I need to clarify something about my journey to the Catholic Church. Let no one say, "Well, he joined the Catholic because he became disenchanted with Sola Scriptura." It's true that I became disenchanted with it, as all of you should be or become. Because it's total crap. But that's an entirely other problem from the challenge/invitation/obligation/annoying, bearded monk in your head posed by the Catholic Church. The Church is like a Blackjack dealer. You're sitting there with two face cards, a rock-solid 20, and she says, "Peter, Apostolic Succession, Eucharist. That makes 21," and you swear, and hand over your money. Because you can see the cards. It is what it is.
But you really don't have to be a papist to recognize the Sola Scriptura problem. You let me know when you convince Mark Dever to baptize infants, or convince your grandfather/crazy neighbor/pretty girl who sadly attends a "Church of Christ" that you're not going to hell because you weren't immersed. "We're all united in the essentials" dies a quick death when they reply, "We most certainly are not!" Call up the "Synod" Lutherans and ask them why they won't immediately merge with the PCA. When the laughter dies down, you'll have your answer. So seriously spare me this. I can't believe people are still defending it. Are people earnest? Do they use the Bible? Do they believe it to be the word of God? You might say this or that separatist is "twisting the Scriptures," but they can say it, too. You might protest that you have brethren outside your community. How nice. I hope it goes both ways. Wait, I don't know.
The question before us all is whether the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. I could have made the best of it, Sola Scriptura notwithstanding, if I hadn't answered that in the affirmative. No way I would prefer Catholicism without it. Are you kidding? Trust me guys, the shine wears off quick. If you didn't enter for the right reason, you won't stay.
But the person of Jesus Christ that I clung to in the dark time, He is very real. And good. Does it put the gospel at risk to start at the beginning? Can those supposed "magisterial" reformers stand up to the questioning? I had to realize first that who Christ had revealed himself to be was Truth, and that every hero or mentor besides Him could fall, and I would be OK. But seriously, have you ever asked yourself if Luther or Calvin or Wesley was wrong? Not wrong in the metaphysical sense; I mean wrong ecclesiastically? Try this one: If every corrupt Catholic clergyman, king, friar, and nobody were miraculously made perfect, could you still imagine the Council of Trent coming down? When I had to answer that with a 'yes', then it really got fun. In other words, the question of whether councils could err is entirely separate from whether people can (and do). No amount of sin alters the truth of where and what the Church is, by nature. The question is, do we live with a notion of the Church that is individually determined by us (and those who happen to share it with us) or do we find the Church Christ founded, and submit to her unconditionally? You may say that I can't definitively prove I have found it, and that is true. I can't make any argument to silence every toungue. However, the truth of something is not dependent on the wisdom or articulation of those who hold it. Here are the questions that need answering: If every appeal to Scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of Scripture, how does one judge between them, by something greater than preference? Another question: How can we arrive at divine truth within a system where no element--neither the interpreters, nor the judges--is promised protection from error? It would appear that the testimonies of the Holy Spirit on matters of divine faith is as varied as our opinions. But this is impossible. Therefore, it cannot be the Holy Spirit to which they appeal. Obviously, a hermeneutical paradigm that finds its adjudication in the self cannot long survive even the appearance of something external to that self to which one submits. Is this not ultimately the truth shown here? One may find the Catholic answer at this point to be question-begging or hasty, and I understand that. But you may well find that the evidence for such claims is more than theoretical. The truth that at the very least unites some of us in some imperfect fashion had a real beginning. We ought not pretend that this truth consensus upon which this fruitful dialogue depends formed entirely outside human life and action, any more than Jesus could be born as Savior and Redeemer apart from His mother. If the "scandal of particularity" in regard to Christ we are constrained to affirm, if the truths of Scripture emerge from the human dirt of history, perhaps in spite of it, but never outside it, then what of the Church? To be more blunt, what makes Nicea true and Trent false? If dissent was so neccessary, so justified, are you at all surprised when "truths" far more odious spring forth on the same grounds?
Let me not belabor you with arguments. But I say one thing more: If I do not surrender, I do not know. It was indeed the Terror of Nothing that led here. Not that my version of history lacked a plausibility, but in fact, that it was mine, and ultimately mine alone. Add to this that my history had no more plausibility or authority than any other. If that truth is not subjectivism writ large, the word has no meaning.
But you really don't have to be a papist to recognize the Sola Scriptura problem. You let me know when you convince Mark Dever to baptize infants, or convince your grandfather/crazy neighbor/pretty girl who sadly attends a "Church of Christ" that you're not going to hell because you weren't immersed. "We're all united in the essentials" dies a quick death when they reply, "We most certainly are not!" Call up the "Synod" Lutherans and ask them why they won't immediately merge with the PCA. When the laughter dies down, you'll have your answer. So seriously spare me this. I can't believe people are still defending it. Are people earnest? Do they use the Bible? Do they believe it to be the word of God? You might say this or that separatist is "twisting the Scriptures," but they can say it, too. You might protest that you have brethren outside your community. How nice. I hope it goes both ways. Wait, I don't know.
The question before us all is whether the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. I could have made the best of it, Sola Scriptura notwithstanding, if I hadn't answered that in the affirmative. No way I would prefer Catholicism without it. Are you kidding? Trust me guys, the shine wears off quick. If you didn't enter for the right reason, you won't stay.
But the person of Jesus Christ that I clung to in the dark time, He is very real. And good. Does it put the gospel at risk to start at the beginning? Can those supposed "magisterial" reformers stand up to the questioning? I had to realize first that who Christ had revealed himself to be was Truth, and that every hero or mentor besides Him could fall, and I would be OK. But seriously, have you ever asked yourself if Luther or Calvin or Wesley was wrong? Not wrong in the metaphysical sense; I mean wrong ecclesiastically? Try this one: If every corrupt Catholic clergyman, king, friar, and nobody were miraculously made perfect, could you still imagine the Council of Trent coming down? When I had to answer that with a 'yes', then it really got fun. In other words, the question of whether councils could err is entirely separate from whether people can (and do). No amount of sin alters the truth of where and what the Church is, by nature. The question is, do we live with a notion of the Church that is individually determined by us (and those who happen to share it with us) or do we find the Church Christ founded, and submit to her unconditionally? You may say that I can't definitively prove I have found it, and that is true. I can't make any argument to silence every toungue. However, the truth of something is not dependent on the wisdom or articulation of those who hold it. Here are the questions that need answering: If every appeal to Scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of Scripture, how does one judge between them, by something greater than preference? Another question: How can we arrive at divine truth within a system where no element--neither the interpreters, nor the judges--is promised protection from error? It would appear that the testimonies of the Holy Spirit on matters of divine faith is as varied as our opinions. But this is impossible. Therefore, it cannot be the Holy Spirit to which they appeal. Obviously, a hermeneutical paradigm that finds its adjudication in the self cannot long survive even the appearance of something external to that self to which one submits. Is this not ultimately the truth shown here? One may find the Catholic answer at this point to be question-begging or hasty, and I understand that. But you may well find that the evidence for such claims is more than theoretical. The truth that at the very least unites some of us in some imperfect fashion had a real beginning. We ought not pretend that this truth consensus upon which this fruitful dialogue depends formed entirely outside human life and action, any more than Jesus could be born as Savior and Redeemer apart from His mother. If the "scandal of particularity" in regard to Christ we are constrained to affirm, if the truths of Scripture emerge from the human dirt of history, perhaps in spite of it, but never outside it, then what of the Church? To be more blunt, what makes Nicea true and Trent false? If dissent was so neccessary, so justified, are you at all surprised when "truths" far more odious spring forth on the same grounds?
Let me not belabor you with arguments. But I say one thing more: If I do not surrender, I do not know. It was indeed the Terror of Nothing that led here. Not that my version of history lacked a plausibility, but in fact, that it was mine, and ultimately mine alone. Add to this that my history had no more plausibility or authority than any other. If that truth is not subjectivism writ large, the word has no meaning.
Comments