Skip to main content

Two Parallel Tracks

In the course of time, when investigating the history of Christianity, and in fact tracing the development of Christian doctrine, we face two distinct problems. One problem relates to how one satisfactorily reconciles known Christian practice with the claim of continuity made by those who formed ecclesial communities at the Reformation. One must either say that a distinct continuity of doctrine and practice is not a necessary part of Christ’s faithful preservation of the Church, (which is absurd) or make oneself the arbiter of the marks of that continuity, which does an obvious violence to the historical data itself. The second problem emerges after one has assumed that the first problem is not in fact the problem, and that we can safely assume a continuity between the early Church and the communities of the Reformation. That second problem is this: How do we determine the doctrine of God, given Reformation assumptions, tools and methods, they use of which has obviously led to radically different dogmatic conclusions on things that by definition, are not matters of indifference?
To say that the first problem is a real problem and to seek out a solution, does in fact lead to the Catholic Church, because history becomes the ground for evidence which would reveal the fundamental contradiction at the heart of the Reformation’s claim to ecclesial continuity. But any good Protestant, such as I was at one time, would not immediately be forced to answer the first question; he would have no good reason to assume that the reformers had falsely claimed continuity with the early Church. So, a person such as myself at that time would only be vulnerable in terms of the second question or problem that we described. The 2nd problem is distinctly a Protestant problem, because it emerges only after the Reformation assumptions and claim to continuity is taken as a given. This is why the 2nd problem is a gateway to the first, and not the other way around. It is fundamentally dishonest to dismiss the conundrum at the heart of the 2nd problem or question out of fear that it will lead to the Catholic conclusions at the end of the first.

I did not become Catholic because of the interpretive problem caused by the plethora of plausible interpretive conclusions, with no mechanism to settle those questions definitively. However, the reality of that crisis led me in all honesty to revisit the assumption of the reformers’ continuity with the early Church. The irreconcilable dilemma between the invocation of ecclesiastical authority and final individual interpretive authority, once acknowledged, does not make one a Catholic. Rather, once the essential claim of continuity is reopened for both sides of the dispute, then the raw data and its common threads becomes evidence for that test. Continuity was neither required nor desired if the question of essential continuity was taken for granted in favor of the reformers. One could simply dismiss any apparent continuity in the centuries before with a prior assumption that what was truly necessary was recovered by the reformers. Even if we ignore the fact that the assumption of the essential continuity of the reformers with the early church begs the question in dispute between Catholics and Protestants, we still do not avoid the 2nd problem, and, by God’s grace we shall not want to avoid the challenge that it poses. We owe it to ourselves and to each other to seek it out. We owe it to our own intellectual integrity, and to the charitable assumption related to my dialogue partners’ intellect, diligence, and humility. The reason the so-called Noltie Conundrum is a conundrum is because it charitably assumes all this, and then asks us if we can still determine or know the doctrine of God using Scripture alone.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un