic necessity of the Reformation for the restoration of the unadulterated gospel of salvation, and also the necessity for them to continue reaffirming boldly those Reformation essentials, such as a believer’s justification by faith alone apart from works.

Peter Kreeft converted to Roman Catholicism from the Dutch Reformed Church² more than 30 years ago, and Richard John Neuhaus, Lutheran theologian and editor of the popular journal First Things, converted to Rome in the mid-1980s. In his book Surprised by Truth, Patrick Madrid describes the various journeys of people into the Catholic Church. In the foreword Scott Hahn writes,

None of the conversion testimonies you’re about to read is like another. These people come from different backgrounds. They’re scholars, pastors, teachers, preachers, and writers. They have different personalities. They followed different roads to Rome. Yet the title of this book, Surprised by Truth, sums up every one of these stories, because each relates the earnest quests of persons seeking the whole truth about Christ, and each describes the surprise discovery that the truth of Christ—in Scripture, history, and logic—lies in the Catholic Church.³

Other high-profile evangelicals who have recently joined the Roman Catholic Church include J.Budziszewski, professor of philosophy at the University of Texas, and Francis Beckwith, professor of philosophy at Baylor University and former president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

REASONS PEOPLE RETURN TO ROME

In view of this relatively recent phenomenon, a natural question is, what would compel an evangelical Protestant to convert to Catholicism? Ralph MacKenzie has identified three main reasons for the evangelical exodus to Rome, and I would add one additional reason.

First, MacKenzie observes that Catholicism is older. Since the Roman Church (allegedly) is able to claim connection to Peter as first bishop of Rome, and Peter received primacy of authority from Jesus, the church of Rome is the oldest ecclesiastical representative of apostolic authority.

Second, evangelicalism lacks tradition. Author and Roman Catholic convert Thomas Howard states that as an evangelical he was unaware of great Christian leaders prior to the Wesleys, Calvin, and Luther. “Before them there was a blank until I came to the apostles.”⁴

Third, the grandeur of the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church has a strong aesthetic appeal in contrast to the more “flat” nature of average evangelical churches. One convert to Rome stated, “I was like a man who all his life had been told that he must build a house but has never been given a hammer and a saw. Now, in the Divine Office, the rosary, the stations of the cross, and Eucharistic adoration, I had discovered a whole treasure-trove of tools.”⁵

Finally, I would add that many find security in the magisterial authority of the Catholic Church. This is because of its alleged connection to the apostles. I will respond to reasons one through three later, but it is important to address this last point first, since it relates to the very nature of Roman Catholicism and its foundational claims to authority.

The early post-New Testament church did not fully adhere to apostolic teaching in its doctrinal formulations. The earliest fathers already had begun to deviate from the apostles’ practices and teachings. Although the Roman Catholic Church emerged from ancient Christianity, it is not the same thing as ancient Christianity, the ecclesiastical bodies of which comprised both a Western and an Eastern church. The Roman church is only an expression of earlier Christianity; it does not reflect all of the components found within the Christianity of the first century. The church fathers were not monolithic in their views. The Eastern church, with its various branches, differed at several points with the church that governed from Rome.⁶ The Roman Catholic Church does have historic continuity with the first-century Christian church, but it has at many points deviated from the teachings of the Lord and of the apostles, including its claim to have received from them a gift of infallibility. Once the lack of support for that claim is recognized, then its other claims and teachings can be put to a fair test as to their biblical fidelity; if that lack of support is not recognized, however, then we must blindly accept the Catholic Church’s claim to apostolic fidelity, no matter how far from Scripture the teachings appear to wander.

ORIGINS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The words “Catholic Church” occur for the first time in a letter of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans: “Wherever the bishop appears let the congregation be present; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”⁷ In works by a number of the church fathers, the term is used for the faithful throughout the known world. Only in the period after Nicaea did the word “Catholic” begin to be identified with the church at Rome. In the late fourth century it came to be used for the church throughout the empire that was adhering to the apostles’ teaching as represented by the church at Rome over against those who advocated heretical teaching. Such a meaning is found, however, as early as the late third century, in the works of Clement of Alexandria. Even Pope Benedict XVI admits that “we are fairly certain today that, while the Fathers were not Roman Catholics as the thirteenth or nineteenth century world would have understood the term, they were, nonetheless, ‘Catholic,’ and their Catholicism extended to the very canon of the New Testament itself.”⁸

It is likely that the Christian community at Rome probably began with Jews coming back from the feast of Pentecost who had embraced Jesus as Messiah, and was composed largely of Jews until AD49 when Claudius expelled all Jews from Rome. By the time Paul wrote his letter to the Romans in AD55, the church had become predominantly Gentile. Paul, interestingly, never visited the church until the early60s when he appeared before Nero. There is no evidence either in Scripture or in the writings of the first century of the church that Peter was either the founder of the Roman church or the first bishop.⁹ In 1 Peter 5:1, Peter calls himself a fellow-elder (a term used synonymously in the New Testament with bishop; see, e.g., 1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:5,7), not the chief elder.

Being in the capital of the Roman Empire, the church in Rome naturally did gain greater influence and eventually greater power than those exercised by the other patriarchal centers. Only in the late sixth century AD, when John the Faster, bishop of Constantinople, sought to assert his authority over the entire church, did Gregory I, bishop of Rome, gain ascendancy with the help of the Roman emperor. I and many other scholars believe it is when Gregory claimed such jurisdiction that the Roman Catholic Church officially began, though others would trace the unique organizational authority of the church to the writings of Augustine.

Philosopher and theologian Norman Geisler describes the development of the church of Rome from its origin to its current status as the Roman Catholic Church. He argues that in AD1215 we reached the point at which “one can see the beginning of Roman Catholicism as it is subsequently known….For it is here that the seeds of what distinguishes Roman Catholicism are first pronounced as dogma. The doctrine of transubstantiation, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and seven sacraments are pronounced. Many consider this a key turning point in the development of Roman Catholicism in distinction from non-Catholic forms of Christianity.”¹⁰

It is natural that components of the earliest Christianity of the first two centuries would be retained in some manner by Christians of later centuries, while other elements would go by the wayside. The first hundred years of the Christian church (AD30–130) reveals a more simple, and more Jewish, community of believers than the predominantly Gentile Eastern and Western church we observe in the ensuing centuries. Jesus and the apostles used the Hebrew Scriptures, and the method of apostolic interpretation was a form of rabbinic interpretation.¹¹

The early apostolic church patterned itself after the Jewish synagogue. This included local rule by elders, unlike the rule of one bishop along with the elders by the early second century, and the rule of geographical areas by bishops that developed more than two centuries later.¹² During the first hundred years of its existence the church followed a congregational structure, with elders and deacons. Even the strong emphasis on the bishop by Ignatius¹³ was not beyond the authority of the local church and its ruling elders.

Certain nonapostolic doctrines developed in the ensuing centuries, such as baptismal regeneration, the number and nature of the sacraments, and the person of Mary, mother of Jesus. Other doctrines that constituted proper refinement and exposition of biblical teaching, however, such as the Trinity, the person of Christ, the sinfulness of humanity, and justification by faith¹⁴ were generally held by the church throughout the empire. Forensic justification and individual access to God (and Scripture) also are supported in the New Testament and implicit within the writings of the Fathers.¹⁵

REASONS PEOPLE SHOULD NOT RETURN TO ROME

As noted earlier, one reason for returning to Rome is that Catholicism is older and more closely connected historically to the apostles (i.e., Catholic bishops are believed to have apostolic authority to represent Christ’s teachings accurately because they are believed to be in a direct line of succession from the apostles). One evangelical states that his reading of the fathers of the church was a major reason for his conversion to Romanism because he concluded that Catholicism and the early fathers were doctrinally connected. This is a poor rationale, however, because patristic or early church theology only finds unique agreement with Roman dogma at certain points. When similarities to Catholicism are noted, they are just as likely to be similar to what is found within Protestantism. At other times, the likeness may be superficial, with different meaning in the fathers than is found in the development of the dogma of the Roman Church.

Other reasons for returning to Rome involve the objection that Protestantism lacks the tradition, liturgy, grandeur, or aesthetic appeal found in Catholicism, particularly with regard to worship. I find that many aspects of worship in a Roman church are very meaningful and inspirational, but for those looking to more formal worship than is found in many evangelical or fundamentalist churches, they may go to a number of Protestant churches that still use more liturgical worship without giving up the principles of the Reformation. Additionally, one might argue that the formal worship in a Roman church may be sacrificing some personal expressions of worship experienced by those who use less formal worship.

One final reason is that, for Christians who struggle with the fact that Protestantism is quite diverse doctrinally, the fact that the Catholic Church is guided by a single authority provides a sense of security. On further examination, however, one finds that within Roman Catholicism many disagreements exist, and certain doctrines held as dogma by the church of Rome were never held with such certainty by the earliest fathers of the church or by the clear reading of Scripture. Furthermore, within the Roman church the various orders (Marists, Franciscans, Dominicans, Benedictines, Augustinians, etc.), like Protestants, have a wide-ranging diversity of thought and emphasis, though it is to be admitted that Romanism provides for finality in certain doctrines to which all Catholics and orders of the Church must adhere.

The Roman Catholic security blanket is thin cover for the Christian seeking certainty in doctrine.¹⁶ True doctrinal security is in the words of the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures and the apostles of the Greek Scriptures. The Apostle Paul says that “all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2Tim.3:16¹⁷), and local elders of a church are to discharge their responsibilities in view of the nature and purpose of Scripture (2Tim.4:1–5). Believers, moreover, are to give diligence to a study of Scripture so as to be approved before God (2Tim.2:15). No bishop or pope alleviates our responsibility to become knowledgeable of the Word of God and to enact its guidance in our lives and the lives of our churches.

RECONCILIATION AND UNITY

Within the last ten to fifteen years there has been a concerted effort by numerous evangelicals and Catholics to minimize the animosity that has existed between Protestants and Catholics since the Reformation. They have been exploring their respective differences and working toward the possibility of finding significant common ground between the two traditions. To facilitate dialogue and identify both points of agreement and disagreement, two seminal documents were produced.

Evangelicals and Catholics Together

In the mid-1990s evangelicals desirous of finding common ground with Roman Catholics signed a statement entitled “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” recognizing each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. These evangelicals included Chuck Colson, J.I. Packer, and Bill Bright.¹⁸ Many, however, within the evangelical world had serious reservations regarding this document, believing that it lacked the necessary clarity regarding the essence of the gospel. For example, James White, President of Alpha and Omega Ministries, says “ECT seeks to provide a basis for a common front against the evils of our age, but in the process, it does away with the single means by which these goals can be obtained: the gospel. The simple fact is that Roman Catholics and Protestants, if they are honest, are far apart on the issues of the gospel.”¹⁹ Additionally, John MacArthur strikes hard against the document and intent of the ECT group: “Far from being an incentive for Rome to reconsider her position, this document grants an unwarranted stamp of legitimacy on the Roman Catholic system. It makes it harder than ever for doctrinally-minded evangelicals to mount an effective polemic against Rome’s ‘different gospel.’”²⁰ Rick Wade, on the other hand, presents a more positive view of the document, though recognizing many problems with ecumenism.²¹

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

Another attempt at reconciliation between Protestantism and Catholicism is the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification,” which was signed October31,1999.²² Among the forty-four paragraphs of the document (excluding the appendix) is the following:

13. Opposing interpretations and applications of the biblical message of justification were in the sixteenth century a principal cause of the division of the Western church and led as well to doctrinal condemnations. A common understanding of justification is therefore fundamental and indispensable to overcoming that division. By appropriating insights of recent biblical studies and drawing on modern investigations of the history of theology and dogma, the post-Vatican II ecumenical dialogue has led to a notable convergence concerning justification, with the result that this Joint Declaration is able to formulate a consensus on basic truths concerning the doctrine of justification. In light of this consensus, the corresponding doctrinal condemnations of the sixteenth century do not apply to today’s partner.²³

In response theologian Timothy George writes,

It is up to Catholics to say how such statements can be squared with the official position of the Catholic Church as expressed in the Joint Declaration on Justification, which says nothing about Mary but does affirm that justification means that “Christ himself is our righteousness,” and that “by grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works”….The Roman Catholic dogma on the Immaculate Conception of Mary is very problematic: “The Immaculate Conception is a problem for anyone who takes seriously, as I do, the Augustinian doctrine of original sin. This is one reason why the idea that Mary, from the first moment of her conception, was kept free from the stain of original sin proved controversial for centuries in the Catholic Church and was denied by no less a theologian than St. Thomas Aquinas.”²⁴

Given the significant doctrinal differences between Catholics and evangelical Protestants, it is unlikely that the Reformation themes and the Council of Trent can be reconciled. A comparison of the Council of Trent and the teachings coming out of Vatican II indicates that the Roman Catholic Church has not modified its position on those doctrines that separate Protestantism from Catholicism. Both Trent and Vatican II hold to an enlarged Canon,²⁵ that the interpretation of Scripture must not be contrary to Church teaching,²⁶ and that tradition is as authoritative as Scripture.²⁷ In regard to sacraments, both Trent and Vatican II teach that water baptism removes original sin,²⁸ absolution is received by confessing sins to priests,²⁹ and the elements of the Lord’s Supper change into the body and blood of Christ.³⁰ Doctrines in the Council of Trent pertaining to Mary that Protestants find unacceptable, such as Mary’s perpetual sinlessness, remain intact.³¹ Even though Catholics and Protestants have attempted a rapprochement to ease the rift that started with the Reformation,³² the Council of Trent was not undone by Vatican I or II in any significant way, and the Unum Sanctum (the 1302 papal bull [e.g., official document] by Pope Boniface VIII asserting papal authority over the state as well as the church) is still in force.³³

HOW SHOULD WE THEN RELATE?

How then do we deal with the differences that divide evangelical Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic believers? What is important enough to separate Protestants, including evangelicals, from Rome? This famous dictum may help us in a balanced approach to speaking the truth in love:

“In necessariis unitas”               “In essentials unity”

“In dubiis libertas”                      “In doubtful things liberty”

“In omnibus autem caritas”      “But in all things charity”³⁴

The advocates of the beliefs of the Reformation are properly called to love those within Christianity with whom they differ. There are essential elements of the authority of Scripture and the essence of the gospel, however, that cannot be compromised, namely sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), sola gratia (grace alone), sola fidé (faith alone), and soli Christi (in Christ alone).

The Question of Authority

Of utmost importance in this entire discussion is, to what authority are we obligated to submit personal conscience? Is it to the church or, as Luther boldly proclaimed, is our conscience to be captive exclusively to the Scriptures? Roman Catholicism stipulates that the source of authority for Christians is both Scripture and tradition. Roman Catholics affirm that the Old and New Testaments are the infallible words of God (though with an extended canon that includes the apocrypha), but that Church tradition serves as a needed authority to interpret Scripture.³⁵ As nineteenth-century German and Catholic theologian Henry Denzinger records, the Council of Trent states, “This truth and instruction are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which have been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the apostles themselves…have come down to us.”³⁶ Denzinger adds, “The written source of revelation is the canonical books of both Testaments.…Another source of revelation is ecclesiastical tradition.”³⁷

Evangelicals contend that the authority of Scripture comes from its inspiration by God and not from the authority of the church. The Old Testament was written hundreds of years before Christ and was accepted by Him and the first-century church as being the infallible words of God. Second, the New Testament was written between AD50–95 (most books before 70), in Greek, in the eastern empire, and not under the auspices of the Western church. If anything, the Roman church received the canon of inspired Scriptures rather than creating them.³⁸

Evangelicals, along with other Protestants, do not deny that there is valuable information, and much truth, in the traditions of the church fathers and in the creeds of the church. We do deny that they are revelation from God, however; the Fathers and the Councils never viewed their writings and decrees on a par with the biblical text. The Reformation position on sola Scriptura states first that Scripture comes directly from God and is fully authoritative as the very word of God. Second, since Scripture comes from God, it is the sufficient and final authority for the Christian in matters of theological truth and practical Christian living. Third, since God desired to communicate to His people through written revelation, it is understandable through ordinary means of literary interpretation.

The Roman Catholic Church, by contrast, believes that the magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church is infallible when speaking on matters of faith and morals and that this is expressed specifically through the infallibility of the Pope. According to Vatican I,

the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.³⁹ (emphasis in original)

Papal infallibly is directly related to the dogma that the bishop of Rome is the successor of the apostle Peter and he sits in Peter’s chair as the Christ-appointed shepherd of the entire church:

…that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and that the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church and faith, and teacher of all Christians; and that to him was handed down in blessed Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church, just as is also contained in the records of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons.⁴⁰

The Roman church has sought to support its position on the Pope from the New Testament by arguing that Peter was given chief authority over the apostles and the entire church by Christ. Several passages are used to demonstrate their view including Matthew10:1;16:18; Luke22:31; John11:49–52; and John21:15–17. The Church also argues that tradition supports papal infallibility, even though this did not become official until 1870 at Vatican I.⁴¹

It is true that Peter is accorded special recognition among the twelve apostles. Scholars generally acknowledge that for several years after the Resurrection, Peter continues as a prominent member of the governance and evangelism of the early church (John21:15–19; Acts1:15;2:14;8:14;11:4ff; 1Pet.5:1ff). Peter was the oldest member of the twelve and spokesman for the group. There is, however, no indication in the texts just listed that this leadership was to be exercised over the entire, worldwide church.

Matthew10:2 records the names of the apostles, mentioning Peter first. French theologian Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange concludes from this Peter’s primacy. “The Greek word protos (or Latin primus) in Matthew10:2 unequivocally states Peter’s primacy, declaring that the word protos in its context means ‘primary first,’ and that Peter, out of all the Apostles, was first in the eyes of Christ.”⁴² Part of the reason for this view relates to the meaning of protos as chief in certain contexts.⁴³ Protestant scholar Donald Hagner sees the passage, along with Matthew16:18, as indication that Peter was the most prominent member of the band of disciples and the rock on which Christ built the church.⁴⁴

In Matthew16:16 Peter is called a rock (petros) by Christ, followed by the statement, “Upon this rock [petra] I will build my church.” The standard view of Catholic exegetes is that the original statement was in Aramaic and there was no distinction of genders or meaning in the Aramaic. Catholics claim that Jesus is saying Peter is the rock on which Christ builds the church. Whether rock is distinguished in Aramaic is irrelevant to the argument, however, since the inspired text is Greek and the inspired Greek does make this distinction. Some have said that only the classical Greek makes this distinction,⁴⁵ but Bauer’s Greek-English lexicon shows a difference between petra (the rock on which the church is built) and Petros or stone (the meaning of Peter’s name).⁴⁶ According to Geisler, many other exegetes of this text, including Augustine and Chrysostom, have argued that the rock on which the church is built is confession of Jesus Christ.⁴⁷ In concert with this understanding of Matthew16:18 is the perspective of Eastern Orthodox commentator Apostolos Makrakis:

Therefore the stone upon which Christ promises to build his Church is the confession of Peter, the truth revealed to him by the heavenly Father which abides for ever, the truth which gives birth to Peter and the stones of the divine structure. But the Papists destroy this scriptural passage toward their own damnation, arguing sophistically and erroneously that Christ promised Peter to build upon the latter’s person His church; and the phrase “upon this rock” which clearly signifies the confession of Peter they interpret upon thee Peter.…The foundation of the Christian Church is Christ and Peter’s testimony.”⁴⁸

If Peter were the first pope, certainly the early church fathers would have acknowledged him as such. According to William Cunningham, however, Peter’s supremacy as the first Pope cannot be supported by the early church fathers. He does point out that sixteenth-century Jesuit Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a canonized saint and “doctor of the Church,” attempted to prove Peter’s papal supremacy from the writings of Irenaeus, Origen, and Cyprian, but concluded that they do not support it: “Romanists could not produce the consent of the Fathers, even of the fourth and fifth centuries, in support of their interpretation of those passages of Scripture on which they found the supremacy of Peter.”⁴⁹

The Question of Justification

The Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone is the source of significant tension between Catholics and evangelical Protestants. In Roman Catholicism justification is not simply God declaring a man righteous. Justification, rather, follows conversion.⁵⁰ Justification, which is conferred in baptism,⁵¹ “entails the sanctification of his whole being.”⁵² Protestants differ significantly from Catholicism in defining justification, however.

Protestants view justification not as a change in man from being unrighteous to being righteous, but rather as a declarative statement by God that is objective or forensic in nature. As systematic theologian John Murray says, “Justification does not mean to make righteous, or good, or holy, or upright….In a word, justification is simply a declaration or pronouncement respecting the relation of the person to the law.”⁵³ Theologian Wayne Grudem writes, “Justification is a legal declaration by God.”⁵⁴ James White also explains that Paul’s doctrine of justification is “forensic/legal.”⁵⁵

Protestants insist that justification is obtained by faith only and not by works. Works may provide evidence of faith in the thinking of many evangelicals, but it is faith in the obedience and satisfaction of Christ that obtains justification.⁵⁶ Theologian Charles Hodge affirms that it is “faith alone” that acquires for us the righteousness of Christ that is justification.⁵⁷ New Testament scholar Leon Morris states that there is not “the remotest possibility of justification being wrought by merely human effort.”⁵⁸ Man is not even to be thought of as acting synergistically with God in justification by authoring his own act of faith.

As for the Fathers and justification, it is not difficult to find in the Fathers the idea of justification by faith alone apart from works. Origen says that “man is justified by faith alone apart from works.”⁵⁹ Augustine declares that “works do not precede justification,” and, “if by grace, then it is no more of works.”⁶⁰

According to fourth century Greek father John Chrysostom, God justifies as a judge who “declares us just.”⁶¹ Justification is instantaneous (occurring “straitway”), and it is only after the grace of justification that “a life suited to it” begins. Therefore, justification, itself, is best seen as being objective.⁶²

The righteousness of God in the work of Christ is “reckoned” to believers as righteousness (Rom.4:3–4) as they exercise saving faith. The word “reckon” (logizomai) used in connection with “faith” indicated not only that man’s faith is not meritorious, since faith is only “counted” as righteousness by God,⁶³ but the word “reckon” also is evidence that this righteousness is not infused but rather imputed.⁶⁴ For this reason Murray defines justification as “a constitutive act whereby the righteousness of Christ is imputed to our account.”⁶⁵

The terms that are connected with justification, finally, underscore the objectivity of that event. In the Hebrew Bible where the root tsda is used, as Morris says, “there can be no doubt that the meaning is to declare righteous rather than to make righteous.”⁶⁶ Morris argues this from Isaiah5:23, where righteousness cannot be a moral quality, and Job13:18, where Job “can only mean that he will be declared righteous, as by a judge giving sentence in a law suit.”⁶⁷ Scripture certainly supports the Protestant doctrine that justification is forensic and is acquired only by faith apart from works. That is why Protestants disagree with Roman Catholics about justification.

NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE, NO RETURN

In light of what has been presented regarding the differences between Roman Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism, there is no sound theological, biblical, or historical basis for evangelicals to convert to Catholicism legitimately. The Reformation was not in vain, and those reformers who put their lives on the line to ensure doctrinal purity did so because their hearts and minds were captive to the authority of Scripture.

With respect to common ground on essential theological matters, both Roman Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism will continue to be at an impasse. For Catholicism, the Council of Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II are indisputable authoritative statements to which the Church appeals without reservation. Evangelicals, however, affirm the tenets of the Reformation, and unless Rome is willing to depart from Trent, or evangelicals move away from the Reformation, they will never achieve unity in matters of essential doctrine.

notes

1. I want to acknowledge my deepest appreciation to Dr. Bill Grover and Stephen Ross, who assisted me with the research and editing of this article.

2. Ralph MacKenzie, “Why Some Evangelicals Become Roman Catholic,” Christian Apologetics Journal 4:1 (Spring 2005): 5.

3. Scott Hahn, Surprised by Truth: Eleven Converts Give the Biblical and Historical Reasons for Becoming Catholic, ed. Patrick Madrid (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994), 9.

4. Thomas Howard, Evangelical Is Not Enough (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1984), 42.

5. Thomas Ricks, “From That Old Time Religion to the Ancient Faith,” in Rosalind Moss, Home at Last (San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2000), 80.

6. The most well-known example, which led to a formal split, is that the Eastern church believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (Constantine N. Callinieos, Greek Orthodox Catechism [New York: Greek Archdiocese of North and South America, 1953], 33), whereas Rome says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Catechism of Catholic Church [New York: Doubleday, 1995], 73).

7. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 8.2, in The Apostolic Fathers, vol. I, Loeb Classical Series, trans. Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965), 261.

8. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology, trans. Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, Theolgische Prinzipienlehre (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), 141.

9. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:3:2) says that Peter and Paul laid the foundation for the church at Rome. The church, however, as indicated in the text above, began many years before Paul wrote to the church, or before both of them, by tradition, were put to death there. Irenaeus was surely aware that Paul said in the book of Romans that he had never come to Rome, and so probably did not mean by foundation that he, or Peter, began the church.

10. Norman L. Geisler, “The Historical Development of Roman Catholicism,” Christian Apologetics Journal 4, 1 (Spring 2005): 48.

11. See Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, “Rabbinic Quotations of the Old Testament and How It Relates to Joel 2 and Acts 2” (unpublished paper that may be procured at HomeOffice@ariel.org), in which he, relying on the work of Emil Shuer, David L. Cooper, et al., demonstrates that the apostles used a methodology found in the rabbis in their interpretation of the Old Testament, though with more reserve than often exercised by the rabbis.

12. See discussion, with several examples, in Norman Geisler, “The Historical Development of Roman Catholicism,” Christian Apologetics Journal 4, 1 (Spring 2005): 6–35.

13. Geisler suggests that many scholars believe that the statement by Ignatius should be dated later. Norman L. Geisler, “The Historical Development of Roman Catholicism,” 26, 55.

14. The confusion of justification and sanctification is not evidenced to the same degree in the Greek-speaking Eastern church, where justification is separated from sanctification (theosis, or deification). The Latin term implied doing justice, implying “merit,” whereas the Greek provided for an idea of being considered or estimated as righteous. See Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 14–16.

15. See the sections labeled “The Question of Justification” and “The Question of Authority” later in this article.

16. Theologian Eric Svendsen shows that the diversity of Protestantism is not near as much as is sometimes supposed and that the unity of Roman Catholics is not near as much as Catholics often have argued. See Eric Svendsen, “30,000 Protestant Denominations?” NTRMin (New Testament Research Ministries), http://www.ntrmin.org/ 30000denominations.htm (accessed June 18, 2007). See also Eric Svendsen, Upon This Slippery Rock: Countering Roman Catholic Claims to Authority (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2002).

17. All Scripture quotations are from the New International Version.

18. See the statement “Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium,” First Things (May 1994), http://www.firstthings.com/ article.php3?id_article=4454 (accessed October 1, 2007).

19. James White, “A Review of and Response to ‘Evangelicals and Catholics Together’: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium,’” http://www.aomin.org/ Evangelics_and_Catholics_Together.html (accessed September 29, 2007).

20. John MacArthur, “Evangelicals, and Catholics Together,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 6:1 (Spring 1995), 34.

21. Rick Wade, “That They May Be One: Evangelicals and Catholics in Dialogue,” http://www.probe.org/theology-and-philosophy/theology—-church-missions/that-they-may-be-one-evangelicals-and-catholics-in-dialogue.html (accessed October 1, 2007).

22. “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification—The Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church,” Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Relations, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, http://www.elca.org/ecumenical/ecumenicaldialogue/romancatholic/ jddj/index.html.

23. “The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification,” Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Relations, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, http://www.elca.org/ecumenical/ ecumenicaldialogue/romancatholic/jddj/declaration.html. Also, “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church,” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html.

24. Timothy George, “Timothy George Replies,” First Things, May, 2007, 7.

25. Philip Schaff, “Council of Trent, Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures,” The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, reprint 2007), 2:81; Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 40. Hereafter the two sources are abbreviated as Creeds and Catechism.

26. Creeds, 2:83; Catechism, 31, 39.

27. Creeds, 2:181; Catechism, 31.

28. Creeds, 2:87; Catechism, 114.

29. Creeds, 2:152, 167; Catechism, 405, 407.

30. Creeds, 2:130, 175; Catechism, 384.

31. Creeds, 2:115; Catechism, 116.

32. “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” First Things.

33. In the document Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church, which was released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 29, 2007, the Roman Catholic Church affirms the position that the church of Christ subsists in the Roman Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him.

34. This famous dictum has been attributed to St. Augustine, but there is no evidence from his writings that this is the case. The source of this saying is said to be Lutheran divine Rupertus Meldenius in the seventeenth century. See http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/ augustine/quote.html (accessed September 30, 2007).

35. See Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), 180ff, for discussion of traditional and contemporary views regarding the relation of tradition to Scripture.

36. The Council of Trent, quoted in Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. Roy J. Deferrari (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1957), 244.

37. Denzinger, 11–12.

38. F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988), 255–69; see also R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957, 1969), 129–245.

39. Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. Roy J. Deferrari (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1957), 11–12. .

40. Ibid.

41. Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, 4 vols. (Minneapolis: Bethany, 2005), 4:75.

42. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Evangile Selon Saint Matthieu (Paris: 1927), 195.

43. Charles F. B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri—The Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter (London: Burns and Oates, 1879), 47, quoted in Butler, 4. Lutheran New Testament Greek lexicographer, Fredrick Danker, supports this view: “Proto Simon Mt 10:2 is not meant to indicate the position of Simon in the list, since no other numbers follow, but to single him out as the most prominent of the twelve.” Walter Bauer, Fredrick Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Fredrick William Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).

44. Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33A, gen. ed. Bruce M. Metzger (Dallas: Word Book Publisher, 1993), 265–66.

45. Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, 7th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889, 1968), 636.

46. Bauer, et al., 809–10.

47. Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 4, 77.

48. Apostolos Makrakis, “The Gospel according to Matthew,” Interpretation of the Entire New Testament, Volume 1:The Four Gospels, 2 vols. (Chicago: Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1949), 300.

49. William Cunningham, Historical Theology (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1979), 1:223–26. For a more recent and thorough treatment of Peter and papal succession, see William Webster, The Matthew 16 Controversy: Peter and the Rock (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 1996).

50. Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 536.

51. Ibid.

52. Ibid., 537.

53. John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 118–19.

54. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 723.

55. James R. White, The God Who Justifies (Minneapolis: Bethany, 2001), 84.

56. Westminster Confession of Faith, chaps. XVI and XI.

57. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 114.

58. Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 285.

59. Origen, “Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,” in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI, ed. Thomas Oden (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 104.

60. Augustine, “On the Spirit and the Letter,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 14 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), 5:102.

61. John Chrysostom, “Epistle to the Romans, Homily XV,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 11:452.

62. Ibid., Homily VII, 11:375.

63. Hans Wolfgang Heidland, “logizomai” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 4, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 289.

64. Strong, Theology, 862.

65. Murray, Redemption, 124.

66. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching, 259.

67. Ibid., 261.

In the past few decades there has been a trend of evangelical Protestants converting to the Roman Catholic Church. This migration has included such prominent Christian thinkers and authors as Peter Kreeft, Richard John Neuhaus, Thomas Howard, J. Budziszewski, and Francis J. Beckwith. The recent conversion of Beckwith, in particular, hits home, as he was not only the president of the Evangelical Theological Society when he announced his conversion but he is also a leading defender of Christianity who has been a highly valued contributor to this magazine for the past two decades, serving also for a time as our ethics editor.

For every action there is a reaction, and when someone as prominent as Beckwith adds his name to the growing list of Protestant defectors to Roman Catholicism, confusion and controversy are sure to follow. It is appropriate for those who have collaborated with Beckwith to clarify their stance on the matter of evangelicals converting to Catholicism, and so to state our position we offer H. Wayne House’s feature article on p. 22, as well as what follows in this column.

I have deliberately chosen an incendiary title for this editorial. In 1 John 2:19 the apostle writes, “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us.”¹ In context, John is speaking here of antichrists who were denying that Jesus is the Christ. When he said that “they were not really of us” he meant that, although they had been a part of the visible Christian community, they were never truly regenerate believers and therefore were never part of the invisible, true church.

Let me be clear: by drawing from this verse for my title I am not suggesting that the above-named Protestant converts to Roman Catholicism are antichrists or heretics; that they were never truly saved; that they are now outside of historic, orthodox Christianity; that they should be shunned from Christian fellowship; nor even that in every respect they are now beyond collaboration with evangelical Protestants in the common cause of Christ. For example, Frank Beckwith will continue to contribute to the Christian Research Journal on subjects about which both Protestants and Catholics can agree. I do believe, however, that although admittedly out of context, John’s words can be used quite effectively to state the point of this editorial, and I believe the matter is serious enough that I don’t have qualms about employing a little shock value to get your attention.

It is shocking indeed when evangelicals defect from Protestantism to join the Catholic Church if one assumes, as I tend to do, that these Christians would not have been Protestants in the first place if they hadn’t valued the foundational principles of the Protestant Reformation. It becomes clear that such appreciation is lacking, however, when evangelicals convert to Catholicism. In this sense, then, “they went out from us, but they were never truly of us.” If the men named above or any other Protestants converted to Catholicism merely because they were attracted to its liturgy, its antiquity, its clear-cut authority structure, or any other reason besides a specific loss of faith in the foundational principles of Protestantism, then, in my opinion, they never truly were Protestants in the most fundamental sense of the term. I would say the same thing about current evangelicals who see no greater problem in Protestants becoming Catholics than they see in Protestants moving from one Protestant denomination to another (e.g., from Presbyterianism to Methodism or from the Baptist church to the Assemblies of God).

It is the position of CRI that, while there are significant differences between the various theologically orthodox Protestant denominations, those differences pale in comparison to the gaping theological differences between historic Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. The Protestant Reformation was about affirming the primacy of the following doctrinal positions: (1) Scripture alone is our infallible, absolute authority (sola scriptura) and the church’s authority, being fallible, is valid only relative to its faithfulness to Scripture; (2) salvation is provided by Christ alone (solus Christus) without any necessary mediation by the church, let alone by departed saints, including Jesus’ mother Mary; this salvation is appropriated (3) by grace alone (sola gratia), (4) through faith alone (sola fidé), and therefore one’s own works play no part in it, or grace, by definition, would no longer be grace (Rom. 11:6; cf. 4: 4–5, 16).

The Reformers believed that the accumulation of Catholic traditions over fifteen centuries exalted the role of the church beyond its proper biblical place at the expense of biblical authority, and they further believed that Catholic teaching regarding salvation obscured the glorious gospel of grace. As a result of these excesses, many millions of souls were hindered from perceiving and therefore receiving God’s free gift of salvation; many more who managed despite these obstacles to believe unto salvation were further hindered from growing in grace through a relationship with Jesus Christ as their only mediator and with the Word of God as their immediately accessible divine revelation; and the church itself was hindered from fulfilling its calling as a priesthood of believers.

The Reformers saw this obscuring of God’s manifold gracious provision for His people as serious enough to justify fracturing the organizational unity of the visible (Western²) church and to subject themselves to the persecutions that would follow from a medieval church that wielded political as well as ecclesiastical power. The result of their having taken this bold stand has been the conversion and growth in grace of many millions of souls, including me (who was raised Catholic but only came to know Christ as personal Savior through the ministry of lay Protestants), and, more likely than not, you as well.

What has occurred since the Reformation that would make Protestants think differently about these issues? Does the Roman Catholic Church now officially embrace sola scriptura, solus Christus, sola gratia, and sola fidé? No, despite a more conciliatory attitude toward Protestants (and people of other faiths as well) since Vatican II, some progress in dialogue with Protestants on issues such as justification, and the emergence of a distinct minority of Roman Catholics, particularly in America, who walk and talk more like evangelicals than once would have been thought possible, the Roman Catholic Church has not officially reversed the anathemas enshrined in the decrees and canons of the sixteenth-century Council of Trent on those who believe the Protestant distinctives.

Catholicism does not outright deny the biblical doctrines of God, Christ, and the cross, and so it should not be viewed as a non-Christian religion or cult, and people who confess Christ as their personal Lord and Savior within its midst should be accepted as brothers and sisters in Christ. But, despite the cleaning up of many corrupt teachings and practices during Catholicism’s sixteenth-century Counter Reformation, the core dogmas that gave rise to the Reformation are still alive and well in the Catholic Church.

The good news that God has bought for us a salvation that we could never merit or improve on through the cross of Christ as a free gift to be gratefully received by faith, with assurance of salvation to follow, is not being clearly communicated to millions of people worldwide under the sway of Roman Catholicism.

The relevant question we face today therefore is, “Are the truths to which the Reformers devoted their lives, and for which they sometimes gave them, no longer worth preserving?” Do we now conclude that the Reformers got it wrong, blowing out of proportion their differences with Rome and unnecessarily dividing the church? With the salvation and subsequent growth in Christ of many millions of people at issue, the answer should be obvious.

— Elliot Miller

NOTES

1. Bible quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.

2. Eastern Orthodoxy already had been divided from Rome since the eleventh century and had never accepted the primacy of the Pope.

Yet, in recent years, questions have arisen concerning the nature of Augustine’s Christianity. As medieval scholar Etienne Gilson has noted, “A great deal of discussion has raged over the testimony of the Confessions [Augustine’s autobiography], some considering that Augustine was converted to Neoplatonism rather than to Christianity, others that his conversion was genuinely Christian.”¹

What are we to make of this? Was this great spiritual leader truly converted to Christ, or was he converted to what might be labeled in academic jargon a Neoplatonic monistic mysticism? By this is meant an outlook based on the Greek philosopher Plato as interpreted by Plotinus, who taught in Rome (AD 245-270). Plotinus’s Neoplatonism considered God and creation simply as one great unity (monism), not known through the revelation of Scripture, but through personal introspection and an experience of mystical union with the One (mysticism). The implications are profound, especially when we consider the growing influence of the non-Christian alternative. The increasingly popular Eastern mysticism of Hinduism and Buddhism runs along those lines, as does the widely influential New Age movement, which, in Shirley MacLaine’s words, would have everyone believe, “You are God.”

Illustrating the relevance of this issue, a student in my course on Augustine had considered herself a Christian although she was in fact a pantheist, believing that God was incarnate in everyone, not just in Jesus. During a lecture based on an early draft of this article, she came to realize that she had not been a Christian at all, but was, indeed, a monistic mystic. In her seminar report to the class, she marked that lecture as the occasion of her conversion to the incarnate Christ as her Savior!

Saint Augustine- Early BeliefsTo pursue these concerns, we need to go back to Augustine’s youth, when for several years he had been involved in Manicheism. This was an ancient religion from Persia that accounted for all the world’s disharmony in terms of an eternal struggle between physical light and darkness. After several years as an adherent of the Manichean religion, Augustine read the writings of Neoplatonists such as Plotinus. That philosophy helped him move beyond the materialism of Manicheism. Then, at the age of 32, Augustine embraced Jesus Christ, whom he professed to serve the rest of his life as a pastor and writer.²

For answers to the role of Neoplatonic and Christian ideas in Augustine’s mature views, we turn to the Confessions, the classic account of his conversion, written when he was 43-47 years old. Here lies the key to Augustine’s concept of (1) God, (2) evil, (3) the Logos, or divine Word, and (4) spirituality. A comparison of Augustine’s beliefs with Neoplatonic mysticism will help in evaluating the assertions of many historians and biblical scholars who regard him a Neoplatonic mystic. A closer look at Augustine’s faith will also help those who — like my above mentioned student — seek to clarify the object of their own faith.

Saint Augustine and GOD

According to Augustine’s own account, from his youth onward he was driven by a quest for true wisdom. When the young Augustine read Cicero’s Hortensius, it “stimulated, and enkindled, and inflamed to love, seek, obtain, hold, and embrace, not this or that sect, but wisdom itself . . . .”³ Hungering for wisdom (Latin sapientia, changeless truth), he turned to the Manichees and “they instead of Thee, [O God,] served up the sun and the moon, beautiful works of Thine, but yet Thy works, not Thyself.”⁴ Fed on the husks of materialistic fantasies Augustine could not understand how ultimate reality (God) could be spirit. “Nearly nine years passed in which I wallowed in the slime of that deep pit and the darkness of falsehood, striving often to rise, but being all the more heavily dashed down.”⁵

After hearing Ambrose, the great bishop of Milan, preach, Augustine came to realize that the Christian faith did not hold, as Manicheans had supposed, that God was bounded by human form. He blushed that for so many years he had “barked” at a straw man. But, “what was the nature of a spiritual substance I had not the faintest or dimmest suspicion.”⁶ Although he now did not think of God in a human body, he “could not avoid a concept of something corporeal in space, either infused into the world, or infinitely diffused beyond it.”⁷ However, he was given certain books of the Platonists, and through them was able to ascend “from bodies to the soul . . . on to the reasoning faculty . . . And thus, with the flash of a trembling glance . . . saw Thy invisible things.”⁸ In the judgment of Whitney J. Oates, “The Platonic tradition [of the new Academy of Plotinus] unquestionably prepared the way for him to accept and realize the meaning of Christianity’s doctrine of God as Spirit.”⁹

From Plotinus, however, Augustine learned to think of God as “a transcendent absolute principle” about which no positive attribute derived from human experience can be asserted.¹⁰ “The Absolute is none of the things of which it is the source. Its nature is that nothing can be affirmed of it — not existence, not essence, not life — since it is that which transcends all these . . . Once you have uttered ‘Good,’ add no further thought to it: by any addition . . . you introduce a deficiency.”¹¹

But later as a Christian, Augustine “does not follow Plotinus in ascribing to God such complete transcendence as would remove him from contact with human experience and render theology impotent to assign his attributes.”¹² Once converted, Augustine turned to the personal, living, and active divine Spirit, a major step beyond Neoplatonism. He discovered that the God who has revealed Himself in Scripture is not indescribable. Augustine learned to preach and write of God’s attributes, such as His holy love. He knew that God loved him and forgave his sins. Augustine’s frequent prayers express his deep affection for the One who was not only transcendent, but knowable, describable, and active in his transformed life. “Thou awakest us to delight in Thy praise; for Thou madest us for Thyself, and our heart is restless, until it repose in Thee.”¹³

Saint Augustine and EVIL

In the stormy period before Augustine’s conversion, the problem of evil greatly perplexed him. The adolescent became aware of his unjustifiable maliciousness. He stole pears, for example, not because he was hungry or to give to the starving, but just to be sinful. As a Manichean materialist, he blamed his sexual immoralities on a “sort of substance possessed of its own foul and misshapen mass.”¹⁴ Influenced by Neoplatonists, he came to think that everything emanated from God, like light rays from the sun. Evil, then, became “no substance at all but simply a defection in substance. Evil had no being whatever apart from good, for all things are good in so far as they exist.”¹⁵ Consequently, he dismissed his sins as unreal appearances, much like Christian Scientists do today.

But when he became a Christian his world view began with creation rather than with emanation. “I perceived, therefore, and it was made clear to me, that Thou didst make all things good, nor is there any substance at all that was not made by Thee.”¹⁶ Analyzing his own moral conflicts, he realized that evil was far more than privation of good. It was “a perversion of the will, bent aside from Thee, O God.”¹⁷ “Because of a perverse will was lust made; and lust indulged in became custom; and custom not resisted became necessity.”¹⁸ So his habitual selfish choices strengthened an already evil nature. Holding now that evil was not mere privation of good but a responsible choice to disobey the Creator, he had taken a second major step beyond Neoplatonism.¹⁹

Given such a radically different view of evil, we would expect a convert to Christ to sense a radically different prescription for its cure. Neoplatonists thought they emanated from God like light rays from the sun, and they imagined they could reverse that impersonal process by thinking. They tried to alter their consciousness of themselves from that of a finite body to an individual soul. Next they had to convince themselves they were one with the world soul (something like psychologist Carl Jung’s collective unconscious). Finally, the spiritually elite imagined that they could achieve a mystical experience of unity with the Good.²⁰

Augustine discovered experientially and biblically that his problem was more than one of knowledge (Greek gnosis) or wrong thinking. His affections and will also reacted against what God knew, loved, and willed. He realized that he could not by his own thinking transform the depravity of his own nature, overcome his estrangement from God, or remove his verdict of guilt before God’s justice. Coming to his senses, the prodigal son realized his need for help from above.

Saint Augustine and THE LOGOS

In contrast to the meaninglessness of a Manichean world view, Neoplatonic philosophy supplied an important step in Augustine’s understanding of life’s ultimate significance. In the Platonic writings he read — not in the same words, but to the same effect — that the logos (Greek for “Word”) was eternal with God, the unchanging source of all being, the light that lightens every one coming into the world. He found Plato’s world of ideas in the Christian Logos (John 1:1-3) with one glaring exception — the Platonic logos did not become incarnate (1:14)!²¹ Although the Platonic mystics had discovered the forms (changeless patterns or blueprints) of particular kinds of things, they had detected neither God’s hand in history nor His gracious plan of salvation.

Nowhere did Augustine read in those books that the eternal logos became flesh (John 1:14) so that sinners might become children of God (1:12). Only from biblically informed Christians did he learn that Jesus humbled Himself to death for the ungodly, forgiving all their sins, and saying, “Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart” (Matt. 11:29). By missing the historical incarnation of the Messiah and His death for our sins, Plotinus had ignored the ground of hope for people struggling personally with the problem of moral evil.

Moreover, Plotinus so despised matter that he would not even mention his conception, birthday, or parents! For such unearthly mystics the historical life of Christ may have seemed unimportant or repugnant. But the believing Augustine took a giant step beyond their mysticism when he gloried in the miraculous, once-for-all historical conception and birth of Jesus the Messiah.²² Had Augustine been converted to Neoplatonism rather than to Christ, he would never have written his autobiographical Confessions and philosophy of history, The City of God.

An individual life for a Neoplatonist was of negligible value and had no lasting purpose. For the Christian Augustine, the struggle of one solitary person with intellectual and moral issues has significance for time and eternity.

Saint Augustine and SPIRITUALITY

Having dispensed with corporeal views of God and evil and having glimpsed the invisible Creator and Redeemer in a spiritual manner, Augustine confesses, “I sought a way of acquiring sufficient strength to enjoy Thee; but I found it not until I embraced that Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.”²³ Assured that God existed as the infinite, immutable source of all things, he was too weak to enjoy Him.²⁴ Although a successful professor of rhetoric, his life amounted to “longing for honors, gains and wedlock.” At 30 he suffered increasing anxiety, a silent trembling, a loathing of self, an internal war. Inwardly consumed and confounded, he wrote, “I became to myself an unfruitful land”²⁵ — a figure significant for T. S. Eliot in his poem “The Wasteland.”

When Augustine cried, “What shall a wretched man do?” he found no solace in mystical philosophy. “This those writings contain not. Those pages contain not the expression of this piety — the tears of confession, Thy sacrifice, a troubled spirit, a broken and contrite heart, the salvation of the people, the espoused city, the earnest of the Holy Ghost, the cup of our redemption. No man sings there.”²⁶

Gilson eloquently points up Neoplatonic spirituality’s impotence:

That Plotinus should advise us to rise above sense, to rule our passions, and to adhere to God, that is all well and good! But will Plotinus give us the strength to follow this excellent advice? And what does it avail to know the good without power to put it into practice? What kind of physician is this who recommends health, and knows neither the nature of the illness nor the name of the remedy? What really completed the conversion of St. Augustine was the perusal of St. Paul and the revelation of grace: ‘For the law of the spirit of life in Jesus Christ freed me,’ he argues, ‘from the law of sin and death.’ It was not an intellect that agonized in the night in the garden of Cassiciacum: it was a man.²⁷

In conclusion, Neoplatonism helped the perceptive Augustine move away from a secular world view in four ways. But in becoming a Christian he went well beyond the four areas of monistic mysticism that we have reviewed. His teaching is unmistakably Christian concerning (1) the ultimate Reality’s personal nature, (2) sin as perversion of the will, (3) the once-for-all incarnation and atonement, and (4) the need for grace-filled, authentic spirituality beginning with regeneration from above, a supernatural transformation of nature from the inside out.

New Age, Eastern, and liberal Christian monistic mysticisms have helped many to move beyond a simply physical or secular world view. But they are not a permanent answer to the human quest for the Transcendent. Augustine noted that seekers of great acuteness and ability in the school of Plotinus either “were corrupted by curious inquiries into magic” or “passed into the service of Christ.”²⁸

If, like Augustine, we would avoid such deceptions, we need to know, love, and follow the eternal Logos incarnate on earth — Jesus of Nazareth, whom we know from the pages of the Bible. As the Evangelist John puts it in his second letter, “Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. . . . Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son” (2 John 7-9). Gordon R. Lewis is senior professor of Theology and Philosophy at Denver Seminary.

NOTES

¹Etienne Gilson, The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy (London: Sheed and Ward, 1950), 29.²For a more chronological, popular account of Augustine’s conversion, consult my “See Yourself in Augustine,” Collegiate Challenge, May-June 1962, 8-9. Also read Augustine’s classic Confessions for yourself!³Augustine, Confessions book 3, section 4, in The Basic Writings of St. Augustine, Whitney J. Oates, ed., 2 vols. (New York: Random House, 1948), 32. All other citations from the Confessions are from this source.⁴Ibid., 3, 6, 33.⁵Ibid., 3, 11, 40.⁶Ibid., 6, 3, 76.⁷Ibid., 7, 1, 91.⁸Ibid., 7, 17, 105.⁹Ibid., from Oates’s Introduction, xvi-xvii.¹⁰Edwin A. Burtt, Types of Religious Philosophy (New York: Harper, 1939), 66.¹¹Plotinus, Ennead III, 8-10; cited by W. J. Sparrow Simpson, St. Augustine’s Conversion (New York: Macmillan, 1930), 51.¹²Burtt, Types, 78.¹³Augustine, 1,1, 7.¹⁴Ibid., 5, 10, 69.¹⁵Roy W. Battenhouse, ed., A Companion to the Study of St. Augustine (New York: Oxford, 1955), 30.¹⁶Augustine, 7, 12, 102. ¹⁷Ibid., 7, 16, 104.¹⁸Ibid., 7, 5, 116.¹⁹For a contemporary look at Augustinian doctrines of sin and salvation, see Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology, 3 vols. in 1(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 2:205-43.²⁰Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy: Greece and Rome, vol. 1 (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1953), 464-75. Note the similarities to Anthony Campbell’s Seven States of Consciousness: A Vision of Possibilities Suggested by the Teaching of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (New York: Harper and Row, 1974), 91-92.²¹Augustine, 7, 9, 99.²²For more on Augustine’s classical view of faith and reason, see G. R. Lewis, “Faith and History in Augustine,” Trinity Theological Journal 1,3 (NS 1982), 39-50 and “Faith and Reason in the Thought of St. Augustine,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Syracuse University, 1959.²³Ibid., 7, 18, 105.²⁴Ibid., 7, 20, 107.²⁵Ibid., 8, 5-7; 116-20. For clarification of his relation to existentialism see G. R. Lewis, “Augustine and Existentialism,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 8,1 (Winter 1965): 13-22.²⁶Augustine, 7, 21, 108.²⁷Gilson, 30.²⁸Augustine, “Letter CXVIII [118],” 3, 17 in St. Augustine, vol. 1, Philip Schaff, ed., Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 450.

Justification- A Summary The Protestant Reformers recovered the biblical view of forensic justification, that a person is legally declared righteous by God on the basis of faith alone. In so doing, their principle of “salvation by faith alone” gave a more biblical specificity to the common Augustinian view of “salvation by grace alone” held by Catholics and Protestants alike. For although Rome has always held the essential belief in salvation by grace, its view of justification – made dogma by the Council of Trent – obscures the pure grace of God, if not at times negating it in practice.

Roman Catholics and evangelicals share a common core of beliefs about salvation. Both camps are greatly indebted to the same church father (Augustine) for their views on this subject. Despite this common heritage, however, the question of how a person is justified before God has always been a fundamental dividing point between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Recently, the Catholic doctrine of justification has become a divisive issue even among evangelicals, as they seek to determine how far they should go in cooperative relations with Catholics.In this conclusion to our series on Roman Catholicism, we will examine both the commonalities and differences between Catholic and Protestant soteriology (beliefs about salvation). We will give special attention to the Protestant Reformation doctrine of forensic (legal) justification, and we will provide a Protestant critique of the official Roman Catholic response to that doctrine, as embodied in the decrees of the sixteenth-century Council of Trent.

Justification- JUSTIFICATION IN CHURCH HISTORY

The earliest serious threat to Christian faith was Gnosticism. This was not a clearly defined movement but was made up of various subgroups drawn from Hellenistic as well as Oriental sources. One of the central beliefs of Gnosticism was that salvation is the escape from the physical body (which is evil) achieved by special knowledge (gnosis; hence, Gnosticism). The understanding of the body as evil led some gnostics to stress control of the body and its desires (asceticism). Others were libertines, leaving the body to its own devices and passions.The early orthodox theologians and apologists devoted much of their effort to combating Gnosticism. In response to the libertines, the early father Tertullian (A.D. 160-225) focused on the importance of works and righteousness. In so doing he went so far as to say that “the man who performs good works can be said to make God his debtor.”² This unfortunate affirmation set the stage for centuries to come.The “works-righteousness” concept, which seemed to be so ingenious in combating Gnosticism, was popular for the first 350 years of the church’s history. However, a controversy that would produce a more precise definition of the theological elements involved was needed. This dispute came on the scene with the system of Pelagius, and the Christian thinker to confront it was Augustine of Hippo.³

Augustine

Augustine (A.D. 354-430) was an intellectual giant. No one has exercised a greater influence over the development of Western Christian thought than the Bishop of Hippo. In dealing with Augustine’s doctrine of justification, it is important to note that his thinking on this vital issue underwent significant development. Early on Augustine stressed the role of the human will in matters of salvation, a view he would later modify in his disputations with the British monk, Pelagius.Pelagius’s theological system taught the total freedom of the human will and denied the doctrine of original sin. After reflecting on Pauline insights, the later Augustine came to the following conclusions: First, the eternal decree of God’s predestination determines man’s election. Second, God’s offer of grace (salvation) is itself a gift (John 6:44a). Third, the human will is completely unable to initiate or attain salvation. This concept squares quite well with the later Reformed doctrine of total depravity. Fourth, the justified sinner does not merely receive the status of sonship, but becomes one. Fifth, God may regenerate a person without causing that one to finally persevere.⁴ This is basic Calvinism without the perseverance of all the saints.It would be incorrect to say that Augustine held to the concept of forensic justification. Nonetheless, he did maintain that salvation is by God’s grace. That is, no good works precede or merit initial justification (regeneration).Augustine has been regarded as both the last of the church fathers and the first medieval theologian. He marks the end of one era and the beginning of another.

Justification- The Early Medieval Period

The medieval period (the “Middle Ages”) is commonly dated from Augustine (or slightly later) to the 1500s. This period saw the balance of power in the church shift from the East (where Christianity began) to the West or Latin wing of the church.Pelagianism was officially condemned by the church at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) and again at the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529), which declared that “if anyone says that the grace of God can be bestowed by human invocation, but that the grace itself does not bring it to pass that it be invoked by us, he contradicts Isias the Prophet….[cf. Isa. 65:l]”⁵ However, this heresy, along with its more moderate relative semi-Pelagianism (also condemned at the Council of Orange),⁶ keeps recurring in church history. It seems that man’s inclination is toward Pelagianism rather than Augustine’s Pauline emphasis on the grace of God.Leo “the Great,” who was the bishop of Rome from A.D. 440-461, is designated by many non-Catholic historians as the first “pope” in the modern sense. During his era many Roman Catholic dogmas (which may have existed in germ form earlier) solidified: the supreme authority of the Roman bishop in the church, sacramentalism, sacerdotalism (belief in a priesthood), and the change of emphasis in the Eucharistic Feast from celebration to sacrifice, to name a few. These doctrines influenced medieval soteriology in several ways.Justification and the Sacraments. During the medieval period baptism and penance were linked with justification. God’s righteousness was begun (infused) in baptism and continued (perfected) through penance.Although this understanding of the nature and purpose of baptism can be found from the earliest of times, the same is not true of the concept of penance. The idea of confession to a priest for the remission of sin existed in the second century but did not become a widespread practice until the early medieval period.The view that developed was that baptism addresses the problem of original sin; confession cleanses the effect of actual sin. Some theologians of this era took pains to stress that the sacraments were the means God used to mediate grace to man. However, this theological nicety was often lost on the laity who became entangled in a works-righteousness system.The Concept of Merit. Closely related to the sacraments in general is the concept of merit. The term was first used by Tertullian and then fully developed by the Schoolmen in the medieval period. As Alister McGrath points out, “It can be shown that a distinction came to be drawn between the concepts of merit and congruity; while man cannot be said to merit justification by any of his actions, his preparation for justification could be said to make his subsequent justification ‘congruous’ or ‘appropriate.’”⁷ Unfortunately, as with the sacraments, this distinction did not always filter down to the common folk.

Anselm of Canterbury

Anselm of Canterbury (A.D. 1033-1109) was arguably the most penetrating theological thinker between Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. One of Anselm’s great theological treatises was Cur Deus Homo? (“Why the God-man?”).⁸ In it he addressed the relationship between the Incarnation and the Atonement and redirected thinking on the nature and purpose of the Atonement that had been in place since the apostolic era.A popular doctrine in the early church was the so-called ransom theory. This understood the Atonement as a deliverance of humanity from the clutches of Satan. Anselm’s contribution to the doctrine of the Atonement is called the satisfaction theory. It understands the Atonement as compensation to the Father rather than Satan. While forensic justification is not explicit in Anselm’s theology, the Reformers later built upon his insights and developed the judicial aspect of salvation that they called justification.

Thomas Aquinas

One figure dominated the late medieval period: Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1225?-1274). Aquinas considered himself Augustinian in his theology, although he preferred to express his philosophical views in Aristotelian terms rather than the Platonic language of Augustine.Like Augustine, Aquinas believed that regeneration occurs at baptism, and that not all the regenerate will persevere (i.e., not all are of the elect). Contrary to a widespread misunderstanding among Protestants, Aquinas believed that because human beings are fallen, humankind is unable to initiate or attain salvation except by the grace of God.⁹ Indeed, even faith is a gift of God.¹⁰Like Augustine and Anselm, Aquinas did not distinguish forensic (declarative) justification and progressive sanctification as did the Reformers. Many contemporary Roman Catholic scholars, however, believe that forensic justification is included in the thinking of these men, at least implicitly.The Augustinianism of Anselm and Aquinas dominated medieval church soteriology (existing in tension with the works orientation of the sacramental system). In light of this it is clear that some basic theological tenets of the coming Reformation are not at irreconcilable odds with the historic church, but are a continuation of it.

Martin Luther

Born in A.D. 1483 in Eisleben, Germany, of middle class parents, Martin Luther entered the Augustinian monastery at Erfurt in 1505. The themes of salvation and damnation – which were central to the culture of the day – concerned him greatly. Luther became aware of the presence of sin in his life and the ineffectiveness of penance and the other sacraments provided by the church to bring relief to this situation.In 1511 Luther was transferred from Erfurt to Wittenberg. He lived in the Augustinian cloister and was fortunate to have as his spiritual confessor a godly man – who was also the vicar-general of the monastery – Johannes von Staupitz (1469-1524). Staupitz, aware of the intense spiritual struggles that enveloped his young charge, directed Luther to study Scripture. Luther was graduated Doctor of Theology on October 19, 1512 and commenced teaching theology and biblical studies at Wittenberg on August 16, 1513. It was in the context of his assignment at the university that Luther developed his initial ideas concerning justification by faith.The decisive role in the formulation of Luther’s theology was played by the apostle Paul and Augustinianism. It was shortly after his exegesis of Romans 1:16-17 that Luther concluded that justification is a gift of God, appropriated by faith: “Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection between the justice of God and the statement that ‘the just shall live by faith.’ Then I grasped that the justice of God is that righteousness by which through grace and sheer mercy God justifies us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise.”¹¹The beginning of Martin Luther’s break with Rome has often been identified with his posting of the Ninety-five Theses on the church door at Wittenberg on the eve of All Saints, October 31, 1517. These theses dealt with the penitential system and papal authority, but primarily with the sale of indulgences. With the public display of the Ninety-five Theses the die was cast, the Reformation began, and Christendom changed forever.Indicating how deeply his evangelical (Augustinian) principles influenced his theses, Luther was later to write: “And this is the confidence that Christians have and our real joy of conscience, that by faith our sins become no longer ours but Christ’s upon whom God placed the sins of all of us. He took upon himself our sins….All the righteousness of Christ becomes ours….He spreads his cloak and covers us….”¹²Before Martin Luther initiated the Protestant Reformation, extrinsic justification, in which a sinner is declared righteous legally, was, at best, a subterranean stream in Christian soteriology. With Luther the situation changed dramatically. However, as Peter Toon notes, “Luther does not employ forensic terms to explain this imputation or alien righteousness. This development will come later, from others.”¹³ Philipp Melanchthon, Luther’s great systematic theologian, did use legal terminology to describe justification.

John Calvin

Without a doubt, the most important Reformed theology to come out of the Protestant Reformation was that of John Calvin. He was born in Noyon, France on July 10, 1509. Young Calvin studied in Paris, where he was familiar with the writings and theology of Luther. He drew his deepest inspiration, however, from Augustine. Calvin believed that he was doing nothing more than reproducing “that holy man’s own plain and uncompromising teachings.”¹⁴Calvin’s theological system begins, as did Augustine’s and Aquinas’s before him, with man’s present condition – one of complete moral corruption. For “even though we grant that God’s image was not totally annihilated and destroyed in man, yet was it so corrupted that whatever remains is a horrible deformity.”¹⁵Calvin held that “predestination we call the eternal decree of God, which he has determined in himself, what he would have to become of every individual of mankind.”¹⁶ Furthermore, “while the elect receive the grace of adoption by faith, their election does not depend on faith, but is prior in time and order.”¹⁷For Calvin, justification “consists in remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.”¹⁸ Departing at this point from the medieval tradition, Calvin does not see justification as involving an infusion of grace: “Man is not made righteous in justification, but is accepted as righteous, not on account of his own righteousness, but on account of the righteousness of Christ located outside of man.”¹⁹What place, then, does good works have in the life of the believer? “To the charge that justification thus understood obviates the need for good works, Calvin’s firm reply is, like Luther’s, that although in no respect can good works become the ground of our holiness, a living faith is never devoid of such works. Thus justification necessarily has its consequence in sanctification.”²⁰

Justification- Common Soteriological Roots

A soteriological survey of both the leading Roman Catholic theologians and Protestant Reformers reveals a number of commonalities. First, both believe salvation is effected through historic, divine intervention. Against Gnosticism, Catholics and Protestants jointly affirm that man is not saved by wisdom, but by God’s action in history in the person of Jesus Christ.Second, both evangelicals and Catholics believe salvation is moral and spiritual. Salvation is related to a deliverance from sin and its consequences.Third, salvation is eschatological for both Catholics and evangelicals. The future perspective is crucial. All that is now known about salvation is preliminary and a foretaste of the fullness, which awaits the completing of the kingdom at the Parousia (physical “presence” or second coming) of the Lord.Fourth, the grace of God is absolutely necessary for salvation. And, initial justification is based on grace alone, apart from all works. Thus, Colin Brown can speak of “the Augustinian orthodoxy of Geneva [Calvin's home base] and Rome.”²¹ For both groups, salvation comes as a gift of God to undeserving humanity.It is against the backdrop of this common heritage that the important soteriological differences between Catholics and evangelicals must be viewed. As Harold O. J. Brown put it, “We must not oversimplify and create an artificial and forced consensus between great Christians of the past and present. Yet if one thing stands out when one studies the writings and lives of such men, it is that they knew and served the same Lord, and that they shared one faith and one hope.”²²

Justification- THE CATHOLIC RESPONSE TO THE REFORMATION

The Council of Trent, which began its deliberations on June 22, 1546, was the Catholic response to the Reformers. A proper understanding of the Catholic view of justification is not possible apart from an understanding of the decrees of Trent.The Council considered the following questions concerning justification: (1) Is justification only extrinsic (judicial) in nature or is there also an intrinsic (sanctifying) work involved? (2) What is the relationship between faith and good works? (3) Does the human will have an active roll in justification? (4) How are justification and sacraments such as the Eucharist, baptism, and penance related? (5) Can the believer know with certainty that he or she is justified? (6) Can humans incline themselves toward justification, and if so, is this inclination to be understood as meritorious?²³On January 9, 1547, the Council participants agreed on a final formula for justification: First, although several Council members recognized an extrinsic element in justification (thereby approaching the Reformers on this point), the consensus view was that “the opinion that a sinner may be justified solely as a matter of reputation or imputation…is rejected.” And so, “justification is thus defined in terms of a man becoming, and not merely being reputed as, righteous…” (emphases added).²⁴Second, in that Trent understands justification in two senses (the second corresponding to the Reformed doctrine of sanctification), good works are required in the second sense as a condition for ultimate justification. Therefore, it is possible and necessary (in this second sense) to keep the law of God.Third, Trent, taking into account original sin, states that sin has affected the human race. Therefore man cannot effect his own salvation, Free will, while not destroyed, is weakened by the Fall. For “if anyone shall say that man’s free will moved and aroused by God does not cooperate by assenting to God who looses and calls…let him be anathema.”²⁵ (It is important to note that “anathema” is a decree of excommunication, not automatic damnation.) So, as one Catholic author put it, “The sinner indeed cooperates with this grace, at least in the sense of not sinfully rejecting it.”²⁶ Of course, most Protestants agree with this. Many Protestants, Calvinists in particular, add quickly (as would Catholic Thomists) that it is God by His grace who brings about this cooperation. But He does this without destroying man’s free choice.Fourth, the subject of the sacraments was addressed at Session VII (March 3, 1547). In order to understand these pronouncements, one must remember that Trent understood justification in two ways – the “first” and “second” phases which Catholic scholars refer to as initial and progressive justification respectively. Baptism is operative in the “first” or “initial” justification, since grace to overcome original sin is “mediated” to us through baptism. Both the Eucharist and penance pertain to the “second” or “progressive” sense of justification, and such justification (i.e., righteousness) is said to be “increased” by participation in these sacraments. There is finally a third or “ultimate” stage of justification by which, providing one had not committed a mortal sin, he or she is allowed into heaven.Fifth, due to the Reformers’ stress on the assurance of salvation, Trent was forced to deal with the subject. McGrath claims that they issued “an explicit condemnation of the Lutheran doctrine of assurance as an assertion contrary to proper Christian humility.”²⁷ However, this explicit condemnation deals with “infallible certainty,” which many Catholic scholars point out is not necessary, if indeed it is possible. In fact, “in many ways Roman [Catholic] dogmatics have pointed out that Rome’s rejection of personal assurance of salvation does not mean the proclamation of a religion of uninterrupted anxiety.”²⁸ For the Roman Catholic “there is an intermediate position between the assurance of faith and doubt. This position is that of moral certainty which excludes any anxiety and despair.”²⁹ Thus, Christians can be said to have relative, not absolute (i.e., infallible), certainty of salvation.Sixth, Trent states that our initial justification must be seen as a “gift.” Thus, it comes as a surprise to many Protestants that Roman Catholics believe that “if anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done…without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be anathema.”³⁰ Further, “none of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification. For if it is by grace, it is no more by works; otherwise, as the apostle says, grace is no more grace.”³¹In this connection it is only fair to point out that when Catholic scholars cite James 2:24 – that “we are justified by works” – they do not mean this initial justification at baptism which comes only by grace. Rather, they are referring to progressive justification (growth in righteousness) which Protestants call sanctification. On the other hand, Trent does assert that works are necessary for salvation in the progressive and eventual senses. For Trent made it dogma that “by his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God.”³² And it is precisely here that Catholics and evangelicals disagree.

Justification- A PROTESTANT CRITIQUE OF TRENT

With all due recognition of the common Augustinian core of salvation by grace, there are some important differences between the Roman Catholic and evangelical Protestant views of justification. Unfortunately, the well-intentioned but unsuccessful recent statement, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” lacked precision in these very areas, speaking of a common belief that “we are justified by grace through faith.”³³ What it failed to note, however, is what the Reformation was fought over, namely, that Scripture teaches, and Protestants affirm, that we are saved by grace through faith alone (sola fide). Since this was the heart cry of the Reformation, many evangelicals refuse to sign the statement, believing it would betray the Reformation.

Justification- The Biblical Basis for Forensic Justification

In order to appreciate the significant contribution of the Reformers it is necessary to examine the biblical background of the term justification. As we will see, there are solid biblical grounds for the Protestant doctrine of forensic justification.The background for the doctrine of forensic justification (as with other New Testament doctrines as well) is found in the Old Testament. Concerning the Hebrew word hitsdiq, usually rendered “justify,” more often than not it is “used in a forensic or legal sense, as meaning, not ‘to make just or righteous,’ but ‘to declare judicially that one is in harmony with the law.’”³⁴ George Eldon Ladd notes that “he is righteous who is judged to be in the right (Ex. 23:7; Deut. 25:1); i.e., who in judgment through acquittal thus stands in a right relationship with God.”³⁵Turning to the New Testament, the Greek verb translated “to justify” is dikaioó. This word is used by Paul in a forensic or legal sense; the sinner is declared to be righteous (cf. Rom. 3-4). As Anthony Hoekema observes, “The opposite of condemnation, however, is not ‘making righteous’ but ‘declaring righteous.’” Therefore, by dikaioó, Paul means the “legal imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the believing sinner.”³⁶When a person is justified, God pronounces that one acquitted – in advance of the final judgment. Therefore, “the resulting righteousness is not ethical perfection; it is ‘sinlessness’ in the sense that God no longer counts a man’s sin against him (II Cor. 5:19).”³⁷ Thus we find in the New Testament that “justification is the declarative act of God by which, on the basis of the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning death, he pronounces believers to have fulfilled all of the requirements of the law which pertain to them” (emphasis in original).³⁸

Justification- The Incompatibility of Grace and Merit

Much criticism of the Catholic view of justification revolves around the concept of merit that was elevated by Trent to the status of infallible dogma. While Catholics wish to remind us that the whole doctrine of merit should be viewed in the context of grace,³⁹ they overlook the fact that Scripture teaches that grace and meritorious works are mutually exclusive (e.g., Rom. 11:6).The New Testament clearly speaks against obtaining salvation (whether justification or sanctification) as a “reward” (i.e., wage) for work done. For the Scriptures insist that gifts cannot be worked for; only wages can (Rom. 4:4-5). Grace means unmerited favor, and reward based on works is merited. Hence, grace and works are no more coherent than is an unmerited merit!

Justification- Eternal Life Is a Gift That Cannot Be Merited

The Council of Trent declared clearly that to “those who work well ‘unto the end’ [Matt. 10:22], and who trust in God, life eternal is to be proposed, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, ‘and as a recompense’ which is…to be faithfully given to their good works and merit.”⁴⁰ By contrast, the Bible declares clearly and emphatically that “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23).Further, in direct opposition to the Catholic position, the Bible guarantees eternal life is a present possession of those who believe. Jesus said: “Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever hears my words and believes in the one who sent me has [present tense] eternal life and will not come into condemnation, but is [right now] passed from death to life.” This same truth is repeated over and over in Scripture (e.g., John 3:36; 1 John 5:13). But according to the Roman Catholic view, one must await a final justification at death to know whether he or she has eternal life and will not see God’s condemnation.In the entire Gospel of John only one condition is laid down for obtaining eternal life – belief (John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 20:31, etc.). If salvation were not by faith alone, then the whole message of John would be deceptive, stating that there is only one condition for salvation when there are two: faith plus works. Indeed, John states explicitly that the only “work” necessary for salvation is to believe (John 6:29). There is simply nothing else to do for our salvation. Jesus did it all (John 19:31).It is true that all who are saved by God’s grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9) will be rewarded for their works for Christ (1 Cor. 3:11ff.; 2 Cor. 5:10). These rewards for service, however, have nothing to do with whether we will be in heaven, but only have to do with what status we will have there. As Jesus said, some of the saved will reign over ten cities and others over five (Luke 19:17, 19). But all believers will be in His kingdom.

Justification- Christians Work from Salvation, Not for It

Put in traditional terms, Catholicism fails to recognize the important difference between working for salvation and working from salvation. We do not work in order to receive salvation; rather, we work because we have already received it. God works salvation in us by justification and we work it out in sanctification (Phil. 2:12-13). But neither justification nor sanctification can be merited by works; they are given by grace.Despite the fact that the Catholic understanding of salvation does not logically eliminate forensic justification, nevertheless, it does obscure it. For when one fails to make a clear distinction between forensic justification and practical sanctification, then the good works Catholics believe are needed for sanctification tend to obscure the fact that works are not needed for justification.Of course, good works are necessary in the Christian life. But Protestants have solved the problem in a much more biblical and balanced way. They insist that while we are saved by faith alone, nevertheless, the faith that saves us is not alone. It inevitably produces good works. That is, we are saved by faith but for works. Works are not a condition of justification but they are a consequence of it. Thus, someone who is truly saved will manifest good works. If there are no good works present, then there is no reason to believe that true saving faith is present either.As James said, “Faith without works is dead.” Such faith cannot save. “Can [mere intellectual] faith save him?” Only the kind of faith that produces good works can save. So, we are not saved (i.e., do not receive eternal life) by works, but we are saved by the kind of faith that produces good works.

Justification- Preserving the Pure Doctrine of Grace

We conclude by noting that Protestants, following the clear biblical distinction between forensic justification and practical sanctification, make the way of salvation much clearer and preserve the doctrine of grace (which Catholics also claim) in a much purer form. For once believers know they have right standing before God (=are justified) by faith alone apart from works, then their minds are not cluttered with works they must perform in order to know all their sins are forgiven (past, present, and future) and they are on their way to heaven.While Catholicism acknowledges that there is an initial act of justification (which some even admit includes a forensic act), nevertheless, it also maintains that one must work to faithfully avoid mortal sin in order to achieve final justification before God. Thus, works are ultimately necessary for salvation. But this is contrary to the biblical teaching that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, based on Christ alone. And, despite Catholic protest to the contrary, this is not conducive to the assurance of salvation by which we “know…[we] have eternal life” (1 John 5:13), and by which we are connected to God by His inseparable love (Rom. 8:1, 36-39).

Notes

¹This material is taken from a forthcoming book by Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Baker, 1995), as extensively edited by Elliot Miller.²Tertullian, De paenitentia 2; 1.323.44-6.³An excellent historical analysis of this period can be found in Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, vol. l (Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1986), 1-23. ⁴Augustine, City of God 10.8.⁵Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. Roy J. Deferrari from the 30th edition of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1957), “Grace” Can. 3.176., p. 76.⁶Semi-Pelagianism held that man cooperated with God by ordinarily taking the first steps toward salvation. ⁷McGrath, 110. ⁸Or “Why God Became Man?” The Library of Christian Classics, vol. X, ed. and trans. Eugene R. Fairweather (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1951).⁹See, e.g., Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 2a2ae. 2, 4, in The Basic Writings of Thomas Aquinas, ed. Anton C. Pegis (New York: Random House, 1944), 1079.¹⁰Aquinas, 2a2ae. 2, 6, ad 1.¹¹Cited by R. H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Nashville: Abington, 1978), 65. ¹²Martin Luther, Explanations of the Ninety-five Theses, published August 1518.¹³Peter Toon, Justification and Sanctification (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1983), 58. ¹⁴Bernard M. G. Reardon, Religious Thought in the Reformation (London: Longman, 1981), 190.¹⁵John Calvin, Institutes, III, I xv, 4.¹⁶Ibid., 2, i.¹⁷J. K. S. Reid, trans., Calvin: Theological Treatises, vol. 22, The Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), article 5.¹⁸Calvin, 2I, xi, 2.¹⁹Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1986), 36.²⁰Reardon, 196.²¹Colin Brown, Christianity and Western Thought, vol. 1 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 165.²²Harold O. J. Brown, The Protest of a Troubled Protestant (New Rochelle: Arlington House, 1969), 107.²³McGrath, 69.²⁴Ibid., 72. The words “solely” and “merely” in these quotes indicate that Trent did not reject forensic justification as such. ²⁵Denzinger, 814, 258. ²⁶H. George Anderson, Justification by Faith (Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1985), 34.²⁷McGrath, vol. 2, 78.²⁸Gerrit C. Berkouwer, The Conflict with Rome (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1958), 114.²⁹Bernhard Bartmann, Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, II, 109. Quoted in Ibid., 115.³⁰“Trent,” see Denzinger, 811, p. 258. ³¹Ibid., ch. 8, 801, 252.³²Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, 1960), 264.³³“Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium,” final draft (29 March 1994). ³⁴Anthony A. Hoekema, Saved by Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 154.³⁵George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 440.³⁶Hoekema, 154.³⁷Ladd, 446. ³⁸Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 956. ³⁹See Avery Dulles, S. J., in Anderson, 274.⁴⁰Denzinger, 809, p. 257.

Papal Infallibility- A SummaryPapal infallibility was formalized at the First Vatican Council, A.D. 1870. It is required belief for Roman Catholics but is rejected by evangelicals. On examination, the major biblical texts used to defend this dogma do not support the Catholic position. Further, there are serious theological and historical problems with the doctrine of papal infallibility. Infallibility stands as an irrevocable roadblock to any ecclesiastical union between Catholics and Protestants.

According to Roman Catholic dogma, the teaching magisterium of the church of Rome is infallible when officially defining faith and morals for believers. One manifestation of this doctrine is popularly known as “papal infallibility.” It was pronounced a dogma in A.D. 1870 at the First Vatican Council. Since this is a major bone of contention between Catholics and Protestants, it calls for attention here.

Papal Infallibility- THE DOCTRINE EXPLAINED

Roman Catholic authorities define infallibility as “immunity from error, i.e., protection against either passive or active deception. Persons or agencies are infallible to the extent that they can neither deceive nor be deceived.”¹ Regarding the authority of the pope, Vatican I pronounced that

all the faithful of Christ must believe “that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and that the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true [vicar] of Christ and head of the whole Church and faith, and teacher of all Christians; and that to him was handed down in blessed Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church, just as is also contained in the records of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons.”²

Furthermore, the Council went on to speak of “The Infallible ‘Magisterium’ [teaching authority] of the Roman Pontiff,” declaring that

when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. [emphases added]³

Then follows the traditional condemnation on any who reject papal infallibility: “But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema” [i.e., excommunicated].⁴

Papal Infallibility- Qualifications

Roman Catholic scholars have expounded significant qualifications on the doctrine. First, they acknowledge that the pope is not infallible in everything he teaches but only when he speaks ex cathedra, as the official interpreter of faith and morals. Avery Dulles, an authority on Catholic dogma, states for a pronouncement to be ex cathedra it must be:

(1) in fulfillment of his office as supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians; (2) in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, i.e., as successor of Peter; (3) determining a doctrine of faith and morals, i.e., a doctrine expressing divine revelation; (4) imposing a doctrine to be held definitively by all.⁵

Dulles notes that “Vatican I firmly rejected one condition…as necessary for infallibility, namely, the consent of the whole church.”⁶ Second, the pope is not infallible when pronouncing on matters that do not pertain to “faith and morals.” On these matters he may be as fallible as anyone else. Third, although the pope is infallible, he is not absolutely so. As Dulles observes, “absolute infallibility (in all respects, without dependence on another) is proper to God….All other infallibility is derivative and limited in scope.”⁷ Fourth, infallibility entails irrevocability. A pope cannot, for example, declare previous infallible pronouncements of the church void. Finally, in contrast to Vatican I, many (usually liberal or progressive) Catholic theologians believe that the pope is not infallible independent of the bishops but only as he speaks in one voice with and for them in collegiality. As Dulles noted, infallibility “is often attributed to the bishops as a group, to ecumenical councils, and to popes.”⁸ Conservatives argue that Vatican I condemned this view.⁹

Papal Infallibility- A PROTESTANT RESPONSE

Not only Protestants but the rest of Christendom — Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox included — reject the doctrine of papal infallibility.¹⁰ Protestants accept the infallibility of Scripture but deny that any human being or institution is the infallible interpreter of Scripture. Harold O. J. Brown writes: “In every age there have been those who considered the claims of a single bishop to supreme authority to be a sure identification of the corruption of the church, and perhaps even the work of the Antichrist. Pope Gregory I (A.D. 590-604) indignantly reproached Patriarch John the Faster of Constantinople for calling himself the universal bishop; Gregory did so to defend the rights of all the bishops, himself included, and not because he wanted the title for himself.”¹¹

Papal Infallibility- Biblical Problems

There are several texts Catholics use to defend the infallibility of the bishop of Rome. We will focus here on the three most important of these. Matthew 16:18ff. Roman Catholics use the statement of Jesus to Peter in Matthew 16:18ff. that “upon this rock I will build my church…” to support papal infallibility. They argue that the truth of the church could only be secure if the one on whom it rested (Peter) were infallible. Properly understood, however, there are several reasons this passage falls far short of support for the dogma of papal infallibility. First, many Protestants insist that Christ was not referring to Peter when he spoke of “this rock” being the foundation of the church.¹² They note that: (1) Whenever Peter is referred to in this passage it is in the second person (“you”), but “this rock” is in the third person. (2) “Peter” (petros) is a masculine singular term and “rock” (petra) is feminine singular. Hence, they do not have the same referent. And even if Jesus did speak these words in Aramaic (which does not distinguish genders), the inspired Greek original does make such distinctions. (3) What is more, the same authority Jesus gave to Peter (Matt. 16:18) is given later to all the apostles (Matt. 18:18). (4) Great authorities, some Catholic, can be cited in agreement with this interpretation, including John Chrysostom and St. Augustine. The latter wrote: “On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (petra) is Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built.”¹³ Second, even if Peter is the rock referred to by Christ, as even some non-Catholic scholars believe, he was not the only rock in the foundation of the church. Jesus gave all the apostles the same power (“keys”) to “bind” and “loose” that he gave to Peter (cf. Matt. 18:18). These were common rabbinic phrases used of “forbidding” and “allowing.” These “keys” were not some mysterious power given to Peter alone but the power granted by Christ to His church by which, when they proclaim the Gospel, they can proclaim God’s forgiveness of sin to all who believe. As John Calvin noted, “Since heaven is opened to us by the doctrine of the gospel, the word ‘keys’ affords an appropriate metaphor. Now men are bound and loosed in no other way than when faith reconciles some to God, while their own unbelief constrains others the more.”¹⁴ Further, Scripture affirms that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone” (Eph. 2:20). Two things are clear from this: first, all the apostles, not just Peter, are the foundation of the church; second, the only one who was given a place of uniqueness or prominence was Christ, the capstone. Indeed, Peter himself referred to Christ as “the cornerstone” of the church (1 Pet. 2:7) and the rest of believers as “living stones” (v. 4) in the superstructure of the church. There is no indication that Peter was given a special place of prominence in the foundation of the church above the rest of the apostles and below Christ. He is one “stone” along with the other eleven apostles (Eph. 2:20). Third, Peter’s role in the New Testament falls far short of the Catholic claim that he was given unique authority among the apostles for numerous reasons.¹⁵

(1) While Peter did preach the initial sermon on the day of Pentecost, his role in the rest of Acts is scarcely that of the chief apostle but at best one of the “most eminent apostles” (plural, 2 Cor. 21:11, NKJV).(2) No one reading Galatians carefully can come away with the impression that any apostle, including Peter, is superior to the apostle Paul. For he claimed to get his revelation independent of the other apostles (Gal. 1:12; 2:2) and to be on the same level as Peter (2:8), and he even used his revelation to rebuke Peter (2:11-14). (3) Indeed, if Peter was the God-ordained superior apostle, it is strange that more attention is given to the ministry of the apostle Paul than to that of Peter in the Book of Acts. Peter is the central figure among many in chapters 1-12, but Paul is the dominant focus of chapters 13-28.¹⁶ (4) Furthermore, though Peter addressed the first council (in Acts 15), he exercised no primacy over the other apostles. Significantly, the decision came from “the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church” (15:22; cf. v. 23). Many scholars believe that James, not Peter, exercised leadership over the council, since he brought the final words and spoke decisively concerning what action should be taken (vv. 13-21).¹⁷ (5) In any event, by Peter’s own admission he was not the pastor of the church but only a “fellow presbyter [elder]” (1 Pet. 5:1-2, emphasis added). And while he did claim to be “an apostle” (1 Pet. 1:1) he nowhere claimed to be “the apostle” or the chief of apostles. He certainly was a leading apostle, but even then he was only one of the “pillars” (plural) of the church along with James and John, not the pillar (see Gal. 2:9).

This is not to deny that Peter had a significant role in the early church; he did. He even seems to have been the initial leader of the apostolic band. As already noted, along with James and John he was one of the “pillars” of the early church (Gal. 2:9). For it was he that preached the great sermon at Pentecost when the gift of the Holy Spirit was given, welcoming many Jews into the Christian fold. It was Peter also who spoke when the Spirit of God fell on the Gentiles in Acts 10. From this point on, however, Peter fades into the background and Paul is the dominant apostle, carrying the gospel to the ends of the earth (Acts 13-28), writing some one-half of the New Testament (as compared to Peter’s two epistles), and even rebuking Peter for his hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11-14). In short, there is no evidence in Matthew 16 or any other text for the Roman Catholic dogma of the superiority, to say nothing of the infallibility, of Peter. He did, of course, write two infallible books (1 and 2 Peter), as did other apostles. John 21:15ff. In John 21:15ff. Jesus says to Peter, “Feed my lambs” and “Tend my sheep” and “Feed my sheep” (vv. 15, 16, 17). Roman Catholic scholars believe this shows that Christ made Peter the supreme pastor of the church. This means he must protect the church from error, they say, and to do so he must necessarily be infallible. But this is a serious overclaim for the passage. First, whether this text is taken of Peter alone or of all the disciples, there is absolutely no reference to any infallible authority. Jesus’ concern here is simply a matter of pastoral care. Feeding is a God-given pastoral function that even nonapostles have in the New Testament (cf. Acts 20:28; Eph. 4:11-12; 1 Pet. 5:1-2). One does not have to be an infallible shepherd in order to feed one’s flock properly. Second, if Peter had infallibility (the ability not to mislead), then why did he mislead believers and have to be rebuked by the apostle Paul for so doing? The infallible Scriptures, accepted by Roman Catholics, declared of Peter on one occasion, “He clearly was wrong” and “stood condemned.”¹⁸ Peter and others “acted hypocritically…with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.” And hypocrisy here is defined by the Catholic Bible (NAB) as “pretense, play-acting; moral insincerity.” It seems difficult to exonerate Peter from the charge that he led believers astray. And this failing is hard to reconcile with the Roman Catholic claim that, as the infallible pastor of the church, he could never do so! The Catholic response — that Peter was not infallible in his actions, only his ex cathedra words — rings hollow when we remember that “actions speak louder than words.” By his actions he was teaching other believers a false doctrine concerning the need for Jewish believers to separate themselves from Gentile believers. The fact is that Peter cannot be both an infallible guide for faith and morals and also at the same time mislead other believers on the important matter of faith and morals of which Galatians speaks. Third, in view of the New Testament terminology used of Peter it is clear that he would never have accepted the titles used of the Roman Catholic pope today: “Holy Father” (cf. Matt. 23:9), “Supreme Pontiff,” or “Vicar of Christ.” The only vicar (representative) of Christ on earth today is the blessed Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26). As noted earlier, Peter referred to himself in much more humble terms as “an apostle,” not the apostle (1 Pet. 1:1, emphasis added) and “fellow-presbyter [elder]” (1 Pet. 5:1, emphasis added), not the supreme bishop, the pope, or the Holy Father. John 11:49-52. In John 11:49-52 Caiaphas, the High Priest, in his official capacity as High Priest, made an unwitting prophecy about Christ dying for the nation of Israel so that they would not perish. Some Catholics maintain that in the Old Testament the High Priest had an official revelatory function connected with his office, and therefore we should expect an equivalent (namely, the pope) in the New Testament. However, this argument is seriously flawed. First, this is merely an argument from analogy and is not based on any New Testament declaration that it is so. Second, the New Testament affirmations made about the Old Testament priesthood reject that analogy, for they say explicitly that the Old Testament priesthood has been abolished. The writer to the Hebrews declared that “there is a change of priesthood” from that of Aaron (Heb. 7:12). The Aaronic priesthood has been fulfilled in Christ who is a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 7:15-17). Third, even Catholics acknowledge that there is no new revelation after the time of the New Testament function. So no one (popes included) after the first century can have a revelatory function in the proper sense of giving new revelations. Finally, there is a New Testament revelatory function like that of the Old, but it is in the New Testament “apostles and prophets” (cf. Eph. 2:20; 3:5), which revelation ceased when they died. To assume a revelatory (or even infallible defining) function was passed on after them and is resident in the bishop of Rome is to beg the question. In addition to a total lack of support from the Scriptures, there are many other arguments against papal infallibility. We will divide them into theological and historical arguments.

Papal Infallibility- Theological Problems

There are serious theological problems with papal infallibility. One is the question of heresy being taught by an infallible pope. The Problem of Heretical Popes. Pope Honorius I (A.D. 625-638) was condemned by the Sixth General Council for teaching the monothelite heresy (that there was only one will in Christ¹⁹). Even Roman Catholic expert, Ludwig Ott, admits that “Pope Leo II (682-683) confirmed his anathematization…”²⁰ This being the case, we are left with the incredible situation of an infallible pope teaching a fallible, indeed heretical, doctrine. If the papal teaching office is infallible — if it cannot mislead on doctrine and ethics — then how could a papal teaching be heretical? This is misleading in doctrine in the most serious manner. To claim that the pope was not infallible on this occasion is only to further undermine the doctrine of infallibility. How can one know just when his doctrinal pronouncements are infallible and when they are not? There is no infallible list of which are the infallible pronouncements and which are not.²¹ But without such a list, how can the Roman Catholic church provide infallible guidance on doctrine and morals? If the pope can be fallible on one doctrine, why cannot he be fallible on another? Further, Ott’s comment that Pope Leo did not condemn Pope Honorius with heresy but with “negligence in the suppression of error” is ineffective as a defense.²² First, it still raises serious questions as to how Pope Honorius could be an infallible guide in faith and morals, since he taught heresy. And the Catholic response that he was not speaking ex cathedra when he taught this heresy is convenient but inadequate. Indeed, invoking such a distinction only tends to undermine faith in the far more numerous occasions when the pope is speaking with authority but not with infallibility. Second, it does not explain the fact that the Sixth General Council did condemn Honorius as a heretic, as even Ott admits.²³ Was this infallible Council in error? Finally, by disclaiming the infallibility of the pope in this and like situations, the number of occasions on which infallible pronouncements were made is relatively rare. For example, the pope has officially spoken ex cathedra only one time this whole century (on the Bodily Assumption of Mary)! If infallibility is exercised only this rarely then its value for all practical purposes on almost all occasions is nill. This being the case, since the pope is only speaking with fallible authority on the vast majority of occasions, the Catholic is bound to accept his authority on faith and morals when he may (and sometimes has been) wrong. In short, the alleged infallible guidance the papacy is supposed to provide is negligible at best. Indeed, on the overwhelming number of occasions there is no infallible guidance at all. The Problem of Revelational Insufficiency. One of the chief reasons given by Catholic authorities as to the need for an infallible teaching magisterium is that we need infallible guidance to understand God’s infallible revelation. Otherwise it will be misinterpreted as with the many Protestant sects. To this the Protestant must respond, How is an infallible interpretation any better than the infallible revelation? Divine revelation is a disclosure or unveiling by God. But to claim, as Catholics do, that God’s infallible unveiling in the Bible needs further infallible unveiling by God is to say that it was not unveiled properly to begin with. To be sure, there is a difference between objective disclosure (revelation) and subjective discovery (understanding). But the central problem in this regard is not in the perception of God’s truth. Even His special revelation is “evident” and “able to be understood” (Rom. 1:19-20). Our most significant problem with regard to the truth of God’s revelation is reception. Paul declared that “the natural person does not accept [Gk: dekomai, welcome, receive] what pertains to the Spirit of God…” (1 Cor. 2:14). He cannot “know” (ginosko: know by experience) them because he does not receive them into his life, even though he understands them in his mind. So even though there is a difference between objective disclosure and subjective understanding, humans are “without excuse” for failing to understand the objective revelation of God, whether in nature or in Scripture (Rom. 1:20). In this regard it is interesting that Catholic theology itself maintains that unbelievers should and can understand the truth of natural law apart from the teaching magisterium. Why then should they need an infallible teaching magisterium in order to properly understand the more explicit divine law? It seems singularly inconsistent for Catholic scholars to claim they need another mind to interpret Scripture correctly for them when the mind God gave them is sufficient to interpret everything else, including some things much more difficult than Scripture. Many Catholic scholars, for example, are experts in interpreting classical literature, involving both the moral and religious meaning of those texts. Yet these same educated minds are said to be inadequate to obtain a reliable religious and moral interpretation of the texts of their own Scriptures. Furthermore, it does not take an expert to interpret the crucial teachings of the Bible. The New Testament was written in the vernacular of the times, the trade-language of the first century, known as koine Greek. It was a book written in the common, everyday language for the common, everyday person. Likewise, the vast majority of English translations of the Bible are also written in plain English, including Catholic versions. The essential truths of the Bible can be understood by any literate person. In fact, it is an insult to the intelligence of the common people to suggest that they can read and understand the daily news for themselves but need an infallible teaching magisterium in order to understand God’s Good News for them in the New Testament. The Problem of Indecisiveness of the Teaching Magisterium. There is another problem with the Catholic argument for an infallible teaching magisterium: if an infallible teaching magisterium is needed to overcome the conflicting interpretations of Scripture, why is it that even these “infallibly” decisive declarations are also subject to conflicting interpretations? There are many hotly disputed differences among Catholic scholars on just what ex cathedra statements mean, including those on Scripture, tradition, Mary, and justification. Even though there may be future clarifications on some of these, the problem remains for two reasons. First, it shows the indecisive nature of supposedly infallible pronouncements. Second, judging by past experience, even these future declarations will not settle all matters completely. Pronouncements on the inerrancy of Scripture are a case in point. Despite “infallible” statements, there is strong disagreement among Catholics on whether the Bible is really infallible in all matters or only on matters of salvation.

Papal Infallibility- Historical Problems

In addition to biblical and theological problems, there are serious historical problems with the Catholic claim for infallibility. Two are of special note here. The Problem of the Antipopes. Haunting the history of Roman Catholicism is the scandalous specter of having more than one infallible pope at the same time — a pope and an antipope. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says “there have been about thirty-five antipopes in the history of the Church.”²⁴ How can there be two infallible and opposing popes at the same time? Which is the true pope? Since there is no infallible list of popes or even an infallible way to determine who is the infallible pope, the system has a serious logical problem. Further, this difficulty has had several actual historical manifestations which bring into focus the whole question of an infallible pope.²⁵ Catholic apologists claim that there were not really two popes, since only one can be infallible. However, since the faithful have no way to know for sure which one is the pope, which one should they look to for guidance? Each pope can excommunicate the other (and sometimes have). This being the case, claiming that only one is the real pope is at best only a theoretical solution. It does not solve the practical problem of which pope should be followed. The Problem of Galileo. Perhaps one of the greatest embarrassments to the “infallible” church is its fallible judgment about Galileo Galilei (A.D. 1564-1642), generally known as Galileo. In opposition to Galileo and the Copernican solar-centric theory he adopted, the Catholic church sided with the scientifically outdated Ptolemaic geocentric universe. In A.D. 1616, the Copernican theory was condemned at Rome.²⁶ Aristotelian scientists, the Jesuits, the Dominicans, and three popes (Paul V, Gregory XV, and Urban VIII), played key roles in the controversy. Galileo was summoned by the Inquisition in 1632, tried, and on June 21, 1633, pronounced “vehemently suspected of heresy.” Eventually Pope Urban VIII allowed Galileo to return to his home in Florence, where he remained under house arrest until his death in 1642. After the church had suffered many centuries of embarrassment for its condemnation of Galileo, on November 10, 1979, Pope John Paul II spoke to the Pontifical Academy of Science. In the address titled, “Faith, Science and the Galileo Case,” the pope called for a reexamination of the whole episode.²⁷ On May 9, 1983, while addressing the subject of the church and science, John Paul II conceded that “Galileo had ‘suffered from departments of the church.’”²⁸ This, of course, is not a clear retraction of the condemnation, nor does it solve the problem of how an infallible pronouncement of the Catholic church could be in error. Roman Catholic responses to the Galileo episode leave something to be desired. One Catholic authority claims that while both Paul V and Urban VIII were committed anti-Copernicans, their pronouncements were not ex cathedra. The decree of A.D. 1616 “was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in regard of infallibility, this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a dogmatic decree.”²⁹ As to the second trial in 1633, which also resulted in a condemnation of Galileo, this sentence is said to be of lesser importance because it “did not receive the Pope’s signature.”³⁰ Another Catholic authority states that although the theologians’ treatment of Galileo was inappropriate, “the condemnation was the act of a Roman Congregation and in no way involved infallible teaching authority.”³¹ Still another source observes, “The condemnation of Galileo by the Inquisition had nothing to do with the question of papal infallibility, since no question of faith or morals was papally condemned ex cathedra.“³² And yet another Catholic apologist suggests that, although the decision was a “regrettable” case of “imprudence,” there was no error made by the pope, since Galileo was not really condemned of heresy but only strongly suspected of it. None of these ingenious solutions is very convincing, having all the earmarks of after-the-fact tinkering with the pronouncements that resulted from this episode. Galileo and his opponents would be nonplussed to discover that the serious charges leveled against him were not “ex cathedra” in force. And in view of the strong nature of both the condemnation and the punishment, he would certainly be surprised to hear Catholic apologists claim that he was not really being condemned for false teaching but only that “his ‘proof’ did not impress even astronomers of that day — nor would they impress astronomers today”!³³ At any rate, the pope’s condemnation of Galileo only leads to undermine the alleged infallibility of the Catholic church. Of course, Catholic apologists can always resort to their apologetic warehouse — the claim that the pope was not really speaking infallibly on that occasion. As we have already observed, however, constant appeal to this nonverifiable distinction only tends to undermine the very infallibility it purports to defend.

Papal Infallibility- AN IMPASSABLE ROADBLOCK

Despite the common creedal and doctrinal heritage of Catholics and Protestants, there are some serious differences.³⁴ None of these is more basic than the question of authority. Catholics affirm de fide, as an unchangeable part of their faith, the infallible teaching authority of the Roman church as manifested in the present bishop of Rome (the pope). But what Catholics affirm “infallibly” Protestants deny emphatically. This is an impassable roadblock to any ecclesiastical unity between Catholicism and orthodox Protestantism. No talk about “first among equals” or “collegiality” will solve the problem. For the very concept of an infallible teaching magisterium, however composed, is contrary to the basic Protestant principle of sola Scriptura, the Bible alone (see Part Three). Here we must agree to disagree. For while both sides believe the Bible is infallible, Protestants deny that the church or the pope has an infallible interpretation of it. Dr. Geisler is Dean of Southern Evangelical Seminary, Charlotte, North Carolina (704) 543-9475.

NOTES

¹ Avery Dulles, “Infallibility: The Terminology,” in Teaching Authority and Infallibility in the Church, ed. Paul C. Empie, T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph A. Burgess (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1978), 71. ² Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. Roy J. Deferrari (London: B. Herder Book Co., 1957), no. 1826, 454. ³ Ibid., no. 1839, 457. ⁴ Ibid., no. 1840. ⁵ Dulles, 79-80. ⁶ Ibid. ⁷ Ibid., 72. ⁸ Ibid. ⁹ They appeal to Denzinger 1839 to support their view. ¹⁰ Eastern Orthodoxy is willing to accept the bishop of Rome as “first among equals,” a place of honor coming short of the total superiority Roman Catholics ascribe to the pope. ¹¹ Harold O. J. Brown, The Protest of a Troubled Protestant (New York: Arlington House, 1969), 122. ¹² See James R. White, Answers to Catholic Claims (Southbridge, MA: Crowne Publications, 1990), 104-8. ¹³ Augustine, “On the Gospel of John,” Tractate 12435, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series I (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983), 7:450, as cited in Ibid., 106. ¹⁴ John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960) 4:6,4, p. 1105. ¹⁵ Many of these arguments are found in White, 101-2. ¹⁶ One cannot, as some Catholic scholars do, dismiss this dominant focus on St. Paul rather than Peter on the circumstantial fact that Luke wrote more about Paul because he was his travel companion. After all, it was the Holy Spirit who inspired what Luke wrote. ¹⁷ See F. F. Bruce, Peter, Stephen, James and John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979), 86ff. ¹⁸ This is the literal rendering given in the Roman Catholic New American Bible of Galatians 2:11. ¹⁹ See John Jefferson Davis, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994). Also see Ott, 238. ²⁰ Ott, 150. ²¹ Catholic apologists claim there are objective tests, such as: Was the pope speaking (1) to all believers, (2) on faith and morals, and (3) in his official capacity as pope (see Ott, 207). But these are not definitive as to which pronouncements are infallible for several reasons. First, there is no infallible statement on just what these criteria are. Second, there is not even universal agreement on what these criteria are. Third, there is no universal agreement on how to apply these or any criteria to all cases. ²² Ott, 150. ²³ Ibid. ²⁴ F. L. Cross, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 66. See also, A. Mercati, “The New List of the Popes,” in Medieval Studies, ix (1947), 71-80. ²⁵ See Jarislov Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1960), 40. ²⁶ New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols., prepared by an editorial staff at the Catholic University of America, Washington, DC (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967), vol. 6, 252. ²⁷ Brown, 177, n. 4. ²⁸ Ibid. See also “Discourse to Scientists on the 350th Anniversary of the Publication of Galileo’s ‘Dialoghi,’” in J. Neuner, S.J. and J. Dupuis, S.J., eds., The Christian Faith: Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church (New York: Alba House, 1990), 68. ²⁹ Charles G. Herbermann, et al., The Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols. and index (New York: Robert Appleton Co., 1909), vol. 6, 345. ³⁰ Ibid., 346. ³¹ New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 6, 254. ³² “Galileo Galilei,” in John J. Delaney and James E. Tobin, Dictionary of Catholic Biography (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1961), 456. ³³ See William G. Most, Catholic Apologetics Today: Answers to Modern Critics (Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, 1986), 168-69. ³⁴ Interestingly, the problem areas for evangelicals have also been addressed by some well-known Roman Catholic authorities, such as Athanasius, Jerome, and Aquinas. The evangelical case could be made for these writers on a number of issues. For example, Jerome did not accept the Catholic apocryphal (deuterocanonical) books and Aquinas rejected the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary.

Apostolic Tradition- The Evidence Against Apostolic TraditionThere are many reasons Protestants reject the Roman Catholic claim that there is an extrabiblical apostolic tradition of equal reliability and authenticity to Scripture. The following are some of the more significant ones.

Apostolic Tradition Argument- Oral Traditions Are Unreliable

In point of fact, oral traditions are notoriously unreliable. They are the stuff of which legends and myths are made. What is written is more easily preserved in its original form. Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper notes four advantages of a written revelation: (1) It has durability whereby errors of memory or accidental corruptions, deliberate or not, are minimized; (2) It can be universally disseminated through translation and reproduction; (3) It has the attribute of fixedness and purity; (4) It is given a finality and normativeness which other forms of communication cannot attain.¹⁵ By contrast, what is not written is more easily polluted. We find an example of this in the New Testament. There was an unwritten “apostolic tradition” (i.e., one coming from the apostles) based on a misunderstanding of what Jesus said. They wrongly assumed that Jesus affirmed that the apostle John would not die. John, however, debunked this false tradition in his authoritative written record (John 21:22-23). Common sense and historical experience inform us that the generation alive when an alleged revelation was given is in a much better position to know if it is a true revelation than are succeeding generations, especially those hundreds of years later. Many traditions proclaimed to be divine revelation by the Roman Catholic Magisterium were done so centuries, even a millennia or so, after they were allegedly given by God. And in the case of some of these, there is no solid evidence that the tradition was believed by any significant number of orthodox Christians until centuries after they occurred. But those living at such a late date are in a much inferior position than contemporaries, such as those who wrote the New Testament, to know what was truly a revelation from God.

Apostolic Tradition Argument- There Are Contradictory Traditions

It is acknowledged by all, even by Catholic scholars, that there are contradictory Christian traditions. In fact, the great medieval theologian Peter Abelard noted hundreds of differences. For example, some fathers (e.g., Augustine) supported the Old Testament Apocrypha while others (e.g., Jerome) opposed it. Some great teachers (e.g., Aquinas) opposed the Immaculate Conception of Mary while others (e.g., Scotus) favored it. Indeed, some fathers opposed sola Scriptura, but others favored it. Now this very fact makes it impossible to trust tradition in any authoritative sense. For the question always arises: which of the contradictory traditions (teachings) should be accepted? To say, “The one pronounced authoritative by the church” begs the question, since the infallibility of tradition is a necessary link in the argument for the very doctrine of the infallible authority of the church. Thus this infallibility should be provable without appealing to the Magisterium. The fact is that there are so many contradictory traditions that tradition, as such, is rendered unreliable as an authoritative source of dogma. Nor does it suffice to argue that while particular fathers cannot be trusted, nonetheless, the “unanimous consent” of the fathers can be. For there is no unanimous consent of the fathers on many doctrines “infallibly” proclaimed by the Catholic church (see below). In some cases there is not even a majority consent. Thus to appeal to the teaching Magisterium of the Catholic church to settle the issue begs the question. The Catholic response to this is that just as the bride recognizes the voice of her husband in a crowd, even so the church recognizes the voice of her Husband in deciding which tradition is authentic. The analogy, however, is faulty. First, it assumes (without proof) that there is some divinely appointed postapostolic way to decide — extrabiblically — which traditions were from God. Second, historical evidence such as that which supports the reliability of the New Testament is not to be found for the religious tradition used by Roman Catholics. There is, for example, no good evidence to support the existence of first century eyewitnesses (confirmed by miracles) who affirm the traditions pronounced infallible by the Roman Catholic church. Indeed, many Catholic doctrines are based on traditions that only emerge several centuries later and are disputed by both other traditions and the Bible (e.g., the Bodily Assumption of Mary). Finally, the whole argument reduces to a subjective mystical experience that is given plausibility only because the analogy is false. Neither the Catholic church as such, nor any of its leaders, has experienced down through the centuries anything like a continual hearing of God’s actual voice, so that it can recognize it again whenever He speaks. The truth is that the alleged recognition of her Husband’s voice is nothing more than subjective faith in the teaching Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church.

Apostolic Tradition Argument- Catholic Use of Tradition Is Not Consistent

Not only are there contradictory traditions, but the Roman Catholic church is arbitrary and inconsistent in its choice of which tradition to pronounce infallible. This is evident in a number of areas. First, the Council of Trent chose to follow the weaker tradition in pronouncing the apocryphal books inspired. The earliest and best authorities, including the translator of the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible, St. Jerome, opposed the Apocrypha. Second, support from tradition for the dogma of the Bodily Assumption of Mary is late and weak. Yet despite the lack of any real evidence from Scripture or any substantial evidence from the teachings of early church fathers, Rome chose to pronounce this an infallible truth of the Catholic faith. In short, Roman Catholic dogmas at times do not grow out of rationally weighing the evidence of tradition but rather out of arbitrarily choosing which of the many conflicting traditions they wish to pronounce infallible. Thus, the “unanimous consent of the fathers” to which Trent commanded allegiance is a fiction. Third, apostolic tradition is nebulous. As has often been pointed out, “Never has the Roman Catholic Church given a complete and exhaustive list of the contents of extrabiblical apostolic tradition. It has not dared to do so because this oral tradition is such a nebulous entity.”¹⁶ That is to say, even if all extrabiblical revelation definitely exists somewhere in some tradition (as Catholics claim), which ones these are has nowhere been declared. Finally, if the method by which they choose which traditions to canonize were followed in the practice of textual criticism of the Bible, one could never arrive at a sound reconstruction of the original manuscripts. For textual criticism involves weighing the evidence as to what the original actually said, not reading back into it what subsequent generations would like it to have said. Indeed, even most contemporary Catholic biblical scholars do not follow such an arbitrary procedure when determining the translation of the original text of Scripture (as in The New American Bible).

Apostolic Tradition- Conclusion

In conclusion, the question of authority is crucial to the differences between Catholics and Protestants. One of these is whether the Bible alone has infallible authority. We have examined carefully the best Catholic arguments in favor of an additional authority to Scripture, infallible tradition, and found them all wanting. Further, we have advanced many reasons for accepting the Bible alone as the sufficient authority for all matters of faith and morals. This is supported by Scripture and sound reason.

To access and read the full article in the PDF file format, please click here.

A PROTESTANT DEFENSE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA

As convincing as these arguments may seem to a devout Catholic, they are devoid of substance. As we will see, each of the Roman Catholic arguments against the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura fails, and they are unable to provide any substantial basis for the Catholic dogma of an infallible oral tradition.

Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?

Two points must be made concerning whether the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible (e.g., the Trinity). Likewise, it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture. Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura. This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition. St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient. And contrary to some Catholic apologists, limiting this to only the Old Testament will not help the Catholic cause for two reasons: first, the New Testament is also called “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7); second, it is inconsistent to argue that God-breathed writings in the Old Testament are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the New Testament are not. Further, Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to the Bible as the final court of appeal. This they often did by the introductory phrase, “It is written,” which is repeated some 90 times in the New Testament. Jesus used this phrase three times when appealing to Scripture as the final authority in His dispute with Satan (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). Of course, Jesus (Matt. 5:22, 28, 31; 28:18) and the apostles (1 Cor. 5:3; 7:12) sometimes referred to their own God-given authority. It begs the question, however, for Roman Catholics to claim that this supports their belief that the church of Rome still has infallible authority outside the Bible today. For even they admit that no new revelation is being given today, as it was in apostolic times. In other words, the only reason Jesus and the apostles could appeal to an authority outside the Bible was that God was still giving normative (i.e., standard-setting) revelation for the faith and morals of believers. This revelation was often first communicated orally before it was finally committed to writing (e.g., 2 Thess. 2:5). Therefore, it is not legitimate to appeal to any oral revelation in New Testament times as proof that nonbiblical infallible authority is in existence today. What is more, Jesus made it clear that the Bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all tradition. He rebuked the Pharisees for not accepting sola Scriptura and negating the final authority of the Word of God by their religious traditions, saying, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?…You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition” (Matt. 15:3, 6). It is important to note that Jesus did not limit His statement to mere human traditions but applied it specifically to the traditions of the religious authorities who used their tradition to misinterpret the Scriptures. There is a direct parallel with the religious traditions of Judaism that grew up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures and the Christian traditions that have grown up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures since the first century. Indeed, since Catholic scholars make a comparison between the Old Testament high priesthood and the Roman Catholic papacy, this would seem to be a very good analogy. Finally, to borrow a phrase from St. Paul, the Bible constantly warns us “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).¹¹ This kind of exhortation is found throughout Scripture. Moses was told, “You shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it” (Deut. 4:2). Solomon reaffirmed this in Proverbs, saying, “Every word of God is tested….Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver” (Prov. 30:5-6). Indeed, John closed the last words of the Bible with the same exhortation, declaring: “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life…” (Rev. 22:18-19). Sola Scriptura could hardly be stated more emphatically. Of course, none of these are a prohibition on future revelations. But they do apply to the point of difference between Protestants and Catholics, namely, whether there are any authoritative normative revelations outside those revealed to apostles and prophets and inscripturated in the Bible. And this is precisely what these texts say. Indeed, even the prophet himself was not to add to the revelation God gave him. For prophets were not infallible in everything they said, but only when giving God’s revelation to which they were not to add or from which they were not to subtract a word. Since both Catholics and Protestants agree that there is no new revelation beyond the first century, it would follow that these texts do support the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura. For if there is no normative revelation after the time of the apostles and even the prophets themselves were not to add to the revelations God gave them in the Scriptures, then the Scriptures alone are the only infallible source of divine revelation. Roman Catholics admit that the New Testament is the only infallible record of apostolic teaching we have from the first century. However, they do not seem to appreciate the significance of this fact as it bears on the Protestant argument for sola Scriptura. For even many early fathers testified to the fact that all apostolic teaching was put in the New Testament. While acknowledging the existence of apostolic tradition, J. D. N. Kelly concluded that “admittedly there is no evidence for beliefs or practices current in the period which were not vouched for in the books later known as the New Testament.” Indeed, many early fathers, including Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and Augustine, believed that the Bible was the only infallible basis for all Christian doctrine.¹² Further, if the New Testament is the only infallible record of apostolic teaching, then every other record from the first century is fallible. It matters not that Catholics believe that the teaching Magisterium later claims to pronounce some extrabiblical tradition as infallibly true. The fact is that they do not have an infallible record from the first century on which to base such a decision.

Sola Scriptura: All Apostolic “Traditions” Are in the Bible

It is true that the New Testament speaks of following the “traditions” (=teachings) of the apostles, whether oral or written. This is because they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matt. 18:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20). When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority since only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1). Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it follows that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament. This does not necessarily mean that everything the apostles ever taught is in the New Testament, any more than everything Jesus said is there (cf. John 20:30; 21:25). What it does mean is that all apostolic teaching that God deemed necessary for the faith and practice (morals) of the church was preserved (2 Tim. 3:15-17). It is only reasonable to infer that God would preserve what He inspired. The fact that apostles sometimes referred to “traditions” they gave orally as authoritative in no way diminishes the Protestant argument for sola Scriptura. First, it is not necessary to claim that these oral teachings were inspired or infallible, only that they were authoritative. The believers were asked to “maintain” them (1 Cor. 11:2) and “stand fast in them” (2 Thess. 2:15). But oral teachings of the apostles were not called “inspired” or “unbreakable” or the equivalent, unless they were recorded as Scripture. The apostles were living authorities, but not everything they said was infallible. Catholics understand the difference between authoritative and infallible, since they make the same distinction with regard to noninfallible statements made by the Pope and infallible ex cathedra (“from the seat” of Peter) ones. Second, the traditions (teachings) of the apostles that were revelations were written down and are inspired and infallible. They comprise the New Testament. What the Catholic must prove, and cannot, is that the God who deemed it so important for the faith and morals of the faithful to inspire the inscripturation of 27 books of apostolic teaching would have left out some important revelation in these books. Indeed, it is not plausible that He would have allowed succeeding generations to struggle and even fight over precisely where this alleged extrabiblical revelation is to be found. So, however authoritative the apostles were by their office, only their inscripturated words are inspired and infallible (2 Tim. 3:16-17; cf. John 10:35). There is not a shred of evidence that any of the revelation God gave them to express was not inscripturated by them in the only books — the inspired books of the New Testament — that they left for the church. This leads to another important point. The Bible makes it clear that God, from the very beginning, desired that His normative revelations be written down and preserved for succeeding generations. “Moses then wrote down all the words of the Lord” (Exod. 24:4), and his book was preserved in the Ark (Deut. 31:26). Furthermore, “Joshua made a covenant with the people that day and made statutes and ordinances for them… which he recorded in the book of the law of God” (Josh. 24:25-26) along with Moses’ (cf. Josh. 1:7). Likewise, “Samuel next explained to the people the law of royalty and wrote it in a book, which he placed in the presence of the Lord” (1 Sam. 10:25). Isaiah was commanded by the Lord to “take a large cylinder-seal, and inscribe on it in ordinary letters” (Isa. 8:1) and to “inscribe it in a record; that it may be in future days an eternal witness” (30:8). Daniel had a collection of “the books” of Moses and the prophets right down to his contemporary Jeremiah (Dan. 9:2). Jesus and New Testament writers used the phrase “It is written” (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10) over 90 times, stressing the importance of the written word of God. When Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders it was not because they did not follow the traditions but because they did not “understand the Scriptures” (Matt. 22:29). All of this makes it clear that God intended from the very beginning that His revelation be preserved in Scripture, not in extrabiblical tradition. To claim that the apostles did not write down all God’s revelation to them is to claim that they were not obedient to their prophetic commission not to subtract a word from what God revealed to them.

Sola Scriptura: The Bible Does Not State a Preference for Oral Tradition

The Catholic use of 3 John to prove the superiority of oral tradition is a classic example of taking a text out of context. John is not comparing oral and written tradition about the past but a written, as opposed to a personal, communication in the present. Notice carefully what he said: “I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face” (3 John 13). Who would not prefer a face-to-face talk with a living apostle over a letter from him? But that is not what oral tradition gives. Rather, it provides an unreliable oral tradition as opposed to an infallible written one. Sola Scriptura contends the latter is preferable.

Sola Scriptura: The Bible Is Clear Apart from Tradition

The Bible has perspicuity apart from any traditions to help us understand it. As stated above, and contrary to a rather wide misunderstanding by Catholics, perspicuity does not mean that everything in the Bible is absolutely clear but that the main message is clear. That is, all doctrines essential for salvation and living according to the will of God are sufficiently clear. Indeed, to assume that oral traditions of the apostles, not written in the Bible, are necessary to interpret what is written in the Bible under inspiration is to argue that the uninspired is more clear than the inspired. But it is utterly presumptuous to assert that what fallible human beings pronounce is clearer than what the infallible Word of God declares. Further, it is unreasonable to insist that words of the apostles that were not written down are more clear than the ones they did write. We all know from experience that this is not so.

Sola Scriptura: Tradition and Scripture Are Not Inseparable

Kreeft’s claim that Scripture and apostolic tradition are inseparable is unconvincing. Even his illustration of the horse (Scripture) and the rider (tradition) would suggest that Scripture and apostolic tradition are separable. Further, even if it is granted that tradition is necessary, the Catholic inference that it has to be infallible tradition — indeed, the infallible tradition of the church of Rome — is unfounded. Protestants, who believe in sola Scriptura, accept genuine tradition; they simply do not believe it is infallible. Finally, Kreeft’s argument wrongly assumes that the Bible was produced by the Roman Catholic church. As we will see in the next point, this is not the case.

Sola Scriptura: The Principle of Causality Is Not Violated

Kreeft’s argument that sola Scriptura violates the principle of causality is invalid for one fundamental reason: it is based on a false assumption. He wrongly assumes, unwittingly in contrast to what Vatican II and even Vatican I say about the canon,¹³ that the church determined the canon. In fact, God determined the canon by inspiring these books and no others. The church merely discovered which books God had determined (inspired) to be in the canon. This being the case, Kreeft’s argument that the cause must be equal to its effect (or greater) fails.

Sola Scriptura: Rejection of Tradition Does Not Necessitate Scandal

Kreeft’s claim that the rejection of the Roman Catholic view on infallible tradition leads to the scandal of denominationalism does not follow for many reasons. First, this wrongly implies that all denominationalism is scandalous. Not necessarily so, as long as the denominations do not deny the essential doctrines of the Christian church and true spiritual unity with other believers in contrast to mere external organizational uniformity. Nor can one argue successfully that unbelievers are unable to see spiritual unity. For Jesus declared: “This is how all [men] will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). Second, as orthodox Catholics know well, the scandal of liberalism is as great inside the Catholic church as it is outside of it. When Catholic apologists claim there is significantly more doctrinal agreement among Catholics than Protestants, they must mean between orthodox Catholics and all Protestants (orthodox and unorthodox) — which, of course, is not a fair comparison. Only when one chooses to compare things like the mode and candidate for baptism, church government, views on the Eucharist, and other less essential doctrines are there greater differences among orthodox Protestants. When, however, we compare the differences with orthodox Catholics and orthodox Protestants or with all Catholics and all Protestants on the more essential doctrines, there is no significant edge for Catholicism. This fact negates the value of the alleged infallible teaching Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church. In point of fact, Protestants seem to do about as well as Catholics on unanimity of essential doctrines with only an infallible Bible and no infallible interpreters of it! Third, orthodox Protestant “denominations,” though there be many, have not historically differed much more significantly than have the various “orders” of the Roman Catholic church. Orthodox Protestants’ differences are largely over secondary issues, not primary (fundamental) doctrines. So this Catholic argument against Protestantism is self-condemning. Fourth, as J. I. Packer noted, “the real deep divisions have been caused not by those who maintained sola Scriptura, but by those, Roman Catholic and Protestant alike, who reject it.” Further, “when adherents of sola Scriptura have split from each other the cause has been sin rather than Protestant biblicism….”¹⁴ Certainly this is often the case. A bad hermeneutic (method of interpreting Scripture) is more crucial to deviation from orthodoxy than is the rejection of an infallible tradition in the Roman Catholic church.

Sola Scriptura: First Century Christians Had Scripture and Living Apostles

Kreeft’s argument that the first generation of Christians did not have the New Testament, only the church to teach them, overlooks several basic facts. First, the essential Bible of the early first century Christians was the Old Testament, as the New Testament itself declares (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:6). Second, early New Testament believers did not need further revelation through the apostles in written form for one very simple reason: they still had the living apostles to teach them. As soon as the apostles died, however, it became imperative for the written record of their infallible teaching to be available. And it was — in the apostolic writings known as the New Testament. Third, Kreeft’s argument wrongly assumes that there was apostolic succession (see Part Four, next issue). The only infallible authority that succeeded the apostles was their infallible apostolic writings, that is, the New Testament.

Catholic Tradition: CATHOLIC ARGUMENTS FOR THE BIBLE PLUS TRADITION

One of the basic differences between Catholics and Protestants is over whether the Bible alone is the sufficient and final authority for faith and practice, or the Bible plus extrabiblical apostolic tradition. Catholics further insist that there is a need for a teaching magisterium (i.e., the Pope and their bishops) to rule on just what is and is not authentic apostolic tradition. Catholics are not all agreed on their understanding of the relation of tradition to Scripture. Some understand it as two sources of revelation. Others understand apostolic tradition as a lesser form of revelation. Still others view this tradition in an almost Protestant way, namely, as merely an interpretation of revelation (albeit, an infallible one) which is found only in the Bible. Traditional Catholics, such as Ludwig Ott and Henry Denzinger, tend to be in the first category and more modern Catholics, such as John Henry Newman and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in the latter. The language of the Council of Trent seems to favor the traditional understanding.³ Whether or not extrabiblical apostolic tradition is considered a second source of revelation, there is no question that the Roman Catholic church holds that apostolic tradition is both authoritative and infallible. It is to this point that we speak now.

Catholic Tradition: The Catholic Argument for Holding the Infallibility of Apostolic Tradition

The Council of Trent emphatically proclaimed that the Bible alone is not sufficient for faith and morals. God has ordained tradition in addition to the Bible to faithfully guide the church. Infallible guidance in interpreting the Bible comes from the church. One of the criteria used to determine this is the “unanimous consent of the Fathers.”⁴ In accordance with “The Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent” (Nov. 13, 1565), all faithful Catholics must agree: “I shall never accept nor interpret it ['Holy Scripture'] otherwise than in accordance with the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”⁵ Catholic scholars advance several arguments in favor of the Bible and tradition, as opposed to the Bible only, as the final authority. One of their favorite arguments is that the Bible itself does not teach that the Bible only is our final authority for faith and morals. Thus they conclude that even on Protestant grounds there is no reason to accept sola Scriptura. Indeed, they believe it is inconsistent or self-refuting, since the Bible alone does not teach that the Bible alone is the basis of faith and morals. In point of fact, argue Catholic theologians, the Bible teaches that apostolic “traditions” as well as the written words of the apostles should be followed. St. Paul exhorted the Thessalonian Christians to “stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15; cf. 3:6). One Catholic apologist even went so far as to argue that the apostle John stated his preference for oral tradition. John wrote: “I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face” (3 John 13). This Catholic writer adds, “Why would the apostle emphasize his preference for oral Tradition over written Tradition…if, as proponents of sola Scriptura assert, Scripture is superior to oral Tradition?”⁶ Roman Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft lists several arguments against sola Scriptura which in turn are arguments for tradition: “First, it separates Church and Scripture. But they are one. They are not two rival horses in the authority race, but one rider (the Church) on one horse (Scripture).” He adds, “We are not taught by a teacher without a book or by a book without a teacher, but by one teacher, the Church, with one book, Scripture.”⁷ Kreeft further argues that “sola Scriptura violates the principle of causality; that an effect cannot be greater than its cause.” For “the successors of the apostles, the bishops of the Church, decided on the canon, the list of books to be declared scriptural and infallible.” And “if the Scripture is infallible, then its cause, the Church, must also be infallible.”⁸ According to Kreeft, “denominationalism is an intolerable scandal by scriptural standards — see John 17:20-23 and I Corinthians 1:10-17.” But “let five hundred people interpret the Bible without Church authority and there will soon be five hundred denominations.”⁹ So rejection of authoritative apostolic tradition leads to the unbiblical scandal of denominationalism. Finally, Kreeft argues that “the first generation of Christians did not have the New Testament, only the Church to teach them.”¹⁰ This being the case, using the Bible alone without apostolic tradition was not possible.

PROTESTANT UNDERSTANDING OF SOLA SCRIPTURA

Sola Scriptura- A DefinitionBy sola Scriptura Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals). Sola Scriptura implies several things. First, the Bible is a direct revelation from God. As such, it has divine authority. For what the Bible says, God says. Sola Scriptura- The Sufficiency of ScriptureSecond, the Bible is sufficient: it is all that is necessary for faith and practice. For Protestants “the Bible alone” means “the Bible only” is the final authority for our faith. Sola Scriptura- The Authority of ScriptureThird, the Scriptures not only have sufficiency but they also possess final authority. They are the final court of appeal on all doctrinal and moral matters. However good they may be in giving guidance, all the fathers, Popes, and Councils are fallible. Only the Bible is infallible. Sola Scriptura- The Clarity of ScriptureFourth, the Bible is perspicuous (clear). The perspicuity of Scripture does not mean that everything in the Bible is perfectly clear, but rather the essential teachings are. Popularly put, in the Bible the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things. This does not mean — as Catholics often assume — that Protestants obtain no help from the fathers and early Councils. Indeed, Protestants accept the great theological and Christological pronouncements of the first four ecumenical Councils. What is more, most Protestants have high regard for the teachings of the early fathers, though obviously they do not believe they are infallible. So this is not to say there is no usefulness to Christian tradition, but only that it is of secondary importance. Solo Scriptura- The Interpretiveness of ScriptureFifth, Scripture interprets Scripture. This is known as the analogy of faith principle. When we have difficulty in understanding an unclear text of Scripture, we turn to other biblical texts. For the Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible. In the Scriptures, clear texts should be used to interpret the unclear ones.

WHAT SEPARATES CATHOLICSAND PROTESTANTS?

There are many areas of difference between Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism.²⁵ These areas extend to both doctrines and practices, and range from very minor differences to those that can only be considered major points of contention. The following is just a brief list of the most consequential doctrinal differences between the two groups.²⁶ These are areas in which Catholicism generally differs with virtually all of the specific denominations within evangelical Protestantism. These areas obviously overlap and have significant implications for further areas of theology and religious practice. We will briefly note the general concerns expressed by Protestants.

Catholics and Protestants- Authority

The question of authority is an area of central dispute between Catholics and Protestants. The Reformers referred to it as the formal cause of the Reformation. Catholics affirm a triad of authority: Scripture, apostolic tradition, and the teaching office of the church (magisterium). Implications of this authority system include: the Petrine doctrine (primacy of Peter), apostolic succession, papal supremacy and infallibility, and, as it relates to Scripture, the acceptance of the Apocrypha.

Protestants, by contrast, reject the Catholic system in favor of the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone as the primary and absolute norm of doctrine). Sola Scriptura implies the authority, clarity, and sufficiency of Scripture, and uniquely gives Scripture alone the role of final arbiter in all matters of faith and morals.²⁷

Evangelicals charge the Catholic church with affirming an illegitimate authority system and express great concern about Catholicism’s decision to: (1) place human traditions on par with God’s written Word, (2) grant infallibility to the church (magisterium), (3) subordinate the individual believer’s interpretation of Scripture to the magisterium, (4) affirm the primacy and infallibility of the pope, and (5) introduce noncanonical books into the canon (the Apocrypha). Evangelicals believe that Catholicism’s misguided authority structure has allowed numerous unbiblical teachings to arise in the church.

We will return for a more thorough discussion of this crucial issue of authority in Part Three of this series.

Catholics and Protestants- Justification

Also of central dispute between evangelicals and Catholics is the crucial soteriological doctrine of justification. The Reformers referred to this doctrine as the material cause of the Reformation. Although we can only summarize the views here, we will also return to this issue in Parts Three and Four.

Theologian and Reformation scholar Peter Toon summarizes the main features of the official Roman doctrine of justification:

1. Justification is both an event and a process. An unrighteous man becomes a righteous man. Becoming a child of God in baptism and having the remission of sins, the Christian is made righteous. (If during this process he should lose faith or fall away, he may be restored through the sacrament of penance.)

2. Justification occurs because of the “infusion” of the grace of God into the soul, whereby inherent righteousness becomes one of the soul’s characteristics.

3. This imparted, “infused” righteousness is described as the “formal cause” of justification. The “meritorious cause” is Christ’s passion and death.

4. The believer will only know for certain that he is justified at the end of the process. In the meantime, his constant duty is to co-operate with the grace of God given to him.²⁸

Oxford theologian and internationally recognized authority on the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith, Alister McGrath, summarizes the Reformation Protestant position on justification:

1. Justification is the forensic [i.e., legal] declaration that the Christian is righteous, rather than the process by which he or she is made righteous. It involves a change in status rather than in nature.

2. A deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification (the external act by which God declares the believer to be righteous) and sanctification or regeneration (the internal process of renewal by the Holy Spirit).

3. Justifying righteousness is the alien righteousness of Christ, imputed to the believer and external to him, not a righteousness that is inherent within him, located within him, or in any way belonging to him.

4. Justification takes place per fidem propter Christum [by faith on account of Christ], with faith being understood as the God-given means of justification and the merits of Christ the God-given foundation of justification.²⁹

While the Protestant Reformers were essentially unified in their understanding of justification, modern-day evangelicalism is much less so.³⁰ Nevertheless, today’s Reformation Protestants have consistently criticized the Catholic position for: (1) failing to recognize that justification is solely a judicial act of God that changes our status but not our state; (2) not making the necessary distinction between justification (being declared righteous) and sanctification (being made righteous); (3) interpreting justifying righteousness as infused and intrinsic, rather than imputed and extrinsic; (4) failing to see that assurance is a necessary byproduct of being justified; and (5) making justification a synergistic (man cooperating with God) process rather than a monergistic (God working alone) act.

Because Reformation Protestants see the doctrine of justification by faith as the very heart of the gospel, this dispute takes on extreme significance. While it is important to understand the nuanced doctrinal points described above, the issue of how one is justified before God is more than just an academic theological debate. Reformation Protestants believe that to confuse or compromise the doctrine of justification is to run the dangerous risk of obscuring the very gospel of Christ. Following the Reformers, today’s Reformation Protestants believe that the Catholic church’s soteriological system has actually placed obstacles in the way of Catholics entering in to an authentically saving relationship with Jesus Christ.

Catholics and Protestants- Mariology

It might rightly be said that evangelicals have a tendency to ignore Jesus’ mother Mary. Catholics, on the other hand, greatly exalt her. Such dogmas as the Immaculate Conception and bodily Assumption, coupled with such titles as “Queen of Heaven,” “Queen of all Saints,” and the “Immaculate Spouse of the Holy Spirit,” make Mary in the minds of Catholics the most exalted of all God’s creatures.

While Catholics propose Mary as a point of unity with other Christians, most evangelicals see Mariology as a formidable barrier between themselves and Catholics. Even evangelicals who are for the most part sympathetic to Catholicism generally view this element of Catholic belief as grossly unbiblical. One evangelical commission on evaluating Catholic Mariology stated: “We as evangelical Christians are deeply offended by Rome’s Marian dogmas because they cast a shadow upon the sufficiency of the intercession of Jesus Christ, lack all support from Scripture and detract from the worship which Christ alone deserves.”³¹ Although the documents of Vatican II inform us that Mary’s exalted role “neither take away from nor add anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator,”³² most evangelicals believe Catholic Mariology actually undermines the foundation of orthodox Catholic Christology.

Catholics and Protestants- Sacramentalism and the Mass

Sacramentalism is a central and vital component within Catholic theology. For Catholics, sacraments are “effective signs” of grace instituted by Christ. Catholicism’s seven sacraments (baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction[last rites], holy orders[ordination into the priesthood], and matrimony) both signify grace and cause it to happen ex opere operato (“they work by their own working”).

While various evangelical denominations differ in their acceptance and approach to sacraments (or ordinances), generally speaking evangelicals differ with the Catholic view in number, nature, and operation of the sacraments. The Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of the mass in particular engender great dispute between Catholics and evangelicals. Both of these areas of concern have direct Christological implications.

Catholics and Protestants- Religious Pluralism

From the time of Cyprian until modern times, the Catholic church has affirmed the slogan extra ecclesiam nulla salus (no salvation outside the [visible body of the one institutional] church). Vatican II affirms, however, that salvation is “not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way.”³³ These statements of Vatican II clearly opened the door for German theologian Karl Rahner’s “anonymous Christianity” — the belief in the possibility of salvation without explicit Christian faith, even through non-Christian religions.

While Catholic theology assures us that all the redeemed are ultimately saved through Christ alone, evangelicals are greatly concerned that these pluralistic trends greatly detract from the uniqueness of Christianity and open the Pandora’s box of universalism. In light of this pluralism, is there any necessary reason to consider becoming Catholic, or even Christian?

In Part Three of this series we will examine the issues of authority and justification in more detail.

Rome’s Seduction of Evangelical Christianity?

There is certainly legitimate room for disagreement among evangelicals as to just how Catholicism should be viewed (though, as previously noted, most scholars would concur in large part with our discussion above). But the approach to Catholicism taken by some Protestant fundamentalists is simply unacceptable. This approach not only condemns Catholicism as a non-Christian religion or cult, but also suggests that anyone who disagrees with that condemnation is somehow being seduced by the allegedly all-powerful Vatican. If one dares defend Catholicism from the unfair charge of being called a cult, then one is either knowingly or unknowingly aiding and abetting the enemy, and betraying the Protestant Reformation.

Rome’s Seduction of Evangelical Christianity- David HuntWhile this writer derives no pleasure from singling out other Christians for criticism, in this case it is both necessary and appropriate. There are many who take this unfortunate approach to Catholicism, but one fundamentalist writer in particular consistently makes very serious charges: the popular and controversial discernment ministry author, Dave Hunt. Hunt, in an article entitled “A Cult Is a Cult,” states that Catholicism is “the most seductive, dangerous and largest cult….”¹⁸ He also states that major evangelical leaders, apologists, and cult experts are cooperating with, and therefore being seduced by, Catholicism as never before.¹⁹

Hunt does at points raise some legitimate doctrinal concerns regarding Catholicism. However, his overall approach in evaluating and classifying Catholicism is both logically and theologically flawed. As our previous discussion demonstrated, Catholicism simply does not fit the category of a non-Christian cult. Further, Hunt seems unwilling to take into account the vast areas of doctrinal agreement between classical Catholicism and historic Protestantism. While he rightly points to many unbiblical elements and false teachings within Catholicism (issues which, by the way, have been pointed out by the very apologists he criticizes²⁰), he fails repeatedly to identify and draw carefully nuanced theological distinctions. Instead he erroneously asserts that Catholics embrace a “different God, a different Jesus Christ….”²¹ Certainly no one has been more critical of the excesses of Catholic theology than were the Reformers. However, even they affirmed that Catholicism embraced the triune nature of God and the two natures of Jesus Christ as expressed in the creedal statements of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon.

What is worse than Hunt’s assertion that Catholicism is a cult is his insistence that anyone who arrives at a different position is simply deceived — and thus at risk of compromising their gospel witness. Consequently, Hunt impugns the character of all of those individuals and ministries simply because they disagree with his theological assessment of Catholicism.²²

The fact is that all of the cult experts and apologists Hunt has criticized have very strong criticisms of Catholicism at numerous points (this writer knows most of them personally). They simply do not classify the Catholic church as a non-Christian cult. They are not being seduced, nor are they compromising — they merely disagree with many of Hunt’s conclusions! Cannot evangelicals have honest areas of disagreement without being labeled compromisers?

The last of Hunt’s charges which should be addressed is his claim that “to deny that Roman Catholicism is a cult is to repudiate the Reformation and mock the more than 1 million martyrs who died at Rome’s hands as though they gave their lives for no good reason!”²³ I find this charge to be personally unsettling. As a Reformed (Calvinist) Christian and apologist, I have great admiration for the sixteenth century Reformers. In fact, as a conservative Presbyterian, I adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith (a Reformed confession of 1647). However, while I am not willing to repudiate the Reformation, neither am I willing to classify Catholicism as a non-Christian cult (though I remain staunchly critical of Catholic theology overall).

Let us examine Hunt’s reasoning on this point. His argument seems to follow this pattern: Either one classifies Catholicism as a non-Christian cult, or one is guilty of repudiating the Protestant Reformation. As a Protestant, one could not possibly want to repudiate the Reformation. Catholicism must therefore be classified as a cult. This argument is a classic example of the informal logical fallacy known as the “false bifurcation” (also known as the “black-and-white,” “either-or,” or “false alternatives”) fallacy.²⁴

Romes Seduction of Evangelical Christianity- A ConclusionThe error in Hunt’s reasoning is twofold. First, he assumes too few alternatives. There are other possible alternative classifications for Catholicism that would not repudiate the Reformation, including other critical classifications such as the one we discussed earlier. By erroneously reducing the number of alternatives, he has oversimplified the problem and is clearly thinking in extremes. Second he assumes (illegitimately) that one of his jointly exhaustive alternatives must be true (ergo — Catholicism is a cult). Hunt’s disjunctive (either-or) premise is false, and his argument is unsound.

While some individuals unfortunately exaggerate the theological faults of Catholicism, there remain in reality some central doctrinal differences between Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants. It is to these areas of difference that we now turn.

ISCATHOLICISM ACULT?

Even with the significant areas of doctrinal agreement between Catholics and Protestants (see Part One), a notable number of Protestant fundamentalists insist that Catholicism is an anti-Christian cult. Organizations and individuals (some of them quite popular) who classify Catholicism as a cult include: Chick Publications, Alberto Rivera’s Anti-Christ Information Center, Tony Alamo’s Christian Foundation, Bill Jackson’s Christians Evangelizing Catholics, Albert James Dager’s Media Spotlight, and Dave Hunt’s The Berean Call. (This is not to say that all of these people belong in the same category — the latter three are more respectable than the former three.) Actually this is just a few of many individuals and organizations that classify Catholicism as an anti-Christian cult. Because their position receives a wide hearing in some evangelical circles, we must address their claim.

Is Catholicism a Cult- Ten Reasons Why Catholicism Is Not a Cult

What those who label Catholicism a cult do not seem to understand is that even if one considers Catholicism to be unscriptural and greatly mistaken on many important doctrinal issues (certainly this writer does), it is simply misplaced and erroneous — for a variety of reasons — to classify Roman Catholicism as an anti-Christian cult. Let me give ten reasons why I say this.⁹

(1) Cults, generally speaking, are small splinter groups with a fairly recent origin. Most American-based cults, for example, have to a greater or lesser degree splintered off from other Christian groups, and emerged in the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Catholicism, on the other hand, is the largest body within Christendom, having almost a two-thousand-year history (it has historical continuity with apostolic, first century Christianity), and is the ecclesiastical tree from which Protestantism originally splintered.

(2) Cults are usually formed, molded, and controlled by a single individual or small group. The Catholic church, by contrast, has been molded by an incalculable number of people throughout its long history. Catholicism is governed by creeds, councils, and the ongoing magisterium.

(3) Cults typically exercise rigid control over their members and demand unquestioning submission, with disobedience punished by shunning and/or excommunication. While Catholicism has exercised a triumphalism and an unhealthy control over its members in times past, this is far less true today, especially since the Second Vatican Council. Contemporary Catholicism’s broad diversity as illustrated in Part One of this series certainly proves this point.

(4) An appropriate description of a cult is “a religious group originating as a heretical sect and maintaining fervent commitment to heresy.”¹⁰ Regardless of one’s criticism of Catholicism, even if it is heretical at certain points, it does not fit this description. It does not originate in heresy, and, as was mentioned before, it possesses a structural orthodoxy that other cults simply do not have (see comparison chart).

(5) Cults (when defined as heretical sects) are classified as such because of their outright denial or rejection of essential Christian doctrine. Historically, this has principally been a denial of the nature of God (the Trinity), the nature of the incarnate Christ (divine-human), and of the absolute necessity of divine grace in salvation (the Pelagian controversy).¹¹ While Protestants have accused Catholicism of having an illegitimate authority and of confusing the gospel (two serious charges to be examined later), Catholicism does affirm the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and that salvation is ultimately a gift of God’s grace (a rejection of Pelagianism).¹² I challenge anyone to name a recognized cult that affirms the Trinity or the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ (see comparison chart).

(6) Cults frequently have a low view of the Bible, replacing or supplementing it with their own so-called “sacred writings.” In fact, cults often argue that the Bible has been, to some extent, corrupted and therefore their writings are needed to restore the truth. While Catholicism’s acceptance of noncanonical writings (the Apocrypha) and placing of apostolic tradition on par with Scripture are fundamental problems to the Protestant, Catholics nevertheless retain a high view of the Bible (inspired and infallible) and see it as their central source of revelation.

(7) Cults usually have some kind of authoritarian, totalistic leader or prophet. While some feel that the pope fits this category, in reality the pope governs the church with heavy dependence upon the bishops (college of cardinals), and within the restrictions of the official teaching of the church. Protestants clearly disagree with the authority and exalted titles given the pope, but he still does not fit the category of a cult leader.

(8) A frequent characteristic of cults is their emphasis on a “remnant identity” — that is, they claim to be God’s exclusive agent or people who restore “authentic Christianity,” which has been corrupted or lost. Usually this type of restorationism has an accompanying anticreedal and antihistorical mindset. While Catholicism has at times been guilty of an unfortunate exclusivity¹³ (some Protestant churches have also), they emphatically deny restorationism, and strongly emphasize the continuity of God’s church throughout history.

(9) Those who classify Roman Catholicism as a cult (an inauthentic and invalid expression of Christianity) usually also give the Eastern Orthodox church the same classification. What they do not realize, however, is that if both of these religious bodies are non-Christian, then there was no authentic Christian church during most of the medieval period. Contrary to what some Protestants think, there was no independent, nondenominational, Bible-believing church on the corner (or in the caves) during most of the Middle Ages.¹⁴ Additionally, the schismatic groups who were around at the time were grossly heretical.¹⁵ So much for the gates of hell not prevailing against the church (Matt. 16:18).

Some try to sidestep this argument by reasoning that as long as there were even a few individuals who remained biblically orthodox apart from the institutional or organized church, then those select individuals constituted God’s authentic church (a remnant) — thus the church was never truly overcome. This thinking, though containing an element of truth, is not completely correct. It is true that the church has an invisible¹⁶ and local dimension to it, but it also has a visible and organizational dimension (John 17:21). While the church is primarily a community of believers, it also functions as an institution through which believers encounter the ministry of the Word and the sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper). Scripture does not allow for the sharp distinction between the spiritual and organizational dimensions of the church that some would like to draw.¹⁷

(10) Even with the serious problems evident in Roman Catholic theology from a Protestant point of view, Catholic doctrine overall does not fit the pattern of the recognized cult groups (see comparison chart). Catholicism affirms most of what the cults deny and possesses an orthodox foundation which all cult groups lack.

Is Catholicism a Cult- A Conclusion

In summary, a cult generally emerges as a group that rejects orthodoxy and remains fervently committed to heresy. Catholicism’s problem, by contrast, is of a different nature. It affirms teaching which is both extraneous and inconsistent with its historical affirmation of orthodoxy. From an evangelical Protestant viewpoint, Catholicism is definitely “too much” — but the cults are clearly “not enough.”

Roman Catholicism is not a cult. The classification of Catholicism as given above is much more accurate and preferable to the overly simplistic and misguided classification of Catholicism as a non-Christian cult.

Is the Catholic Church Christian- A BackgroundMy research convinces me that the majority of evangelical Protestant theologians and scholars who are knowledgeable concerning Catholicism would be perplexed to hear Catholicism classified simply as a “non-Christian religion” or an “anti-Christian cult.”¹ This perplexity would stem from the fact that no matter how theologically deviant Catholicism might be — even if in some respects apostate — it certainly does possess a structural or foundational orthodoxy, reflected in its adherence to the ancient ecumenical creeds (see Part One).² As such, it should be considered at least provisionally a Christian church body. Certainly most evangelical Protestant scholars would also insist that the unfortunate unbiblical elements found in Catholicism mitigate against, or in some instances tend to undermine, aspects of that foundational orthodoxy.

Is the Catholic Church Christian- Theological TensionRecognizing and understanding this tension in Catholic theology of the right hand giving (foundational orthodoxy) and yet the left hand taking away (affirming teaching that is inconsistent with that orthodoxy) is, in this writer’s opinion, a key to formulating a sound Protestant evaluation of Catholicism. Despite this tension, however, most evangelical scholars believe that the core orthodoxy is never entirely eclipsed. For example, though very critical of Catholicism at numerous points, evangelical theologian John Jefferson Davis of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary stated that “conservative evangelicals could affirm about 85 percent of what Catholics believe.”³

Even the Protestant Reformers⁴ themselves clearly acknowledged that Catholicism as a system affirmed the basic articles of the historic Christian faith. The Reformers simply charged that in both belief and practice the medieval Catholic church compromised its formal adherence to orthodoxy — specifically as related to its obscuring and undermining the gospel message.

Is the Catholic Church Christian- The ReformationBecause the Catholic church would not itself reform, the Reformation became an unavoidable though tragic necessity. However, while the Reformers called into question the Catholic church’s right to be called a “true church” (because it was failing to preach the true gospel), they did not think it had lost all the qualities of a true church. For example, they did not require the rebaptizing of those who had once been baptized as Roman Catholics.⁵ In a book discussing the relationship of heretical doctrine to historic Christian orthodoxy, theologian Harold O. J. Brown of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School made this insightful comment concerning Catholicism:

The strongest accusation that can be made against Roman Catholicism from this perspective is not that it is heretical in structure, but that it is heretical in effect, in that it effectively undercuts its own formal adherence to the major Christological stands of its official creeds. In other words, Reformation Protestantism acknowledges that Catholicism possesses the fundamental articles of the faith, but claims that it so overlays them with extraneous and sometimes false doctrines that the foundations are no longer accessible to the majority of Catholic believers.⁶

While Catholicism is foundationally or structurally an orthodox Christian church (affirming the creeds), Reformed theologian Roger Nicole is nevertheless correct in stating: “Reformation Protestants believe that much in Catholic theology tends to undermine and compromise that orthodox Christian confession — especially as it relates to the crucial issue of the gospel message.”⁷ In agreement with most evangelical scholars, then, the Christian Research Institute regards Roman Catholicism as neither a cult (non-Christian religious system) nor a biblically sound church, but a historically Christian church which is in desperate need of biblical reform.⁸

Is the Catholic Church Christian- Divisive DifferencesThe compromises in Catholic theology are so serious as to warrant the sixteenth century Reformation and the continued separation on the part of present-day Protestantism. At the same time, however, these compromises are not serious enough to warrant the extreme classification of Catholicism as a non-Christian religion or anti-Christian cult. Some have criticized this position for not being more definite; however, rarely does one find simple black and white answers to complex theological issues. As theologian Desmond Ford has articulately stated: “Theological truths are seldom pure, and almost never simple.” The task of correctly understanding and evaluating the long history, intricate doctrine, and diverse practices of Roman Catholicism is no simple chore.

Evangelicals and Catholics- A Background

In appraising the Roman Catholic faith, we must first identify which Catholic faith we are speaking about, for as the previous discussion has clearly shown, Catholicism is actually more of a montage than a monolith. Nevertheless, while there are many competing contemporary interpretations of the Catholic faith, there remains the so-called “official teaching of the church.” This body of official teaching is quite fluid in many respects, but, nevertheless, it represents what may be considered the classical or orthodox position of the Catholic church. Our focus must therefore be directed toward classical or orthodox Catholicism (as found in the ancient creeds, councils, and official documents of the church) as interpreted by the magisterium.

Evangelicals and Catholics- Standing on Common Ground

The appropriate place to begin our appraisal of Catholicism is with the vast amount of doctrinal agreement found between classical Catholicism and historic Protestantism. This doctrinal agreement is especially evident in our mutual commitment and loyalty to the great ecumenical creeds of historic Christianity. The creeds, which attempt to summarize the essence of Christian truth,²⁸ are believed and recited in both Catholic and Protestant churches. The common points of agreement between orthodox Catholics and evangelical Protestants extend to: belief in the Triune nature and full theistic attributes of God; assent to God as the sovereign creator and sustainer of the world; acceptance of Christ’s incarnation as the God-man, including trust in His virgin birth, attesting miracles, atoning death on the cross, bodily resurrection from the grave, ascension into heaven, future return in glory, and work of judgment and resurrection of mankind; affirmation of the Holy Spirit’s personality, deity, and involvement in redemption; the acknowledgment of sin, the necessity of grace, and the need of salvation; and confidence in God’s preservation and guidance of the Christian church. And, while not mentioned explicitly in the creeds, both camps have a high view of Scripture, affirming both the inspiration and infallibility of the Old and New Testaments. There is certainly much common ground between the two traditions, but seldom is this carefully and reflectively considered. Most discussions concentrate almost exclusively on the differences between the two camps, which are unquestionably quite significant, as we shall see in detail in future installments of this series. But, the areas of common commitment are also quite significant. We should not gloss over these areas of agreement simply because there remain serious differences.²⁹ Further areas of agreement are also apparent. For example, a number of Catholic scholars who would otherwise be considered traditionalist Catholics (strong in their defense of the Catholic views on authority, the nature of the church, the sacraments, etc.), nevertheless set forth the gospel in very evangelical-sounding terms. Catholic philosopher and apologist Peter Kreeft fits this category. Kreeft, a prolific author whose books sell well among evangelical Protestants, describes himself as an “evangelical Roman Catholic.”³⁰ He made the following provocative comments in his book Fundamentals of the Faith:

How do I resolve the Reformation? Is it faith alone that justifies, or is it faith and works? Very simple. No tricks. On this issue I believe Luther was simply right; and this issue is absolutely crucial. As a Catholic I feel guilt for the tragedy of Christian disunity because the church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was failing to preach the gospel. Whatever theological mistakes Luther made, whatever indispensable truths about the Church he denied, here is an indispensable truth he affirmed — indispensable to union between all sinners and God and union between God’s separated Catholic and Protestant children. Much of the Catholic Church has not yet caught up with Luther; and for that matter, much of Protestantism has regressed from him. The churches are often found preaching one of two “other gospels”: the gospel of old-fashion legalism or the gospel of new-fangled humanism. The first means making points with God and earning your way into heaven, the second means being nice to everybody so that God will be nice to you. The churches, Protestant and Catholic, may also preach the true Christian gospel, but not often enough and not clearly enough and often watered down and mixed with one of these two other gospels. And the trouble with “other gospels” is simply that they are not true: they don’t work, they don’t unite man with God, they don’t justify.³¹

Kreeft is just one of an increasing number of Catholic scholars who see validity in the Reformation concept of justification by faith.³² Kreeft goes on to say: “Catholicism as well as Protestantism affirms the utterly free, gratuitous gift of forgiving grace in Christ, free for the taking, which taking is faith. Good works can only be the fruit of faith, flowing freely as a response to the new life within, not laboriously, to buy into heaven.”³³ While we will examine the crucial issue of justification in some detail in Part Three, it is important to note that a number of Catholic scholars have an appreciation for the insights of the Protestant Reformers. Certainly this trend does not insure that there will be a change in the church’s official teaching on justification; but neither should it be dismissed as insignificant. Another point that should be understood and weighed, in terms of Protestant-Catholic agreement, is that evangelical Protestants actually have far more in common with orthodox Catholics than they do with liberal Protestants. And orthodox Catholics have much more in common doctrinally with evangelical Protestants than they do with liberal Catholics. Both camps continue to face the challenge of religious liberalism which in many respects denies the very essence of Christianity. Evangelicals and Catholics- Dividing LinesEven with the significant areas of agreement that I have discussed above, a notable number of evangelicals remain utterly convinced that the Roman Catholic church is a non-Christian cult.³⁴ They frequently charge that “Romanism” is: (1) an apostate religious system, (2) an invalid expression of Christianity, and (3) the largest and most influential non-Christian cult in the world. In Part Two I will demonstrate just why Catholicism should not be classified as a cult. At the same time I will highlight several aspects of Catholicism which should be of serious concern to Protestants.

The American Catholic ChurchJust as Americans in general exhibit a different ethos from the rest of the world, American Catholics have a mindset distinct from other Catholics. Generally speaking, American Catholics tend to be both more independent and more selective in their practice of Catholicism. This attitude certainly contributes to the fact that many American Catholics follow their conscience over church authority, especially when it comes to some of the issues regarding sex and personal lifestyle. In fact, in 1990 the National Conference of Catholic Bishops was so concerned about the inroads the pro-choice element was making into the American church that it hired a public relations firm to “jazz up its public appeal on the abortion issue.”²³ (This was the same public relations firm, by the way, that handled former President Ronald Reagan!) Russell Chandler comments on the extent of this American Catholic individualism:

American Catholics are more likely to follow their own conscience or personal preference than to assent unquestioningly to papal pronouncements. In no area is this more true than matters of sex and lifestyle. Not only do a large majority of U.S. Catholics disapprove of the church’s teaching against contraception, they also favor a limited pro-choice position on abortion. And many Catholics agree with dissident theologian Father Charles Curran who says that homosexual behavior, masturbation, premarital sex, and divorce aren’t always sinful. (About one-fourth of U.S. Catholics have been divorced and a half of these have remarried.)²⁴

This is certainly powerful evidence that American Catholics tend to think for themselves. The fact is, there is a defiant attitude among a significant number from the clergy down to the general laity.²⁵ This also seems to illustrate just how strong the cultural and liberal factions of Catholicism are within the American church. American Catholicism, like American Christianity as a whole, suffers from a growing secularization of both society and the church. The American Catholic Church- Priest ShortagesAnother area of great concern in Catholicism worldwide, but especially in America, is the growing shortage of priests and nuns. One estimate reported that one out of ten U.S. parishes had no regular priest in 1990.²⁶ What has made this problem more acute is the fact that the American church continues to experience rapid growth. The church’s demand concerning celibacy is the central reason given for men not entering the priesthood. This would only seem to exacerbate the already explosive issue of women’s ordination. However, on the positive side, this shortage of clergy has led to a great increase of lay involvement in ministry. As of 1989, an “authorization allows bishops to designate a deacon, non-ordained sister, brother, or lay member to lead prayers, read Scripture, preach, and perform a Communion service if bread and wine consecrated by a priest is available.”²⁷ In today’s church, the laity is performing many of the duties once performed exclusively by the priest. A continuing bright spot for American Catholicism is its educational system. From elementary schools to colleges, the Catholic church has some of the best educational institutions in the country. Having gained some appreciation and understanding of many of the facets of contemporary Roman Catholicism, we are now in a position to examine Catholicism from a theological perspective.

Types of Catholics

The following varieties of contemporary Catholics should not be understood as exact classifications. Not every Catholic fits neatly into one particular type — there is significant overlapping. (Unfortunately, this overlapping has sometimes caused outside observers to lump differing viewpoints together.) In addition, the types reflect both a sociological and theological assessment, and are best understood in terms of a paradigm (an example or model). Types of Catholics- Ultratraditionalist Catholics. Ultratraditionalist Catholics consider themselves nonrevisionist Catholics. They are extremely critical of the changes brought about by Vatican II and wish the church would return to its earlier course. They can be somewhat radical in their defense of “old time” Catholicism. For example, they would be happy if the mass (liturgical service centered around the Eucharist) were still recited in Latin. They hold the traditions and hierarchy of the church in highest esteem (except when the hierarchy steps on their nonrevisionist toes). They would strongly affirm classical Catholicism as revealed in the ancient creeds, councils, conciliar documents (i.e., documents produced during councils), and papal encyclicals (i.e., letters). They are generally suspicious and intolerant toward other divergent groups within Catholicism. One of the best examples of an ultratraditionalist was the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre of Switzerland who stated that the reforms of Vatican II “spring from heresy and end in heresy.”¹¹ During his reign as archbishop, Lefebvre continued to ordain priests even after the pope ordered him to stop, and he continued to use the form of the mass as prescribed at the Counter Reformation Council of Trent instead of its modern form.¹² While staunch in their beliefs and commitment to nonrevisionist Catholicism, the ultratraditionalists are small in number and their influence within the church is not of great significance. The ultratraditionalists should probably be seen as the more extreme segment within the traditionalist camp. Types of Catholics- Traditionalist Catholics. The traditionalist Catholics in many ways make up the backbone of the church hierarchy. A Christianity Today editorial described the group this way: “This important segment of the church, specially powerful among the laity of the national churches, the older clergy, and the bishops and upper level of the hierarchy, adheres to the whole of creedal Roman Catholicism and obedience to the church as interpreted by the pope.”¹³ The traditionalists are very critical of liberalism and modernism within the church, but they are generally accepting of the reforms found in Vatican II. Although this group’s influence diminished somewhat after Vatican II, they have enjoyed a revival during John Paul II’s reign as pope. While Pope John Paul may be considered progressive in many of his decisions concerning the church, at heart his doctrinal views are those of a traditional Catholic. This is especially illustrated in his beliefs concerning the Virgin Mary. Types of Catholics- Liberal Catholics. Liberal Catholics have substantially departed from traditional Catholicism, and one might say from traditional Christianity as a whole. While liberals differ among themselves in the degree to which they depart from classical Catholicism, like their Protestant counterparts they have conceded much to the rationalistic unbelief so prevalent in Western culture since the eighteenth-century Enlightenment period. They have in effect replaced the Bible and church authority with the authority of human reason. Many liberal Catholic scholars, such as the German scholar Hans Kung, have questioned the infallibility of the pope, church councils, and the Bible. Others, going farther, have clearly abandoned traditional Christological beliefs and the miracles of the New Testament, and have forsaken almost completely the orthodoxy of the ecumenical creeds. Liberals also question the ecclesiastical practice of an exclusively male priesthood, and many have cast off the church’s teaching regarding such moral issues as birth control, abortion, and homosexuality. Some within the liberal camp have been strongly affiliated with liberation theology, especially in Latin America. Liberation theology interprets the gospel in terms of liberation from poverty and social oppression, and the reconstruction of society — usually along Marxist lines.¹⁴ Catholics who embrace liberation theology often show an amazing disregard of traditional doctrinal issues. Another subset within the broader category of liberal Catholics is what might be called “Eastern mystical” or “New Age” Catholicism. This group seeks to blend Catholic and New Age spirituality. Orthodox Christian beliefs about God and Christ are, to varying degrees, replaced with distinctive New Age beliefs such as pantheism (God is all and all is God), panentheism (God is intrinsically in the world and the world is intrinsically in God), and emphasis upon the Cosmic Christ (a universal, impersonal spirit or cosmic force). Probably the leading “Catholic guru” is Dominican priest Matthew Fox with his “creation-centered spirituality.”¹⁵ Since Vatican II, this liberal camp as a whole has grown significantly within the scholarly ranks of the church, and to a lesser degree among the laity (although both the liberation theology and New Age subsets have strong lay components). Pope John Paul has attempted to curb this influence, however, by disciplining some of the more outspoken liberal scholars (for example, both Kung and Fox have been disciplined by the church). This crackdown has been met with some resistance, especially in America. Types of Catholics- Charismatic/Evangelical Catholics. 1992 marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Catholic charismatic renewal movement. Emerging from humble beginnings in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1967, the late 1960s and 1970s saw the Catholic charismatic renewal flourish in the church. While it experienced slow decline in the 1980s, it remains one of the most energetic forces in the Catholic church. It is estimated that 10 million American Catholics have been involved in the renewal, and that worldwide Catholic involvement may be as high as 50 to 65 million.¹⁶ Catholics now make up more than a fifth of the worldwide Pentecostal-charismatic constituency. Like the broader movement, charismatic Catholics emphasize the charisma or gifts of the Holy Spirit, the importance of being baptized in the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit-filled life. Charismatic Catholics tend to be more evangelical in belief, emphasizing personal faith and trust in Christ, and the assurance of salvation.¹⁷ Reformed theologian J. I. Packer comments concerning charismatic Catholic piety:

It is a fact that in charismatic Catholicism, joyful trust in Christ as one’s sin-bearing Savior and loving fellowship with him in his risen life have shifted the traditional devotional focus away from the somber disciplines of self-denial and suffering and away, too, from the anxieties about merit and destiny to which the formulations of the Council of Trent naturally give rise. Does Catholic doctrine as Trent defined it permit assurance of salvation based on once-for-all justification through faith? Opinions, both Protestant and Catholic, differ about that. Nevertheless, Catholic charismatics do observably enjoy this assurance, while yet maintaining humility, a sense of sin, and a life of repentance often more successfully than do their Protestant counterparts. And Protestant and Catholic charismatic teaching on the Christian life is to all intents and purposes identical. Is this not significant for the Christian future?¹⁸

It is true that many charismatic Catholics describe themselves as “born again, Spirit-filled Catholics.” Along with possessing a Pentecostal piety, charismatic Catholics generally tend to give Scripture more of an authoritative place in their personal spiritual lives. However, many (though by no means all) charismatic Catholics also have a strong devotion to Mary. While the issue of Marian devotion tends to be a stumbling block between evangelical Protestants and charismatic Catholics,¹⁹ evangelical Protestants surely have more in common with charismatic Catholics than with any other type of Catholics. Long-time renewal leader, Ralph Martin, is one of the most recognizable American Catholic charismatics/evangelicals. Types of Catholics- Cultural Catholics. The majority of Catholics in the world probably fit into the category of cultural Catholics. This group is unlike any other type we have considered above. Their identification as “Catholic” is simply more cultural and social than religious. They might rightly be called “womb to tomb Catholics.” They often are born in a Hispanic, Irish, Polish, or Italian family — and are therefore baptized, married, and buried in the Catholic church — but have little or no concern about spiritual matters. Cultural Catholics do not understand Catholicism, nor do they seriously follow its ethical teaching. But they nevertheless have an emotional commitment to the Catholic church. When they attend mass, it is out of habit or family obligation, not religious conviction. Being Catholic to them is essentially a cultural identity (they may even be secular or humanistic in their thinking). This is not unlike how some Jews are merely ethnically or culturally Jewish, rather than adherents to Judaism. It is also like the person who is Lutheran only because he happens to be born into a German family, or the Anglican who is only Anglican because she was born into a British family. You see, it happens in Protestantism as well. Nominal Catholics, like nominal Protestants, do not understand Christianity, and they do not have a relationship with Jesus Christ. With all due respect, President John F. Kennedy would seem to have fit well the mold of a cultural Catholic.²⁰ Types of Catholics- Popular Folk Catholics. Popular folk Catholics are found especially in Central and South America. These Catholics are very eclectic in their religious thinking and practice. They often combine elements of an animistic or nature-culture religion (the primitive religious beliefs that associate the forces of nature and culture with myriads of spirits) with a traditional medieval Catholicism. The result is a syncretistic nightmare. People in countries such as Brazil, Colombia, and Argentina frequently engage in a religion composed of polytheism, occultic spiritism, and a superstitious form of Catholicism. This spiritual smorgasbord enslaves millions of Latin America’s peasantry. Certainly, official Catholic teaching does not sanction this kind of syncretistic religiosity. In certain respects, however, the Catholic church remains culpable. First, the Catholic church has been negligent by failing to train these people to reject all forms of paganism and to embrace solely the Triune God of Christianity.²¹ Second, the unhealthy and unbiblical aspects of the Catholic understanding of the communion of saints (i.e., the belief in the unity and cooperation among believers in both this world and the next) has contributed to the problem. Even some Catholics in the United States virtually worship saints and the church has failed to take aggressive measures to correct this serious problem of idolatry. It is actually much worse when it comes to devotion to the Virgin Mary, where on a practical level millions of Catholics commit idolatry on a daily basis by worshipping the virgin. This is certainly contrary to official church teaching (i.e., teaching set forth by the Vatican as standard Catholic doctrine), but the Catholic church has been derelict in correcting this serious problem. If the Catholic church wants to convince evangelical Protestants that they merely honor Mary, but do not worship her, then they must step in and stop this gross idolatry. Third, the Second Vatican Council’s openness to forms of religious pluralism has greatly exacerbated the problem. Ideas such as the “anonymous Christian” (the belief in the possibility of salvation without explicit Christian faith — even through non-Christian religions) as set forth by the influential German theologian, Karl Rahner, has acute and distressing repercussions.²² We have discussed six different species of the one genus: Roman Catholicism. Certainly there are other viewpoints expressed in today’s Catholicism, but these appear to be the major types of Catholics. We will now turn our attention to the American Catholic church.

Catholicism Today- UNDERSTANDING TODAY’S CATHOLICISM

Some of the more striking features of Catholicism include its imposing size, its vast sphere of influence, its unity, and its contrasting diversity. Gaining an appreciation of each of these characteristics can help us better understand contemporary Catholicism. Size. The size of the Roman church is astounding. Just less than eighteen percent (17.7) of the entire world population is Roman Catholic (a whopping total of over 928 million people, soon to be a billion).² Additionally, the church is truly universal in scope, having parishes in virtually every major part of the world. There is a significant Catholic presence on every continent, with the possible exception of Asia. The following are some percentages of Catholics in the world: Africa, 13.9; North America, 24.2; Middle (central) America, 86.6; South America, 88.9; Europe, 39.9; Oceania, 26.5; and Asia, 2.7.³ In terms of other religious bodies, the Roman Catholic population is larger than the other two main branches of historic Christianity combined (Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism). There are approximately the same number of Catholics in the world as there are Muslims. The Catholic population in the United States is presently well over 55 million (approximately 22 percent of the U.S. population),⁴ and by some Gallup estimates may actually be significantly higher.⁵ By comparison, the second largest Christian denomination in the United States is the Southern Baptists with approximately 14 million members. Catholicism Today- Sphere of Influence. The influence that the Catholic church has had on the world is incalculable. One of Western civilization’s greatest influences has undoubtedly been Roman Catholicism. In many respects, European culture has been directly shaped and molded by events surrounding the Vatican. From the fourth century to the present, Roman Catholic thought has had a momentous influence in the areas of politics, economics, history, science, education, theology, philosophy, literature, art, and numerous other areas of culture. The church has wielded great power over the centuries, often spreading enlightenment and benevolence among humanity, but at some points corruption and tyranny.⁶ While modern-day Catholicism does not exert the kind of control over Western culture that it did in the high Middle Ages, it is still, as the great Yale historian Jaroslav Pelikan put it, “the most formidable religious institution in the history of America and of the world.”⁷ Evangelicals should be interested in the study of Catholicism if for no other reason than its immense size and vast sphere of influence. This broadly based system of religious and philosophical thought has captured the hearts and minds of untold millions through most of Christian history. Catholicism Today- Unity. The unity of the church is of central importance within Catholicism. The Catholic church is understood to be a union. This oneness is spoken of when Catholics refer to the “four marks of the church”: (1) one, (2) holy, (3) catholic, and (4) apostolic. Ideally, this essential oneness is to be expressed in many aspects within the church: doctrine, ethical teaching, authority, the visible and concrete institution, historical continuity, and sacraments.⁸ Unquestionably, one of Catholicism’s greatest strengths over the centuries has been its sense of unity and historical continuity. Many converts to Catholicism identify this as their central reason for considering the claims of the Roman church. Catholic apologists frequently try to marshal the argument that it is this oneness that identifies the Roman church as the one true and authentic church of Jesus Christ. And in certain respects the Catholic church has fared better in terms of unity than its rival — Protestantism. However, the Protestant evangelical rejoinder is that they, rather than Rome, are more faithfully unified in authentic apostolic doctrine. Additionally, if we are to take the Catholic argument seriously, then it could be pointed out that the Eastern Orthodox church has remained more consistently unified in certain respects than has the Roman church. Regardless, this strong emphasis on unity within Catholicism has left many non-Catholics with the impression that Catholicism is in actuality a monolith — a church completely uniform in belief and practice and marching to the same tune. Catholicism Today- Diversity. Catholicism has probably never been the strict monolith that outsiders have perceived it to be. However, even 50 years ago it still carried many of the unyielding and inflexible characteristics associated with a monolithic structure. In many respects this era of seeming invariability and immutability came to an end with the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). This council truly revolutionized the church.⁹ It was not so much a revolution in doctrine as in perspective. Vatican II allowed the “wind of change to blow through the church.” This change created an environment that allowed for greater freedom in theology and practice — and a greater tolerance of diversity.¹⁰ In times past the measure of being Catholic was submission to the teaching and discipline of the magisterium (official teaching office). Since Vatican II, however, being Catholic may mean many different things. Today the Catholic church is incredibly divergent. Its diversity is actually on the level of that within Protestantism. This diversity is evidenced in the various types of Catholics one finds in the church. While the genus (class) remains Catholic, there are several different species (varieties). Evangelical theologian Kenneth Kantzer calls it “the Catholic montage.”

In Mary: A Discussion of Catholic and Protestant Views (Logos Ministries, 1997), Roman Catholic Bible teacher Dr. Bill Creasy writes, “Few topics reflect the deep division between Catholics and Protestants more than the role of Mary in the Church.” Recent developments in Catholicism underscore the truthfulness of this observation.

Marian Dogma- Historical Development.

Mention of Mary in the New Testament is primarily limited to the birth narratives in the Gospels; during Christ’s public ministry, she remains in the background. Her last appearance is in the Upper Room in Jerusalem (Acts 1:14). Mariology has principally been built on information found in the Book of James. Not to be confused with the New Testament’s Epistle of James, this is an apocryphal work that was never given canonical status. From it we get the names of Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anne.

It comes as a surprise to evangelicals (and some Roman Catholics) that Roman Catholic dogma states that Jesus was born in such a fashion that Mary did not suffer any violation of her virginal integrity. St. Thomas Aquinas put it this way: “Mary gave birth in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and injury to the hymen, and consequently also without pains.”

It was at the Council of Ephesus (A. D. 432) that the cult (or cultus) of the Blessed Virgin Mary received official sanction. The term Theotokos (Greek: “the God-bearer”; Latin: “the Mother of God”), which had been applied to Mary by the early Greek Fathers, was formally ratified at this Council. The purpose of the term Theotokos was to protect the humanity of the fruit of the Virgin’s womb; in other words, to say more about Jesus than about Mary. Unfortunately, things got out of hand and — for a variety of reasons, some cultural, some theological — the Virgin Mary began to attract more and more attention.

For example, the fourth century saw the rise of a cult, the Collyridians, that was devoted to Mary. The members, mostly women, paid idolatrous worship to her involving the offering of cakes. St. Epiphanius (ca. A. D. 315–403) condemned the practice of the group. “Mary should be honored, but the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost should be adored. Nobody should adore Mary.”

The designation “Mother of God” was central in the development of Mariology, which reached its apex in the Middle Ages. Worship of God was termed “adoration” (Greek: latria); “veneration” (Greek: dulia) was paid to the angels and saints. By virtue of her exalted position, Mary was honored with “hyperveneration” (Greek: hyperdulia), which, while a higher form of veneration, at least theoretically does not rise to the level of adoration, the worship due God alone.

At Constantinople in A. D. 553, the Fifth General Council declared Mary was “ever-Virgin.” The belief in Mary’s “Immaculate Conception” (that she was born without the stain of original sin) can be found since the seventh century. Unanimous consent was not forthcoming, and in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries a number of theologians, including Thomas Aquinas, rejected the doctrine. Eastern Orthodoxy also takes exception to the Immaculate Conception, believing that it threatens Mary’s status as a creature, albeit an exalted one. In 1854, Pope Pius IX declared the dogma de fide (“must be believed”). The “Bodily Assumption” of Mary into heaven was the subject of speculation early in church history and was finally declared de fide in November 1950 by Pope Pius XII. The East accepts the Bodily Assumption and celebrates it as the “Feast of the Dormition” (“Falling Asleep”) on August 15.

Marian Dogma- The Current Situation.

Among recent developments in Roman Catholicism is a renewed interest in the person and work of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Marian devotion has grown. In “Hail Mary,” an article appearing in Newsweek (25 August 1997), religion editor Kenneth Woodward addressed Mary’s position in Roman Catholic theology. Among the questions Woodward raised are: Is Mary a Co-Redeemer? Will the Pope declare her so? Should he?

While not officially declared de fide, three doctrines that call for the Pope’s attention are present in much Marian piety. According to Woodward, they are the beliefs “that Mary participates in the redemption achieved by her son, that all graces that flow from the suffering and death of Jesus Christ are granted only through Mary’s intercession with her son, and that all prayers and petitions from the faithful on earth must likewise flow through Mary, who then brings them to the attention of Jesus.” John Paul II is said to have received over four million signatures supporting these doctrines.

Catholic apologists contend that terms such as “Coredemptrix,” “Comediatrix,” and “Advocate” in no way challenge the ontological integrity of the Trinity or the supremacy of Jesus as Savior. Yet the large body of Marian literature is replete with troubling language. For example, in the 1891 Encyclical “Octobri Mense,” Pope Leo XIII wrote that “nothing is imparted to us except through Mary… so, just as no one can approach the highest Father except through the Son, so no one can approach Christ except through His Mother.” Catholic apologist Karl Keating says, “Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces because of her intercession for us in heaven. What this means is that no grace accrues to us without her intercession” (Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Ignatius Press, 1988).

Roman Catholic theologians agree with Protestants in condemning idolatry. Yet distinctions between adoration, hyperveneration, and veneration seem to do little to guard the theologically unsophisticated person in the pew from this most serious error.

Reaction from Protestant and Eastern Orthodox communities to the questions discussed in the Woodward article has been almost universal condemnation. In the words of one Orthodox leader quoted by Woodward, “Calling Mary a Co-Redeemer is a heresy in the simplest sense.”

While avoiding terms such as heresy, much Catholic thinking has agreed. In June 1997, a commission of Mariologists at the Vatican advised against accepting this dogma, arguing that is was contrary to the spirit of Vatican II. Dominican theologian Frederick Jelly of Mount St. Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, is one of the world’s preeminent Mariologists. He states, “The theological problem with ‘mediatrix’… is that it tends to put Mary almost in a position of rivalry with her son… the Protestant reformers were correct in reacting against excesses in piety, in which Mary became more important than Christ” (“Petition Urges Pope to Proclaim Mary as a ‘Co-Redeemer,’” The Los Angeles Times, 21 March 1998). Jelly argues that “despite the pope’s well-known devotion to Mary, he will not do this on whim without careful consideration and broad consultations.”

The Vatican’s Catholic News Service responded to the Newsweek article by stating, “The Pope will not solemnly proclaim Mary ‘Coredemptrix’… ‘Mediatrix… and Advocate… This is crystal clear” (August 1997). Fr. Richard John Neuhaus is concerned that declaring these new dogmas would cause “considerable anxiety among ecumenically inclined Protestants and not a few Catholics” (“While We’re At It,” First Things, November 1997).

Recent denials by official Roman Catholic sources have not dampened the more enthusiastic Marianists. A leading voice in the movement and a lay theologian at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio, Mark Miravalle, has stated, “There remains one final doctrinal pillar of the Marian mystery… that only the Church can provide… It is the Christian revelation of Mary as Coredemptrix with the Redeemer, as well as the resulting roles of Mediatrix and Advocate for the People of God” (Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate, Queenship Publishing, 1993). Books in the 1998 Queenship Publishing catalog address subjects such as the apparitions of Mary, along with various proposed Marian dogmas. Such commitment to elevating Mary is not about to fade away.

While predisposed toward Marian devotion, many Roman Catholic leaders (including the Pope) are hesitant to embrace the new dogmas. Doing so would certainly curtail most ecumenical activity toward Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestant groups. Ecumenism is very important to the contemporary Catholic Church.

Some Mariologists who are presently against any pronouncement feel that the situation may change in the future. This is similar to the position taken by Henry Cardinal Newman concerning the dogma of the infallibility and universality of papal authority, proposed and ratified by Pius IX at Vatican I in 1870. Newman was opposed at the time. Some Catholic apologists claim that his opposition came not because he thought the promulgation was “inaccurate,” but “inopportune.”

Evangelicals are guided by Scripture alone and not extrabiblical traditions and papal decrees. They are convinced that the Marian proposals are not only “inopportune” now but also “inappropriate” at any time. Creasy accurately sums up the evangelical position: “To Protestant thinking, the Catholic Church has elevated Mary far above what Scripture allows. For Protestants, Mary is an extraordinary, lovely woman. God chose her for a pivotal role in the salvation of the human family… She was truly ‘blessed among women.’”

CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS- Some Common Ground
It is true that conservative Catholics and evangelical Protestants have a lot in common. In fact, evangelical Protestants have much more in common with conservative Catholics than they do with liberal Protestants.

CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS- What Common Ground?
So just what are these points of agreement? Let me mention a few. To begin with, both sides accept the Old and New Testaments as the infallible, inerrant Word of God. Contrary to what a lot of Protestants think, Catholicism holds an incredibly high view of Scripture. Next, both Protestants and Catholics accept the full theistic attributes of God (God is considered all-powerful, all-knowing, just, holy, etc.). In addition, both churches affirm that God is triune, that He is one God who exists eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It’s also important to point out that both Catholics and Protestants affirm Christ’s deity and humanity, His virgin birth, atoning death, bodily resurrection, ascension, second coming, and his judgment of mankind — not to mention the pro-life movement.

CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS- What are the Disagreements?
Now with so much in common, what in the world could possibly divide the Protestants and Catholics? Let me make a few points. First, Catholics and Protestants disagree over what the ultimate authority is for the believer.  Catholics not only affirm the Scriptures, but also apostolic traditions as authoritative which results in a major point of contention.

CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS- Grace Alone through Christ Alone?
Another major area of difference is focused on the question of salvation (specifically on justification). Protestants believe that salvation is by grace alone in Christ alone — and through faith alone. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that salvation is by grace alone in Christ — but (and this is a big but) it is appropriated through faith and works. This is also a major difference.

CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS- Conclusion
Much more could be said…but for now these are some of the points on which Protestants and Catholics agree and disagree. On Catholics and Protestants, that’s the CRI Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONFor a dicussion of this topic, please consult Elliot Miller’s and Kenneth Samples’s book Cult of the Virgin (Baker) (B040). This resource is available through CRI. For shipping and handling information, please refer to our Resource Listing. To place a credit card order, call toll-free (888) 7000-CRI. To receive a free copy of our Resource Listing, fax us at (704) 887-8299 or write us with your request at P.O. Box 8500, Charlotte, NC 28271.

THE CATHOLIC Rosary- What IS the Rosary?
The rosary is considered by Catholics to be a pious exercise that is intended to combine both vocal and contemplative prayer. Praying the rosary consists of reciting 15 decades (or sets of ten “Hail Marys”) each, by the way, preceded by an “Our Father”, and followed by a “Glory be to the Father.” These vocal prayers are accompanied by meditations on certain aspects of the life of Christ and His mother Mary (these, by the way, are referred to as “Mysteries”). The worshiper recites the vocal prayers, but dwells on the mysteries assigned to the decade he or she is reciting. The mysteries are separated into three different divisions (joyful, sorrowful and glorious), with five meditations to each division. The worshiper keeps track of these prayers by using a string of beads, which is also known as the rosary.

THE CATHOLIC Rosary- Why Don’t Protestants Recite the Rosary?
Why is it that virtually all Protestants do not recite the rosary? Is it because they find aspects of the rosary to be clearly unbiblical? Well the answer is yes — objections primarily center in reciting the Hail Mary. The Hail Mary is the central prayer of the rosary, repeated almost 150 times. First, Protestants believe that addressing anyone other than God in prayer (in this case Mary) is completely unbiblical. The Bible is clear that only God is to be addressed in prayer — there are no exceptions.

THE CATHOLIC Rosary- Upholds Mariology
Secondly, the Hail Mary assumes the truth of the doctrine of Catholic Mariology, specifically Mary’s immaculate nature and powers of intercession. This is illustrated by Mary being called “holy” and the request that she intercede for the worshiper at his or her hour of death.

THE CATHOLIC Rosary- Conclusion
In short, Protestants reject the Hail Mary prayer, and thus the rosary, because they reject much of what Catholicism teaches about Mary. Remember….you don’t need an intermediary….the wall of separation between God and man has forever been broken down through the person and work of Jesus Christ on the cross.On the rosary, that’s the CRI Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

CHICK PUBLICATIONS AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM- Who is Jack Chick?
Jack Chick is an artist who is best known for publishing comic-book-style Bible tracts. He’s the man behind Chick Publications, which is plagued by a chronic tendency to sensationalize facts. And when it comes to the topic of Roman Catholicism it’s difficult to find anything more outrageous than “Chick material.”

CHICK PUBLICATIONS AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM- No One Innocent
Now, CRI doesn’t deny that the Catholic church has its share of serious problems; this is true both theologically and ethically. Even Catholics recognize that their church does not have an unblemished history. But in all fairness, we need to realize that Protestants are guilty as well.

CHICK PUBLICATIONS AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM- Alberto Rivera
The trouble with Chick Publications is that they blame the Catholic church for just about all the problems of the world — past, present, and even future! Spearheading the assault is the dubious Alberto Rivera, a self-proclaimed former Jesuit agent who was supposedly assigned to secretly infiltrate and destroy Protestant churches and seminaries. Well, it is through Rivera’s so-called inside information that “Chick readers” are given a look at the Catholic church’s alleged inner workings.

CHICK PUBLICATIONS AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM- It’s All the Jesuits’ Fault
Rivera claims that the Catholic church, through the Jesuit order, is secretly plotting to subvert the world. He says that practically all the political, economic, social, and even religious problems are the handiwork of undercover Jesuits. According to Rivera, the Jesuits were the masterminds behind Lincoln’s assassination, the Ku Klux Klan, World War I, the Mafia, international banking, Communism, Nazism, the Vietnam War, the New Age movement, the cults, and of course, yours truly, CRI! Nothing is left unscathed.

CHICK PUBLICATIONS AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM- Conclusion
Now, there are legitimate problems within Catholicism, and they need to be corrected. However, throwing around ridiculous accusations only demonstrates a true lack of discernment and biblical responsibility. Although there may be some value in their materials, on the whole we feel that Chick Publications does more harm than good. Because of its lack of scholarship and, more importantly, Christian sympathy we can only conclude that Chick Publications promotes what can only be called “Comic-book theology”, something Christians ought to definitely avoid.On Chick Publications and Roman Catholicism, that’s the CRI Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

THE LADY OF FATIMA- Biblical?
In evaluating the alleged appearances of Mary, our primary concern would be to determine whether these apparitions are indeed biblical. Interestingly enough, these “Marian apparitions” (as they are commonly referred to) are inextricably woven together with the official Catholic teachings about Mary which, by the way, is known as Mariology. In fact, it would be fair to say that Catholic Mariology is the very foundation of Marian apparitions. It’s been well said that a structure is only as solid as its foundation; and in looking at Marian apparitions, we need to examine the integrity of this whole concept referred to as Catholic Mariology.

THE LADY OF FATIMA- Background of Mariology
One of the striking features of Catholic Mariology is its support of Mary’s veneration or exaltation, on the basis of her special relationship to Christ (cf. Matt. 12:46-50; Luke 11:27-28). Other doctrines teach that Mary remained a virgin (cf. Matt. 1:25; 13:55-56); that she was born without sin (cf. Rom. 3:23); and that she was assumed or taken up to heaven. Just what are we to make of these pronouncements? First of all, they’re non-biblical, as these dogmas have absolutely no scriptural support. Also, they clearly contradict what the Bible already teaches. Of course, they’re also unchristian in the sense that their portrayal of Mary challenges and undermines Christ’s preeminent and unique role as Savior and Lord. For example, Mary is given the titles “coredemptrix” and “mediatrix” to signify her involvement (in of all things) mankind’s redemption (cf. 1 Pet. 1:20-21; 1 Tim. 2:5). Such a view of Mary — a view supported by the so-called Marian apparitions — is at best aberrant, and at worst heretical.

THE LADY OF FATIMA- Counter to Scripture
Well, the question remains. Are these apparitions just hallucinations? Are they psychological projections? Can they be written off as frauds? Or do they have a supernatural cause? Might they, in fact, be demonically-inspired deceptions (2 Cor. 11:14-15; 2 Thes. 2:9-10)? Well, that needs to be the subject of another “Perspective.” But whether they’re human or supernatural in origin, the fact remains that Marian apparitions promote a message that runs counter to what’s already revealed in Scripture. And that can only mean one thing — namely, that they are definitely not from God (Gal. 1:8-9).

THE LADY OF FATIMA- conclusion
On Marian apparitions, that’s the CRI Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

THE THEOTOKOS- The Beginnings of a Conflict
Of the many issues which divide Catholics and Protestants, the question of Mary’s status within the church is definitely one of the most prominent ones. In fact, the beginning of the problem can be traced all the way back to the Council of Chalcedon, which took place in 451 A.D. Here, Mary was officially given the title Theotokos (which means “God-bearer” or “mother of God”). Well, this designation was meant to underscore the fact that Jesus is God in the flesh — one person who possessed two distinct natures, rather than two persons who were somehow joined together. Unfortunately, the title paved the way for extreme Marian devotees to filter into the church.

THE THEOTOKOS- Blessed, or Venerated?
In confessing Mary to be “the mother of God,” we simply mean that it was within Mary’s womb that the eternal Son became united to a human nature and entered the world as theanthropos, the God-man. Mary was truly Jesus’ mother, but let’s make an important distinction here — she was Christ’s mother with respect to His humanity and not His deity. We affirm with Catholics that Mary was indeed “blessed among women” (Luke 1:28). After all, God chose her to give birth to the Messiah. But we firmly disagree with those Catholics who hold that Mary deserves to be exalted or venerated because of her unique relationship with Christ. Jesus Himself, in several instances, down played His physical relationship with His mother while at the same time emphasizing His spiritual relationship with all believers (Matt. 12:46-50; Luke 11:27-28).

THE THEOTOKOS- False Doctrines
Unfortunately, the exalted position that Mary holds in the Catholic church has given rise to several unwarranted doctrines. One of them is that Mary remained a virgin throughout her lifetime (cf. Matt. 1:25; 13:55-56). Another is that she herself was conceived without sin (cf. Rom. 3:23); and also that she was assumed or taken up to heaven either before she died or shortly thereafter.

THE THEOTOKOS- Conclusion
It’s important to note that this is a far cry from the Mary of the Bible — a Mary who saw herself simply as God’s humble servant (Luke 1:38, 48), a sinner who (like you and I) was also in need of a savior (Luke 1:47). These are important issues, and we simply can’t just afford to ignore them.On the Mary of Roman Catholicism, that’s the CRI Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

HOLY CATHOLIC MASS- Communion
Simply put, the Mass is a Communion service. It’s one of the seven sacraments upheld by the Catholic church in which believers can partake of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

HOLY CATHOLIC MASS- Agreements
Now, though we differ with the Catholic view on Communion, we do share some points in common as well. For example, we concur that Communion is biblical, since Christ instituted it and commanded His followers to continue the practice in His remembrance (Luke 22:19). We also affirm that Jesus identified Himself with the elements — namely, the bread and wine — used in Communion (Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24). And then, of course, with Catholics we recognize Communion as a time of special fellowship with Christ when we commemorate and are strengthened by His sacrifice and by His spiritual presence (1 Cor. 11:26-27). But despite these common grounds there remain serious areas of disagreement as well.

HOLY CATHOLIC MASS- Disagreements
For instance, we take strong issue with the doctrine of transubstantiation, which teaches that the substance of the bread and wine is actually transformed into the literal body, blood, soul, and even the divinity of Jesus Christ during the Mass. While the bread and wine take on special significance during Communion, they certainly do not change — either visibly or invisibly — into Christ’s actual body and blood. When Jesus referred to the bread and wine as His body and blood, He wasn’t talking about this in a literal sense at all. We believe that Christ is truly present during Communion, but we certainly cannot go along with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

HOLY CATHOLIC MASS- Conclusion
Well, as dialogue continues between Protestants and Catholics we sincerely hope and pray that these important issues can be resolved in a biblical fashion. And remember, how you conduct Communion is not the real issue. The real issue is whether or not you have been born again spiritually — through the finished work of Jesus Christ alone.On the Catholic Mass, that’s the CRI Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

Sola Scriptura- Support
Both Christ and the apostles viewed Scripture, and Scripture alone, as the unerring word of God. That Jesus held Scripture in the highest regard is evident from statements such as these: “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35); “Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything has been accomplished” (Matt. 5:18); “It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law” (Luke 16:17); “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35). Jesus even asserted that greatness in heaven will be measured by obedience to Scripture (Matt. 5:19).

When he disputed with the Pharisees on their view of tradition, Jesus proclaimed, “Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition…” (Mark 7:13). Scripture therefore determines whether tradition is acceptable. When Jesus was tested by the Sadducees concerning the resurrection, He retorted, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures” (Matt. 22:29). When confronted with the devil’s temptations, He responded three times with the phrase, “It is written” (Matt. 4:4-10). Clearly, Jesus accepted Scripture as the supreme authority and subjected Himself to it (Luke 24:44). And, as followers of Christ, our view of Scripture cannot be inferior to His.

Scripture derives none of its authority from the church; its authority is inherent because it is the very Word of the living God: “All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16).

Sola Scriptura- The Conclusion
Does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura? Yes! God speaks to us authoritatively only through the objective Word of God. It is for this very reason that I constantly exhort Christians not only to get into the Word, but to begin to receive the blessing of getting the Word into them.

THE APOCRYPHA BOOKS- Why the Difference?
The Protestant Old Testament, which contains 39 books, comes from the Palestinian Canon — which (as the name would indicate) is the set of scriptures which originated from Palestine and which were recognized by the Jews. The Catholic Old Testament, however, derives its books from the Alexandrian Canon — the Greek listing of Old Testament books, which was supposedly drawn up in Alexandria, Egypt. Along with the 39 books of the Palestinian Canon, the Alexandrian Canon contains 14 or 15 additional books that are collectively known as the “apocrypha,” which simply means “hidden.”

THE APOCRYPHA BOOKS- Some Discrepancies
Of these 14 or 15 books, three are not included in the Catholic Bible. Also, some of these apocryphal books have been made into a single book, such as Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah. Still others were simply tagged onto the books of the Palestinian or Hebrew Canon. For example, the apocryphal book called Bel and the Dragon was made into the fourteenth chapter of the Book of Daniel. This explains why there are only seven additional books listed in the Catholic Old Testament.

THE APOCRYPHA BOOKS-  Why Are They Excluded?
Now, there are many reasons why these apocryphal books are not part of our Bible. Let me mention just a few. First of all, they contain teachings that are clearly unbiblical — for example, they encourage prayers for the dead, teach salvation by works, and they even include an account where God is shown to be assisting someone in a lie. Second, there have been a number of authoritative testimonies against the acceptance of these books, including those from the Jewish scholars of Jamnia, as well as many of the church fathers and scholars, like Athanasius and Jerome. And, of course, these books were never directly quoted by Jesus or by any of the New Testament writers. Finally, it’s important to note that even the Catholic church itself didn’t canonize them until the Council of Trent, after the Reformation began.

THE APOCRYPHA BOOKS- Conclusion
In conclusion, while these apocryphal books do give us some insight about the events that occurred during the period between the Old and New Testaments, they are definitely not the Word of God. So, it is very important for all of us to recognize that there is a vast distinction between the apocrypha, or the “hidden books,” and the Canon of Scripture.On the apocrypha and the books of the apocrypha, that’s the CRI Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

WAS PETER THE FIRST POPE?- Twisting Scripture
Catholics often cite Matthew 16:18 as biblical support for the papacy. In this passage Christ says: “I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” From this, the Catholic church argues that Jesus built His church upon Peter, and that Peter was the first pope. Is this accurate?

WAS PETER THE FIRST POPE?- The Original Greek Text
Well, in order to resolve this very important question we need to look at two key words in the original Greek: The word “Peter” and the word “rock.” In the original language the text reads: “You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church.” Notice how Jesus distinguished between Petros (Peter’s name in the Greek, which means “stone”) and petra (the Greek word for “rock”). For Jesus to have avoided any confusion all He needed to do was to simply use the word “Petros” twice. In this way, He would have clearly demonstrated that the church would be built upon Peter. However, as we have seen, He used a different word — namely, “petra” — to make it absolutely clear that He was referring to the foundation of the church. The context of the passage (which, by the way, begins in verse 13) attests to a play, by Jesus, on these two words. In fact, interestingly enough, He used “petra” (or “rock”) to refer to Peter’s confession — that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Thus, Jesus (not Peter) is said to be the rock upon which the church would be established.

WAS PETER THE FIRST POPE?- Jesus the Foundation of the Church
Peter himself underscores this fact in Acts 4:11 and 1 Peter 2:4-8, when he alludes to Christ as a “stone rejected by builders” and as a “rock that makes unbelievers fall.” Furthermore, the apostle Paul calls Jesus the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20), and the spiritual rock (1 Cor. 10:4) of the church. And so, in light of this we must conclude  that the Bible does not support the idea of Peter being the very first pope. And remember, you and I do not need any go-betweens to get to Jesus Christ — not the pope, not Mary, not anything. In fact, we can come boldly into His presence because of the finished work of Christ Himself.On Peter and the papacy, that’s the CRI Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

CATHOLICS AND SALVATION- Salvation by Faith
To begin with, let me state up front that Catholics do not teach salvation by works. In fact, the Catholic church firmly maintains that man can only be saved by God’s grace. However, ask Catholics whether they believe that they are justified by faith alone and chances are pretty good you’ll get “no” for an answer. Consequently, some evangelicals have mistakenly concluded that Catholics hold to salvation by works.

CATHOLICS AND SALVATION- Justification
Justification, to evangelicals, means that God declares us righteous the instant you or I repent and receive Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior — and this, despite our sinfulness. Actually, it’s a singular event, something that is completed instantaneously. Catholics, on the other hand, understand justification to mean that God makes us righteous. It’s seen as a process whereby God gradually perfects us; and this is, incidentally, why Catholics believe that only in the end will believers be sure as to whether they’re truly justified or saved.

CATHOLICS AND SALVATION- Works as Vital Elements
In addition, evangelicals believe in justification by faith alone. And by faith we mean not only knowledge and agreement, but also personal trust in Jesus Christ alone for eternal life. In sharp distinction, Catholics see faith as nothing more than passive agreement, which again is why they don’t believe in justification by faith alone. Catholics actually consider human works as vital elements in the process of justification. This is because they are held to be the result of God’s grace working through and perfecting believers.

CATHOLICS AND SALVATION- Serious Issues with Doctrine
Well, in sharp contrast to the evangelical belief that works are the fruits of justification, Catholics say that justification results from a combination of faith and works made possible by God’s grace. Yes, we regard the Catholic conception of justification to be confused. Yes, we take serious issue with the numerous doctrines and practices that it has produced. Though they can be rightly faulted on these points, no one can legitimately claim that Catholics teach a crass system of salvation by works.

CATHOLICS AND SALVATION- Conclusion
So, once again, it is important to understand that while many Catholics believe in salvation through works, the official stance of Roman Catholicism is that justification results from a combination of faith and works which is made possible by the grace of God.On Catholics and the doctrine of salvation, that’s the CRI Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH A CULT?- A Mixed Bag
While Protestants continue to disagree over the issue, CRI firmly maintains that Roman Catholicism is a religious system which includes both orthodox biblical Christianity and elements of unbiblical or “cultic” doctrine and practice. In other words, we recognize that Roman Catholicism historically has affirmed the essential teachings of the Bible, while also teaching doctrines which are inconsistent with that affirmation and which seriously compromise the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. We acknowledge in Roman Catholicism the presence of many genuine brothers and sisters in the Lord, while also recognizing that many of those within Roman Catholicism worldwide appear to be lost.

IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH A CULT?- Not Cultic, but Heretical
Although certain doctrines and practices in Roman Catholicism might properly be termed “heretical,” we would not label them as a cult — for example, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. The errors of Roman Catholicism are heretical in that sense that they compromise or undermine the orthodox confession of the church. In short, we regard Roman Catholicism as neither a biblically sound Christian church nor a cult, but a Christian church with a mixture of orthodox and erroneous teachings.

IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH A CULT?- To Speak the Truth
We take this stand fully aware that many are going to criticize us for it. In fact, Catholics will take issue with us because we are critical of many of their teachings. Protestants label us because we don’t strongly criticize Roman Catholicism. In fact, there have been some Protestants that have even accused CRI of being Jesuit-controlled! Well, our concern, is not to please men, but to speak the truth in love. Obviously we are not in any way controlled by the Roman Catholic church, but on the other hand, we are not afraid to speak out against its heresies either. One thing we are unwilling to do is to misrepresent Roman Catholicism or to exaggerate its faults. That would be patently unfair, at CRI we’ve always striven for balance. On Roman Catholicism, that’s the CRI Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

EVANGELICALS AND CATHOLICS- The Beginning
Evangelicals come from a movement that began as a “protest” against non-biblical elements of Catholicism — elements like the belief in purgatory and the practice of granting indulgences. Yet, there remain substantial points which evangelicals share in common with Catholics, including the inspiration of Scripture, the Trinity, the virgin birth, Christ’s atonement and His bodily resurrection. Indeed, with regard to these essentials, evangelicals have more in common with conservative Roman Catholics than they do with liberal Protestants.

EVANGELICALS AND CATHOLICS- Key Differences
But despite these important areas of agreement, there are significant differences which separate evangelicals and Catholics. For example, while Catholics support the authority of the Bible, they also assert that the unwritten traditions of the Roman church are just as authoritative. In fact, that’s the reason scores of practices and beliefs which have no basis in Scripture at all are accepted by Catholics as “gospel truth” — practices like prayers for the dead and beliefs such as the infallibility of the pope. This lies in stark contrast to the evangelical position, which asserts that the canon of Scripture alone is the supreme standard and is the authority for all Christians. In fact, affirming otherwise compromises the very supremacy of the Bible as the Christian’s rule of faith (2 Tim. 3:16).

EVANGELICALS AND CATHOLICS- Justification
Another major issue dividing evangelicals and Catholics has to do with the question of justification. Classical Catholicism holds the view that salvation involves a combination of faith and infused righteousness. This means that God’s grace gives us the capability to become righteous, and enables us to perform good works by which we can receive God’s forgiveness. Evangelicals, on the other hand, believe that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, and in Christ alone (Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9). To put it in perspective, we are saved by grace, but saved unto good works.

EVANGELICALS AND CATHOLICS- Conclusions
Well, in spite of the vast differences between Catholics and evangelicals, I believe our points of agreement provide us with common ground through which we can share and discuss the gospel in love and with understanding.
On the differences as well as the similarities between evangelicals and Catholics, that’s the CRI Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.