Rome Disease

Over the past 20 years or so, Protestant leaders have grown awfully uncomfortable with a growing trend: Protestant traffic heading in the direction of Rome. And not just any Protestants – while Joe and Jane Pewwarmer may be comfortably ensconced at the corner Baptist or Presbyterian church, Joe and Jane’s pastor and the theologians who taught him may very well be suiting up to swim the Tiber. Over the past few decades such Protestant theologians, philosophers and educators as Francis Beckwith, Thomas Howard, J. Budziszewski, Reinhard Hütter, Bruce Marshall, Trent Dougherty, Robert Koons, Jay Richards, R.R. Reno, Joshua Hochschild, Leroy Huizenga, Richard John Neuhaus, Robert Wilken, Paul Quist, Richard Ballard, Paul Abbe, Thomas McMichael, Mickey Mattox, David Fagerberg, Jason Stellman and many more have left Protestantism for the Catholic Church – and I know this from Protestant articles and websites expressing shock at their conversion. At a loss to explain the defection of these once solidly Protestant luminaries, and unwilling to admit that these people might be reconciling with the Church because they have found the fullness of the Truth therein, Protestant apologists have latched onto a common thread in many conversion stories. Converts to Catholicism often complain that as Protestants they were kept in the dark regarding Church history. Take as an example the tales of those who studied theology at Protestant seminaries:

Over the next year I read several books on Church history. I read the works of men I had never heard of before: Anthony of the Desert, Cyril of Jerusalem, Clement of Alexandria, Basil, Ambrose, Eusebius, Ignatius of Antioch. It felt like finding new friends, Christians who knew my Lord so intimately. But their words also profoundly shook my Evangelical theology. The fact that these men were Catholic made me embarrassed and indignant. In all my years as a Christian I had never heard of these people, let alone studied their writings. I didn’t know much about the early Christian Church. In seminary (we attended Biola, in Southern California) we had been taught to believe that after the death of the Apostles, the Church slid immediately into error and stayed that way until Luther nailed his Theses to the door, and then the “real” Christians came out of hiding. (Kristine Franklin)

Occasional references to St. Augustine did not obscure the fact that the majority of church history was ignored. (“Anthony“)

I had studied some early Church history, but too much of it was from perspectives limited by Protestant history textbooks. I was shocked to discover in the writings of the first-, second- and third-century Christians a very high view of the Church and liturgy, very much unlike the views of the typical Evangelical Protestant. (Steve Wood)

We had never been taught any church history between the time of the apostles and Luther. I first heard of the “Church Fathers” in a Greek class in college. As I translated Irenaeus’ writings from the Greek, the truth of what he had written amazed me. I wondered why I had never been told of him before. None of my theology courses in college ever mentioned the Church Fathers. We were never given any devotional readings beyond what Luther wrote. (Kathy McDonald)

Hmmm… so Church history is the virus behind Catholic fever? They’re demanding access to Church history? Can we manufacture some sort of vaccine against that?

And thus today’s Protestant apologists have to know not only their Augustine, but their Athanasius, their Cyril (of Alexandria and of Jerusalem), their Irenaeus and their Vincent of Lerins (okay, maybe not Vincent of Lerins – “Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est” and all that). These brave souls familiarize themselves with the Fathers not so that they can explain the actual theology of the early Church to fellow Protestants (that would never do), but so that they can extract certain quotes from their writings and distill them into a “proof vaccine,” purporting to demonstrate that core Protestant doctrines were theological staples of the early Church, thereby inoculating potential upstarts (who then believe that they know what the Fathers taught) against Catholicism.

Epidemic contained.

It’s kind of funny, and it’s kind of sad. Because Protestants have their own version of what they think the Catholic Church teaches (you know, works-righteousness, Mary worship, a sinless pope, the Bible is wrong when it contradicts Holy Mother Church, etc.), they believe that by finding remarks in the Church Fathers which indicate that we are indeed “saved by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God” (which the Church has been insisting for, oh, about 2,000 years or so now), or that “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (there’s never been any argument from the Church on that, either), they have proved Catholicism wrong. It is this fundamental refusal to hear what Catholics are saying when we profess that we can’t work our way to Heaven or that “the Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired they are truly the Word of God” that causes Protestants wielding the Church Fathers to make themselves look so silly. The Fathers were Catholic, you know. There’s just no getting around that point.

Consider the writings of the Church Fathers on the subject of the Holy Scriptures. Modern-day Protestant authors, believing that it is Catholic Church policy to hide the Bible under a bushel whenever it “contradicts” Catholic doctrine, will gladly dish up quotes which are supposed to “prove” that the Fathers were every bit as “sola Scriptura” as Luther or Calvin, quotes like these:

Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them; and since they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others, formed all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown from the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to which we belong testifies, by what falls under our notice, that one Being made and governs it,—those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]; but they put fetters upon themselves, and every one of them imagines, by means of their obscure interpretations of the parables, that he has found out a God of his own. St. Irenaeus of Lyons, 2^nd century Church Father

Scripture can indeed be understood by Luther’s proverbial ploughboy – so says Irenaeus!

Hmm… then why did Irenaeus even bother writing his monumental “Against Heresies” if everyone could just pick up a copy of the Scriptures and understand them? Sure, there were bad guys who twisted the perspicuous Scriptures to their own ends:

Their manner of acting is just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed by some skillful artist out of precious jewels, should then take this likeness of the man all to pieces, should rearrange the gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox, and even that but poorly executed; and should then maintain and declare that this was the beautiful image of the king which the skillful artist constructed, pointing to the jewels which had been admirably fitted together by the first artist to form the image of the king, but have been with bad effect transferred by the latter one to the shape of a dog, and by thus exhibiting the jewels, should deceive the ignorant who had no conception what a king’s form was like, and persuade them that that miserable likeness of the fox was, in fact, the beautiful image of the king. St. Irenaeus of Lyons

So, when heretics twisted the Scriptures, Irenaeus advised 2^nd-century Christians to just pull a copy of the KJV out of their hip pocket and set the losers straight, right?

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it. St. Irenaeus of Lyons

That quote from Irenaeus demonstrates Sacred Tradition in action. Note the unity of the Faith that Irenaeus is touting; exactly the opposite of the divisions that plague sola Scriptura adherents running around with KJV’s in their hip pockets. That’s because the Church that Irenaeus defended did NOT believe in sola Scriptura – all believed the same thing because all were taught the same thing by the authoritative Church which “clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood” the Scriptures according to the Tradition handed down by the apostles!

The Catholic Church’s point exactly: Scripture? YES! Tradition? YES! Quotes 1 and 2 and 3? YES! YES! YES!

Undaunted, many Protestant authors trot out St. Athanasius in defense of the indefensible doctrine of sola Scriptura, using this quote:

The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. St. Athanasius of Alexandria, 4^th-century Church Father

Sounds pretty “sola!” Yet this was the same Athanasius who thundered:

But beyond these sayings [of the Bible], let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it should not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called. St. Athanasius

So, the Scriptures, rightly understood through Sacred Tradition, are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth – hardly a Protestant sentiment. When you harmonize ALL that a particular Church Father wrote, rather than pulling statements out of context, there’s simply no way you end up with a proto-Protestant 2^nd-, 3^rd, or 4^th-century Church. Athanasius himself grumbled about the cherry-picking of the Fathers who had gone before him:

Yes, [Church Father Dionysius] wrote it, and we too admit that his letter runs thus. But just as he wrote this, he wrote also very many other letters, and they ought to consult those also, in order that the faith of the man may be made clear from them all, and not from this alone. St. Athanasius

Selective quoting got mighty tiresome even back in those days….

Protestant apologists will earnestly endeavor to persuade you that the Church Fathers held Scripture in high regard, proclaimed the authority of the Bible and believed Scripture to be sufficient in itself, citing passages such as “How can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” and “The sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth” and “There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source.” If you look into this, you will find that it is certainly true – the Fathers held Scripture in high regard, proclaimed the authority of the Bible, and believed Scripture to be sufficient in itself. Those same Protestant authors will, however, decline to inform you that those same Fathers held Holy Tradition in equally high regard, proclaimed the authority of the Church, and declared that when heretics came up with novel approaches to the interpretation of Scripture, Tradition was essential to protect the orthodox interpretation of those Scriptures. Holy Tradition, the Fathers claimed, makes it possible for the Church to say, “THIS is the interpretation of Scripture that the apostles taught and which has been handed down to us – that’s why your interpretation of Scripture is wrong” when heretics twist the Scriptures and devise new doctrines.

Which doesn’t stop Protestant apologists from propping the Fathers up like ventriloquists’ dummies to mouth the Reformers’ doctrine of sola fide (faith alone). As Frank Beckwith pointed out in his Return to Rome, St. Augustine is often pressed into the service of Martin Luther’s pet doctrine:

St. Augustine of Hippo: [Grace] is bestowed on us, not because we have done good works, but that we may be able to do them – in other words, not because we have fulfilled the Law, but in order that we may be able to fulfill the Law.

See? St. Augustine was Protestant in his understanding of justification!

Or, as Beckwith puts it:

Now, if that’s all one read from the Fathers, one may be led to think that the Reformation attempted to restore what the Church had once embraced, or at least implicitly held, from its earliest days.

And that is, obviously, the fervent hope – that that’s all a questioning Protestant will bother to read of the Fathers – the “proof-texts.” As Dr. Beckwith points out, the understanding of “grace” which St. Augustine propounded is consistent with Protestant theology as well as with Catholic theology. No Catholic would find that quote on the subject of grace at all disturbing, because justification by faith is what Catholics believe. Protestants, however, have a tough time reconciling other quotes from that same Church Father with the Protestant belief system:

St. Augustine of Hippo: We run, therefore, whenever we make advance; and our wholeness runs with us in our advance (just as a sore is said to run when the wound is in process of a sound and careful treatment), in order that we may be in every respect perfect, without any infirmity of sin whatever result which God not only wishes, but even causes and helps us to accomplish. And this God’s grace does, in co-operation with ourselves, through Jesus Christ our Lord, as well by commandments, sacraments, and examples, as by His Holy Spirit also; through whom there is hiddenly shed abroad in our hearts . . . that love, “which makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered,” . . . until wholeness and salvation be perfected in us, and God be manifested to us as He will be seen in His eternal truth.

As Dr. Beckwith points out, the sentiments in this quote from Augustine are reflected, not in Protestant theology (Calvin forbid!), but in a very Catholic statement on justification:

Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.

This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting. The Council of Trent on justification

Oops….

The point is that St. Augustine can get an “Amen!” from Catholics on both quotes 1 and 2. Protestants, on the other hand, would much prefer that St. Gus had quit while he was ahead, so to speak. From a Protestant standpoint, the “proof-text” was nifty; the other stuff, not so much….

This kind of proof-texting is inflicted upon the writings of numerous Fathers. The moral of the story: Catholic fever is going around. If you have a vested interest in remaining Protestant, for Luther’s sake don’t sit down and actually read the Church Fathers to learn what they really thought! Get your vaccination against Rome disease: read a few quotes meticulously compiled by Protestant apologists and leave it at that. It’s safer, like a vaccine made of dead cells is a whole lot safer than the real living deal. Catholicism can be highly contagious; get your inoculation today, lest you come down with a bad case of the fullness of the Truth.

 

On the memorial of St. Isaac Jogues and Companions

Deo omnis gloria!

    

Photo credits: Woman receiving rubella vaccination, School of Public Health of the State of Minas Gerais (ESP-MG), Brazil, by Sandra Rugio/Wikimedia Commons

Serious Lipstick

Everybody’s got a favorite TV detective. I grew up watching Mannix and Jim Rockford. Kojak was popular in those days. Magnum was huge in the 80s, and Monk broke the mold in the New Millennium. But I’ve got a real soft spot in my heart for one special lieutenant – Columbo, the disheveled, distracted, disarming homicide detective who never, never gave up. He lulled his suspects’ suspicions, apparently accepting whatever story they cared to dish out, but then spent the next 50 minutes making Swiss cheese of that story, at which point the perp invariably decided that coming along quietly was really the only option left to him. I loved it. Some commentators have made the case that the show was a classic portrayal of class struggle – Columbo was a working-class kinda guy patronized by all the high society murderers, and the audience loved to watch him cut them down to size. I think most of us fancied that we saw ourselves in him. He wasn’t all perfectly pulled together. He was disheveled. One eye wandered. People tended to underestimate him, and he was okay with that. To this day, when 2 and 2 just don’t make 4 in my life, I tend to go into Columbo mode, determined to get to the bottom of things.

Channeling our inner Columbo can be something of a challenge, however, when it comes to getting to the bottom of our own religious beliefs. I should know – I was raised as a Protestant, and it took me 45 years before I was ready to investigate the strange goings-on that occurred every time my church expounded on verses like “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,” or “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained,” or “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” We all admire Ginger Rogers for being able to do everything Fred did, backwards and wearing high heels. The song-and-dance my denomination did around these verses made Ginger look like an amateur – we were dancing on our heads trying to make these verses say something, ANYTHING, other than what they actually said. Finally, one day I stopped dancing, sat down, and asked myself, why? It turned out that there was a fatal flaw in our theology, one which we covered up by suppressing various verses. The clues had been there all along; it just took me 45 years to decide to investigate.

There was a pretty basic explanation for my reluctance. We all know that someone who just doesn’t want to know will selectively filter information in or out of the picture to come to his or her foregone conclusion. Take the example of a wife who dearly loves her husband – when confronted with mysterious business trips, late nights at the office and lipstick on his collar, she will see nothing more than an overworked, underpaid hero who needs a better laundry detergent. The opposite is of course true – a jealous wife reads betrayal into every innocent pastime her husband enjoys, certain that everything he does is proof of adultery and grounds for divorce. Evidence is twisted, misused, overlooked – whatever it takes to uphold preexisting beliefs. We see this clearly in the debate over abortion – intelligent, thoughtful adults who have bought into the notion of a woman’s “right to choose” pretty much have to stumble into the illogical insistence that a baby on this side of the womb is a human being entitled to the full protection of the law, while a baby on that side of the womb is not a human being and can be murdered at will – the evidence is forced to fit the pre-existing conclusion. Conservative “right to life” Protestants wonder how anyone could be so foolish. And yet, those same Protestants who are taught that “justification by faith ALONE” is the key to interpreting the Scriptures (rather than “justification by faith,” which is the teaching of both the Bible and the Church) will then find themselves forced into the predicament of denying a literal understanding of verse after verse of Scripture which teaches the necessity of perseverance in the faith, of a genuine concern for the least of these, of obedience to God’s commandments, of baptism for the remission of sins, etc., etc. – these verses cannot be saying what they appear to be saying because they contradict the foundational assumption which shapes the denomination’s teaching. All of us are in this same boat – when we go into any experience with a grab-bag of assumptions, we risk assuming all sorts of untenable positions, until we dispassionately prove or disprove those assumptions and get our feet on the solid ground of the truth.

One day it dawned on me that there is some serious lipstick besmirching the collar of Protestantism. As a female I was aware that various shades of lipstick go by creative names like “Wild Child” and “Candy Yum-Yum.” This shade of lipstick had a name that was really far-out: “Historical Evidence.” Everyone who gives their heart to Protestant interpretations of Scripture must sooner or later ask what this tattletale lipstick betokens. Is it something that I need to investigate?

If you believe it is, you can start by investigating the common Protestant assertion that the first Christians believed and preached exactly whatever the Protestant church you happen to attend believes and preaches. This claim is more important than it appears. Those first Christians were taught by the apostles, so if your church believes and preaches doctrines that the first Christians disagreed with, it is pretty likely that your 21^st-century church is preaching “a different Gospel,” the very thing St. Paul warned the Galatians against in no uncertain terms. All Protestant churches therefore will insist that their doctrine reflects the beliefs of the first Christians. Even a cursory inspection of this assertion should set off warning bells, for the Lutherans practice, for example, infant baptism while the Baptists decry it. The Baptists insist that a Christian cannot lose his salvation while the Lutherans insist that he can. The Baptists as a rule wholeheartedly embrace the “secret rapture” doctrine; the Lutherans as a rule think that’s kinda nutty. When you attend a Baptist church they will assure you that the first Christians believed and preached exactly what Baptists believe and preach. This is also the foundational assumption at your friendly neighborhood Lutheran church. Somebody’s wrong – the first Christians simply could not have been taught by the apostles that it was appropriate to baptize infants AND NOT appropriate, that Christians can lose their salvation AND definitely cannot, or that they should be expecting to be raptured out of this world AND that no such thing was to be expected. And these are but a few of the beliefs over which Protestant denominations in good standing disagree vehemently. While the “secret rapture” is a secondary issue, baptism and eternal security are most definitely not – they are essential doctrines, for they inform the believer what he must do to be saved….

Reading one’s Bible cannot straighten this issue out, for the Bible does not tell us what the first Christians believed. It gives us the teaching of the apostles, but then we must understand that teaching. The $64,000 question is: are we understanding that teaching the way the first Christians understood it? The only way to know that is to read the writings of the first Christians – what were the first-generation Christians teaching the second-generation Christians? This will make clear to us what they understood the apostles to say. It will solve the nagging questions of infant baptism vs. believer’s baptism/eternal security vs. you can lose your salvation/imminent secret rapture vs. secret-rapture-my-foot! To find the writings of the first and second generations of Christians, though, we must look outside the Bible. We must go to the historical record.

When I was a Protestant, I really had no idea what a wealth of documents sprang from the pens of 1^st- and 2^nd-century Christians. We didn’t talk about those writings at the nondenominational and Baptist churches that I attended. The “fact” that the first Christians believed and taught exactly what we believed and taught was just assumed. Had we looked into the writings of the early Christians, we would have found that they were united in their belief that baptism is for regeneration and that it is appropriate to baptize infants, that they insisted on the necessity of final perseverance, and that no one ever even hinted at the doctrine of the “secret rapture.” Score 3 for Team Lutheran! Either the first Christians all apostatized immediately after the death of the apostles (something groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Latter-Day Saints may try to tell you), or the Lutherans may be onto something here!

Investigating further, we nondenoms and Baptists also would have found that the 1^st– and 2^nd-century Christians considered the Virgin Mary to be the second Eve (as Christ was the second Adam), and taught that the Mass was a sacrifice, and that Jesus was actually physically present in Holy Communion, with the bread and wine actually becoming His Body and Blood. St. Justin Martyr’s description of the Sunday gathering of Christians circa 150 A.D. is Catholic to the core. Now, that’s not exactly what the Lutherans want to hear….

Upon further study it would have become clear to us that the 1^st– and 2^nd-century Christians unanimously supported the idea that after the free, unmerited gift of initial justification, works were necessary for salvation. You know Luther must be spinning in his grave right about now.

And those first Christians were, according to their writings, committed to the idea of there being only one Church, a visible Church gathered around the bishops, and that the church of Rome was accorded “the primacy of love.” They claimed that St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and they wrote about the apostolic succession which gave the bishops their authority. Those Christians called their Church Catholic. No, that really doesn’t sound like the kind of doctrine Lutherans propound. It doesn’t really sound Protestant at all….

Which helps to explain the experience of so many students in Protestant seminaries when it comes time to study early Christian history. Lest they should start questioning the lipstick evident on the collar of whatever denominational doctrine they espouse, these students are taught ABOUT the early Church and the writings of the 1^st– and 2^nd-generation Christians, as opposed to being given a copy of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and asked to read what those men actually wrote. This limited exposure suffices to convince them that they know what the first Christians believed and that it was exactly what their seminary teaches. Four quotes from former students:

My theological roots were at most only 150 years deep. Contrary to what I had been taught, my version of Christianity didn’t go all the way back to the New Testament. Not even close.

From that point on I had a deep desire to understand historic Christianity. I borrowed Paul Johnson’s book, The History of Christianity, from a missionary friend. Over the next year I read several books on Church history. I read the works of men I had never heard of before: Anthony of the Desert, Cyril of Jerusalem, Clement of Alexandria, Basil, Ambrose, Eusebius, Ignatius of Antioch. It felt like finding new friends, Christians who knew my Lord so intimately. But their words also profoundly shook my Evangelical theology. The fact that these men were Catholic made me embarrassed and indignant. In all my years as a Christian I had never heard of these people, let alone studied their writings. I didn’t know much about the early Christian Church. In seminary (we attended Biola, in Southern California) we had been taught to believe that after the death of the Apostles, the Church slid immediately into error and stayed that way until Luther nailed his Theses to the door, and then the “real” Christians came out of hiding. (Kristine Franklin)

Like many young evangelicals I had little denominational loyalty, but the Southern Baptists had a fantastic seminary and missions program. After delaying my entry into seminary for a year after graduation, I finally started classes in early January. The troubles didn’t start until the second week. We were learning about spiritual disciplines like prayer and fasting and I was struck how often the professor would skip from St. Paul to Martin Luther or Jonathan Edwards when describing admirable lives of piety. Did nothing worthwhile happen in the first 1500 years? The skipping of history would continue in many other classes or assigned textbooks. Occasional references to St. Augustine did not obscure the fact that the majority of church history was ignored. (“Anthony“)

That’s when I did something really dangerous. I started reading the early Church Fathers firsthand. I had studied some early Church history, but too much of it was from perspectives limited by Protestant history textbooks. I was shocked to discover in the writings of the first-, second- and third-century Christians a very high view of the Church and liturgy, very much unlike the views of the typical Evangelical Protestant. (Steve Wood)

In the first year of seminary, we studied church history, one of my favorite fields of study. I went beyond the required readings and explored the writings of the early Church Fathers. In their writings, I found a world very different from that of the Evangelical and Reformed Christianity of my experience. (Ed Hopkins) 

And so, folks, we have evidence of a deception and a cover-up. That’s some pretty serious lipstick. The question is, what are you going to do about it? Buy some industrial-strength laundry detergent and scrub harder? Send the shirts to a high-priced dry cleaners and hope for the best? Or follow the lipstick trail and see where it leads?

The writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers can be read online, or are available from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and many other booksellers. Channel your inner detective.

Make Lt. Columbo proud.

 

On the Solemnity of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist

Deo omnis gloria!

What’s to celebrate?

This coming Sunday will be marked in many Evangelical churches by sermons on the topic of the Reformation, sermons in praise of Martin Luther. Certainly the celebration of Martin Luther’s stand against the authority of the Catholic Church makes sense in a Lutheran context; after all, if Lutherans won’t get excited about the founder of their belief system, why should anyone else? But Evangelicals too wax eloquent on the greatness of the man, praising his life and works, his faith, and his refusal to bend his knee to the authority of the Catholic Church. If they could, many an Evangelical congregation would gladly issue an invite to the Great Reformer, asking him to do them the honor of gracing their pulpit on Reformation Sunday morning. Of course, that might not turn out exactly the way they envision it….

As most people know, Luther was a man of strong opinions. He insisted that HIS interpretation of the Bible and HIS teachings were not only correct, but “God’s teaching,” and went so far as to say that “whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved,” so certain was he that he was preaching the pure Gospel.

This bodes ill for the Evangelical congregation that invites Luther to preach on Reformation Sunday. Luther was an unwavering proponent of infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. His views on Holy Communion were also pretty inflexible. He insisted that Jesus was actually present alongside the bread and the wine. Other Reformers thought differently. The Reformer Ulrich Zwingli famously set forth his opinion on communion: that the bread and the wine are mere symbols of the body and blood of Christ. Luther minced no words – the beliefs of the Zwinglians were a “pestiferous teaching.” Zwingli was promulgating the doctrines of baptism as a symbol and Holy Communion as a symbol and, of course, so do Evangelicals….

Evangelicals subscribe to Luther’s doctrine of sola Scriptura, “the Bible alone,” so that should be a point of agreement. Luther championed this belief, which allowed him to simultaneously reject Church authority over him and set himself up as a theological authority. So set was he on the principle of “the Bible, and nothing but the Bible” that he came to the conclusion that bigamy could not be prevented. “My faithful warning and advice is that no man, Christians in particular, should have more than one wife” he wrote, but he was careful to spell out that this was his personal preference and opinion, not the teaching of Scripture. “If a man wishes to marry more than one wife, he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God.” Luther felt that there were certain cases which necessitated taking a second wife: “if the wife develops leprosy or becomes otherwise unfit to live with her husband… But this permission is always to be restricted to such cases as severe necessity.” This would probably be hard to explain to the poor wife afflicted with leprosy that this was a case of “severe necessity,” that not only was she forced to suffer from a dread disease, but that her husband, who vowed to care for her “in sickness and in health” felt that in this “necessity” he just had to take unto himself a second wife. Were Luther to preach in an Evangelical pulpit this Sunday, perhaps he could encourage sola-Scriptura Evangelicals to have the courage of their convictions, as he did: “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture.” Evangelicals, of course, not taking sola Scriptura to its natural conclusion, believe that the Bible teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman, leprosy or no leprosy….

While he was in the pulpit, Reverend Luther might explain to Evangelicals the deal about the word he ADDED to his translation of Holy Scripture to make it read the way he thought it should read. Since St. Paul hadn’t expressed himself quite clearly enough in Romans 3:28, Luther succumbed to temptation and helped the apostle state his case a little more cogently, translating this verse to read:

We hold that a man is justified without the works of the law, by faith ALONE.

The Reformer could pass out copies of his first Bible translation to eager Evangelicals, although when they noticed that he had taken James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation out of their rightful places and shunted them to an appendix in the back, he would have some more ‘splaining to do, probably something along the lines of “Let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to these books….” Evangelicals, of course, take quite seriously the curses pronounced in the books of Deuteronomy and Revelation on anyone who fiddles with Holy Scripture….

One verse that Luther seems to have missed in his Bible reading is the admonition in Ephesians 4:29: “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths.” The Reformer was known for his potty mouth. “Everyone talked that way back then,” his defenders will claim, as if poor Luther were a victim of his times. Yet Luther’s fellow reformer, Heinrich Bullinger, begged to differ:

It is as clear as daylight and undeniable that no one has ever written more vulgarly, more coarsely, more unbecomingly in matters of faith and Christian chastity and modesty and all serious matters than Luther. There are writings of Luther which would not be excused if they were written by a shepherd of swine and not by a distinguished shepherd of souls.

An odd thing to say if such profanity as Luther’s was commonplace. Even one of Luther’s Protestant biographers admits that Luther had a “special talent for obscenity.” Undoubtably, Evangelicals would learn a few new words from the man in the pulpit, for Evangelicals pride themselves on their adherence to Ephesians 5:4: Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place….

Very often Evangelicals will make the excuse that Luther “got saved” as an adult, and therefore a few “rough edges” are to be expected. Hey, nobody’s perfect! Luther lived for 29 long years after he nailed his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg, dying at age 63. According to his Protestant biographers (see below), his behavior became more objectionable the longer he lived. In his last sermon, preached three days before he died, Luther was spewing hatred against the Jewish people. Hopefully he would not choose to broach this topic from an Evangelical pulpit, as Evangelicals consider themselves staunch friends of God’s chosen people….

This coming Sunday all kinds of wackiness will be preached in honor of Herr Doktor Luther; it’s just strange that some of it will be preached by Evangelicals. The only hope for Evangelicals inviting the great Reformer to their pulpit this Sunday would be the “Luther” of Protestant hagiography and partisan fiction – a Luther of their own creation….

On the memorial of St. John Roberts

Deo omnis gloria!

Bibliography:

The following books, all written by Protestant authors, give further information on the subjects mentioned above. Martin Marty, one of the sources cited, is a Lutheran minister of over 50 years.

Paragraph 2

Luther, Martin. Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called, July 1522.

Paragraph 3

Marius, Richard. Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death. Belknap Press, Cambridge, 1999, p. 256. Marty, Martin. Martin Luther. Viking Penguin, 2004, pp. 134-136.

Paragraph 4

Cowie, Leonard W., Martin Luther, Leader of the Reformation. Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., 1969, pg. 110. Oberman, Heiko A. Luther, Man Between God and the Devil, Yale University Press, 1989, pp. 284-289. Marty, Martin. Martin Luther. Viking Penguin, 2004, pp. 108, 159-160. Marius, Richard. Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death. Belknap Press, Cambridge, 1999, p. 260, 391, 440.

Paragraph 5

Marius, Richard. Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death. Belknap Press, Cambridge, 1999, pp. 353-359. O’Connor, Henry. Letter to Wenceslaus Link in Luther’s Own Statements. 3rd edition; New York, Benziger Bros. 1884.

Paragraph 6

Oberman, Heiko A. Luther, Man Between God and the Devil, Yale University Press, 1989, pp. 106-109. Marius, Richard. Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death. Belknap Press, Cambridge, 1999, pp. 86-87. Marty, Martin. Martin Luther. Viking Penguin, 2004, pg. 172.

Paragraph 7

Marty, Martin. Martin Luther. Viking Penguin, 2004, pg. 173. Oberman, Heiko A. Luther, Man Between God and the Devil, Yale University Press, 1989, pg. 290-295. Marius, Richard. Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death. Belknap Press, Cambridge, 1999, pp. 378-380.

Most likely available at your local library! This Reformation Sunday, why not do a little reading?

Sauce for the Gander

A few years back I devoted a great deal of time to meeting with some very nice Jehovah’s Witness ladies to discuss doctrine. These women kindly spent an hour every week sitting in my living room explaining the Jehovah’s Witness belief system to me. I, of course, did my best to present Evangelical Protestant beliefs to them (this was before I was reconciled to the Church). Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the doctrine of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is to them an impersonal force. Jesus Christ is to them, not God Incarnate, but rather “god.” He is the most perfect of all Jehovah God’s creation, and in that capacity was able to die for our sins (although he was not bodily resurrected). This Jesus is not to be worshipped, the Witnesses will tell you, since he is not God.

This, of course, is simply bad old-fashioned Arianism, a heresy condemned by the Council of Nicaea in 325. Folks who deny the Trinity draw on a passel of verses such as John 17:3, John 8:17, John 20:17, 1 Timothy 5:21, 1 Timothy 2:5, Mark 10:18, John 14:28, 1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Corinthians 11:3, and Philippians 2: 5-11 to make their case. Using these passages, the case they make against the deity of Christ seems plausible, until they run up against the words of John 1:1 –

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Oops! The Jehovah’s Witness version of events is that this “Word” was, in his pre-human existence, Michael the Archangel – but John 1:1 states quite unequivocally that “the Word” was GOD. So what’s a frustrated Arian theologian to do in a case like this?

Publish the New World Bible!

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

The New World Bible is the Jehovah’s Witness translation of the Scriptures into English. It can be, of course, quite profitable to a group which teaches something other than the faith once revealed and faithfully preserved down through the ages to produce their own translation of Holy Scripture. Witnesses who go door-to-door can produce a Bible that provides what appears to be solid backing for their theological aberrations; all they have to do is to convince you that those words in John 1:1 are better translated as “a god.”

Taking liberties with Scripture is habit-forming, so when the New World translators got to the great creation passage in Colossians 1:15-20, they decided to embellish that as well. This passage traditionally reads:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

To bolster their “Jesus-is-a-created-being” theme, the New World translators added a little word to Colossians 1:16 -17.

…because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,…

These liberties put the New World Translation on cult-buster radar. Protestant pastor and author of The Kingdom of the Cults, the late Dr. Walter Martin, fired off this blistering salvo:

“In this particular rendering, Jehovah’s Witnesses attempt one of the most clever perversions of the New Testament texts that the author has ever seen. Knowing full well that the word “other” does not occur in this text, or for that matter in any of the three verses (16, 17, 19) where it has been added, albeit in brackets, the Witnesses deliberately insert it into the translation in a vain attempt to make Christ a creature and one of the “things” He is spoken of as having created.

Attempting to justify this unheard-of travesty upon the Greek language and also upon simple honesty, the New World Bible translation committee enclosed each added “other” in brackets, which are said by them to ‘enclose words inserted to complete or clarify the sense in the English text.'”

Translation:

Footnotes are one thing, but when you add words to the actual text of Scripture, even words in brackets, you have crossed the line! No matter what your interpretation of a passage may lead you to believe, you can’t add in words that are simply not there in the original language and then claim that they have been inserted “to complete or clarify the sense in the English text”!

Unheard-of travesty, indeed!

Hang on, there – maybe not exactly unheard of….

Back in the 16th century, an Augustinian monk had a revelation. He believed that justification was not by faith (which was the teaching of the Church up until that time), but by faith ALONE. He could see this principle soooo clearly in Scripture. The only problem was, other people were having trouble buying into this, always wanting to bring up that pesky James 2:24:

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

After people read that verse, they had qualms about the “faith ALONE” direction that Luther was headed in. There were no other verses in the Bible that contained the phrase “faith alone.” Luther found his new doctrine to be a hard sell….

So what’s a frustrated Reformer to do in a case like this?

Publish Luther’s translation of Holy Scripture into German!

Romans 3:28 as Luther translated it read:

Wir halten, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werk ALLEIN durch den Glauben.

For the German-impaired, Luther’s version said:

We hold that a man is justified without the works of the law, by faith ALONE.

Predictably, there was something of a stir….

Luther wrote a letter called “Ein Sendbrief D. M. Luthers. Vom Dolmetzschen und Fürbitte der Heiligen” (Open Letter on Translating), explaining why he had taking it upon himself to add a word to Holy Scripture:

In the first place, you ask why in translating the words of Paul in the 3rd chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, Arbitramur hominem iustificari ex fide absque operibus, I rendered them, “We hold that a man is justified without the works of the law, by faith alone,” and you also tell me that the papists are causing a great fuss because Paul’s text does not contain the word sola (alone), and that my addition to the words of God is not to be tolerated….

(rails about how all the Papists put together couldn’t accurately translate one chapter of Scripture, then insists that no one is being forced to read his translation, then repeats his first complaint. Goes off into a rant about how another man’s translation of Scripture was preferred to his by a German ruler – claims that the other translator plagiarized his work…)

(898 English words later…)

But I will return to the subject at hand. If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. For we are not going to be students and disciples of the papists. Rather, we will become their teachers and judges. For once, we also are going to be proud and brag, with these blockheads; and just as Paul brags against his mad raving saints, I will brag against these donkeys of mine! Are they doctors? So am I. Are they scholars? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they logicians? So am I. Do they lecture? So do I. Do they write books? So do I.

I will go even further with my boasting: I can expound the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read the Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot. Coming down to their level, I can use their rhetoric and philosophy better than all of them put together. Plus I know that not one of them understands his Aristotle. If any one of them can correctly understand one preface or chapter of Aristotle, I will eat my hat!

(I sense hostility)

Let this be the answer to your first question. Please do not give these donkeys any other answer to their useless braying about that word sola than simply this: “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the pope.” Let it rest there. I will from now on hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people (or rather donkeys) that they are. And there are brazen idiots among them who have never even learned their own art of sophistry, like Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Snot-Nose, and such like them, who set themselves against me in this matter, which not only transcends sophistry, but as Paul writes, all the wisdom and understanding in the world as well. Truly a donkey does not have to sing much, because he is already known by his ears.

For you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the [German equivalent of the] word sola — even though in Romans 3 it was not [the equivalent of] sola I used but solum or tantum. That is how closely those donkeys have looked at my text! Nevertheless I have used sola fides elsewhere; I want to use both solum and sola. I have always tried to translate in a pure and clear German.

(digresses into the subject of how hard it is to translate well and how much effort he has taken to make the text really flow in German, so as not to give the people a clunky translation that would offend their ears. Starts moaning about how nobody really appreciates all his hard work…)

There is no such thing as earning the world’s thanks. Even God himself cannot earn thanks, not with the sun, nor with heaven and earth, nor even the death of his Son. The world simply is and remains as it is, in the devil’s name, because it will not be anything else.

(FINALLY GETS TO THE POINT)

I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is a fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text — if the translation is to be clear and vigorous, it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word allein [only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; or “No, I really have nicht money, but allein grain”; I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk”; “Did you write it allein and nicht read it over?” There are countless cases like this in daily usage.

In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German language to add allein in order that nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say, “The farmer brings grain and kein money,” but the words “kein money” do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word allein helps the word kein so much that it becomes a completely clear German expression. We do not have to ask the literal Latin how we are to speak German, as these donkeys do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language, by the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.

This last is a great big load of horse waste. It is NOT necessary to insert the word “alone” into the text in German. The modern-day Protestant versions of the German Bible DO NOT insert the word “allein” into the text. Despite Luther’s vehement protestations to the contrary, it is not only possible but actually preferable to translate this passage without the addition of the word “alone,” because in so doing, modern-day German Bible translators avoid the Biblical condemnation of adding to the inspired word of God!

(Luther finally explains the REAL reason why he felt compelled to alter the words of Holy Scripture)

However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum in Romans 3. The text itself, and Saint Paul’s meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God’s law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: “If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God.” So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say “Faith alone justifies and not works.” The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.

To paraphrase the words of Dr. Walter Martin on a very, very similar subject:

In this particular rendering, Martin Luther attempts one of the most clever perversions of the New Testament texts that the author has ever seen. Knowing full well that the word “alone” does not occur in this text where it has been added, the great Reformer deliberately inserted it into the translation in a vain attempt to make Germans believe that there was unequivocal Scriptural backing for his novel doctrine.

Attempting to justify this unheard-of travesty upon the Greek language and also upon simple honesty, Dr. Luther insists that “the text itself, and St. Paul’s meaning, urgently require and demand it – the matter itself and the nature of language requires it.”

What’s sauce for the Jehovah’s Witness goose is sauce for the great Reformer’s gander.

On the memorial of St. John of Capistrano

Deo omnis gloria!

Was St. Paul a Quack?

Did you ever hear of a doctor warning his patients to make sure that their hearts don’t stop beating? Get a family member to sit by your bed all night taking your pulse, he tells you – they can get help at the first sign of trouble! Better yet, buy a heart monitor – you can’t be too careful! You must keep your heart beating at all costs!!!

Goofy, huh? What a quack! The heart, after all, is an involuntary muscle! You expect that it’s going to keep beating whether you want it to or not! Can you imagine your doctor telling you that it is your responsibility to be on your guard and keep your heart beating?

Evangelicals have a couple of doctrines that are really dear to their hearts, two that they got from Luther – sola fide and sola Scriptura (faith alone and the Bible alone), and one from Calvin – the doctrine of “eternal security,” colloquially known as “once-saved/always saved.” Televangelists refer to it as “You can know that you know that you know that you know that you know….”

One brand of Evangelical teaching on eternal security is somewhat different from the doctrine of “perseverance of the saints” first set forth by Calvin (and I do mean FIRST set forth – NO ONE before Calvin preached this doctrine). These Evangelicals tend to emphasize the faith ALONE aspect of eternal security, looking to John 3:18 as a proof-text:

Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Now, when you read that verse, you read “Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” But when these folks read that verse, they read “Whoever BELIEVES in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not BELIEVE stands condemned already because they have not BELIEVED in the name of God’s one and only Son.” In other words, it’s all a matter of whether or not you BELIEVE. When you “get saved,” many Evangelicals tell you, you will start living a Christ-like life out of sheer gratitude to God – BUT YOU DON’T HAVE TO. Sanctification is totally optional. You may, and unfortunately some do, continue to live like the devil, but you need never fear that eternal damnation might be in the cards. This perspective sees salvation as God’s work entirely, and therefore a Christian, no matter how wildly and deliberately he sins, cannot lose his salvation. Nothing he does can earn his salvation, and therefore nothing he does can cause him to forfeit it. “Free Grace” is another name for this particular understanding of eternal security. “Easy, greasy grace” and “easy believe-ism” are other, less flattering ways of referring to it.

Not all Evangelicals adhere to the “Free Grace” perspective on salvation. Many believe that when a person gets saved, he WILL begin to live a Christ-honoring life. If he doesn’t – he didn’t really get saved. This assumption leads, understandably, to a lot less “security” than the “eternal security” proponents would like you to believe. An Evangelical who “gets saved” and then finds himself engaging in sin will naturally tend to doubt his salvation. This gives rise to altar calls encouraging folks to “rededicate” their lives to the Lord. If that fails to assuage the doubt, one can always “get saved” all over again. As my toddler daughter put it (back in our Baptist days), “I got saved three times already! My Sunday School teacher saved me once, and I saved myself once in my bedroom, and today I got saved again!” Cute – but not so cute when adults get baptized, and re-baptized, and three-baptized… all because they’re afraid that their “salvation” wasn’t for real.

The utter subjectivity of this view of eternal security poses some unusual difficulties. My son’s eighth-grade Bible teacher told the class that she never talks to Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses who knock on her door, because she is afraid that they will deceive her with their false doctrine and lead her away from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, causing her to be damned. Understandably shocked, the children asked her if she was saying that she could lose her salvation? “Of course not!” was her answer – if that happened, then she had never really been saved to begin with. My son, now a freshman in college, still gets headaches trying to follow that convoluted logic, but it is inherent in the system. As an Evangelical, you get used to playing Extreme Mental Twister when you think about these things.

St. Paul’s warnings to the Philippians, the Romans, the Corinthians, the Galatians and the Colossians don’t help any. Up against the Evangelical Protestant understanding of “eternal security,” St. Paul is like a cardiologist warning his patients to keep their hearts beating! “The heart is an involuntary muscle!” you say? That’s what I learned in school – so the idea that a doctor would warn me to make sure my heart keeps beating strikes me as bizarre! But the Evangelical idea of eternal security claims that salvation is akin to an involuntary muscle – it’s not up to you to keep the “heart” of your salvation beating – either (a) IT CAN’T STOP or (b) if it “stops,” it’s because it was never really actually beating…. (my head hurts). Yet the apostle Paul warns the Colossians:

And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach– if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

He warns the Galatians:

Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

He warns the Corinthians:

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

And he warns the Romans:

You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

All of these verses indicate the reality that a Christian can be severed from Christ, can fall from grace, can be cut off, can believe in vain. St. Paul’s admonition to the Philippians therefore takes on an air of extreme urgency: Work out your salvation with fear and trembling!

St. Peter (2 Pet 2:20-22) and the author of the book of Hebrews (Heb 3:12, Heb 6:4-6) echo the same refrain. Hebrews 10:23-29 puts it very strongly, warning of the “fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire” for those who go on deliberately sinning after receiving the knowledge of the truth. The Great Physician, Himself meek and lowly of heart, teaches the same doctrine (Lk 12:42-46) – remember the steward given charge over the Master’s household, the guy who eats, drinks and makes merry instead of faithfully carrying out his charge? What did the Master do to that steward when He returned? Turn a blind eye to his misdeeds and promote him?

St. Paul was no quack. His warnings about falling from grace are very necessary reminders to us – do not be arrogant, but be afraid. Whether your theology admits it or not, your heart can most certainly betray you. Or as the author of the book of Hebrews puts it: Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God….

On the memorial of St. Teresa de Jesús

Deo omnis gloria!

What the Bible Should Say

Many of you have read my “conversion story” at Why I’m Catholic. This term “conversion” leaves a lot to be desired. Technically, Protestants don’t “convert” to Catholicism – we are reconciled to the Church, because we are already Christians by virtue of our baptism. But that’s so wordy – it’s so much easier to say “I converted.”

The word “convert” comes from the Latin “com” (with) and “vertere” (to turn). Nowadays we also speak of “deconversion,” when someone falls away from the faith, and of “reversion,” as when a Catholic convert to Protestantism “reverts” to his former Catholic beliefs. Since Protestants and Catholics are all Christians to begin with, I think we need some more specific terms for what happens when someone leaves Catholicism for Protestantism, or vice versa. I tend to think of Catholics as “subverting” when they reject the teachings of the Church for “what does this Bible verse mean to you?” I myself “supraverted” when I left behind a lifetime of private interpretation of Scripture in order to be reconciled to my mother, the Church. I am motivated by the desire to see all of Protestantism supravert!

So, for those of you who have read my supraversion story, here are a few of the Scriptures I listed as posing a problem for me as a Protestant. Some of these verses (like Colossians 1:24 – “Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church”) were a shock to me when I first encountered them, because there was no way to comfortably reconcile them to my existing beliefs. Others, like II Timothy 3:16, had bothered me all my life because of the nagging certainty that we were stretching or twisting them all out of proportion to make them agree with our theology. After all, what’s a Bible-Alone Christian to do if the Bible won’t say what it SHOULD say?

II Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

As an Evangelical, I was convinced that Holy Scripture is the pillar and foundation of truth. That’s how I was taught to read II Timothy 3:16, ignoring the fact that that verse claims only that:

a) Scripture is God-breathed

b) Scripture is useful

c) Scripture makes it possible for God’s servants to be fully equipped for good works.

We distorted that into “Scripture is the sole infallible guide and rule of our faith and practice!” As you can see, the verse just doesn’t say that. Holy Scripture simply isn’t (and never claims to be) the pillar and foundation of the truth.

1 Timothy 3:15: “…the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

In 45 years of Protestant experience, I never knew that that statement was in the Bible. If you had told me that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth, I would have told you that you were badly deceived.

James 2:24: “A man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.”

Another one of those verses that I read right over. Try walking up to a “Bible-believing Christian” and saying, “A man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.” They may very well shriek “Heresy!!” No, not heresy – James 2:24.

Revelation chapters 2 and 3

Works, works and more works! For a “Faith Alone” kinda guy, the Jesus of Revelation chapters 2 and 3 seems weirdly hung up on the “works” that the churches have been performing! “I know your works” – Rev 2:2. “I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first.” “I know your works” Rev 3:1. “I know your works” Rev 3:8. “I know your works” Rev 3:15. To calm the Evangelical soul, the NIV (the most popular Protestant translation of the Bible into English) translates this as “I know your deeds.” “Works” just has that Catholic ring to it….

Matthew 25:31-46: When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

An assignment for those who insist that “works” have nothing to do with our salvation – find a judgment scenario in Scripture where anyone is judged on their faith alone.

1 Corinthians 13:13: “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

So what?

As Evangelicals, we were all about FAITH. Every passage in the Bible was made to fit into our interpretive paradigm of FAITH ALONE. This little verse acts as a tiny pinprick in the great big balloon of FAITH ALONE assumptions. If “love” is the greatest, how can we possibly be saved by faith alone?

Galatians 5:4-6: You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

Here’s where 1 Corinthians 13:13 goes to work – it’s NOT faith alone, but “faith working through love,” because the greatest of these is NOT faith, but love. This has been the Catholic position vis-à-vis faith and works since the beginning.

John 17:20-23: “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

As a Protestant, I was certainly familiar with this passage, but I took it to mean that Christians need to get along in a generalized sense. In my understanding, “be one” morphed into “don’t argue too much over the passages of Scripture you can’t agree on – if necessary just go out and start your own church – nothing wrong with that.” We all knew that denominations were a necessary accommodation to our Christian inability to see eye-to-eye on every little thing.

1 Corinthians 1:11-13 – “My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

St. Paul’s definitive statement against denominationalism comes complete with excuse-making that sounds suspiciously like “I follow Luther”; “I follow Calvin”; “I follow Wesley.” As Evangelicals we realized this, but were helpless to do anything about it, preferring instead to believe that we Protestants agreed on The Essentials.

Ephesians 4:11-13: “So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

This passage presents a problem to those who stretch II Timothy 3:16 all out of proportion, for while that verse tells us that the Scriptures fully equip us for good works, Ephesians 4:12 tells us that the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers do this as well – a problem if you are trying to attribute that role to Scripture ALONE. Obviously Church leaders must play some part in that equipping. The Bible isn’t even mentioned here.

Ephesians 4:13 also presents a difficulty for those who believe that we just need a live-and-let-live attitude towards Christians of other denominations, proclaiming as it does that our goal must be “unity in the faith and knowledge of the Son of God.” Obviously, this unity is only possible if our leaders are all preaching the same doctrine….

Philippians 2: 12-13: “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.”

As Baptists, there was one thing we were all certain of when we discussed Philippians 2:12-13, and that was that St. Paul did NOT mean “continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling!” That was IMPOSSIBLE, because when we prayed the sinner’s prayer, we were saved in an instant for all time and eternity. We twisted the verse like a lump of clay until we made it say something like “continue trying to become more Christ-like!” – emasculating the “fear and trembling” part, and sweeping the word “salvation” under our theological carpet. Over the years that carpet got quite a few lumps under it….

1 John 5:13: These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.”

What we did to 1 John 5:13 should be illegal. Placing the last 8 words of this verse in solitary confinement, we proclaimed that you could “know that you know that you know” that you are saved for all eternity. We wanted so badly to assure you of your eternal salvation that we neglected to read you the fine print: 1 John chapters 1-4! St. John’s checklist is extensive (“You can know if you have eternal life IF you (a) walk in the light, (b) obey God’s commands, (c) walk as Jesus did, (d) do what is right, (e) love your brother), and it is enough to send anyone scurrying back to St. Paul’s advice in Philippians: “WORK OUT YOUR SALVATION WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING!”

So there are twelve examples of the major “fudge factor” that I participated in as an Evangelical. And I’m not the only one who feels this way; apparently the translators of the New International Version agreed with me – Evangelicals simply have to put a “spin” on certain passages of Scripture in order to make popular Evangelical theology work. Well-known Anglican bishop and author of Justification: God’ Plan and Paul’s Vision, N.T. Wright, critiqued the NIV with the following words:

“Again and again, with the Greek text in front of me and the NIV beside it, I discovered that the translators had another principle, considerably higher than the stated one: to make sure that Paul should say what the broadly Protestant and evangelical tradition said he said….”  

 

On the memorial of St. Regina

Deo omnis gloria!