Doug Wilson

In 2006 Doug Wilson wrote an article titled “Authority and Apostolic Succession” in which he defends what he refers to as a  Protestant conception of Apostolic succession, over against that of the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox. My statements below are critical of Doug’s article, but I should point out that they are not intended to be critical of Doug as a person; I consider him a brother in Christ, and my criticisms of his article should be interpreted in that light. I’m intending to explain where I think his reasoning in this article is mistaken, and I hope my explanation is helpful to him, and to others, so that we might come closer to agreement concerning the truth.

The first four paragraphs of his article are mostly rhetorical “debris clearing,” so my analysis begins with his fifth paragraph. There, in regard to the question of finding the visible Church, Doug claims that there are two ways of answering the question, “Where are we to find the visible church?” One way is through succession, and the other is by restoration. Doug claims that the classical Protestant way is not that of restoration (think Campbellites or Mormons) but that of succession, writing, “This helps explain how classical Protestants can identify with the Church as she existed prior to the Reformation.”

The problem for Doug’s position is one that I explained in my article titled “Ecclesial Deism.” If ‘classical Protestantism’ were not succession, but a form of restoration, it would essentially be no different. That is because, as I pointed out in “Ecclesial Deism,” so many things considered essential to the Catholic faith for at least a thousand years prior to the 16th century, were jettisoned by Protestants.  Only what agreed with their interpretation of Scripture was retained.¹ That’s restorationism, even if one pins a ’succession’ label on it. That’s not to deny that Protestantism carries with it implicitly and explicitly traditions and ideas that developed within the Catholic Church. But Protestantism retains those things in spite of itself, because of its authority structure.²

Even if Doug accepts the authority of the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils (having scratched out the fifth ecumenical council’s teaching that Mary remained a perpetual virgin), he rejects the authority of the seventh through seventeenth ecumenical councils. So his claim to identify “classical Protestantism” with “the ancient and medieval church” seems quite empty, because his claim is fully compatible with the truth of its contrary. If his denomination decided to deny identification with the medieval church, it wouldn’t need to change a thing. No Protestant doctrine stands or falls on any medieval council or decision. It is as if the Church ceased to exist for a thousand years. And for this reason it presupposes ecclesial deism.

Next, Doug claims that there are gaps in the record of apostolic succession. The example he uses is that of St. Clement of Rome. Doug appeals to the American Jesuit Francis Sullivan to support his claim that we don’t know whether St. Clement was a bishop. But such a claim can only arise from a hermeneutic of suspicion. St. Irenaeus, himself a second century bishop of Lyon in what is now France, wrote the following:

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (Against Heresies III.3.3)

St. Eleutherius was bishop of Rome from c. 174 – 189. So St. Irenaeus, who had visited the Church in Rome, was writing this list between 174 and 189. Who then has greater proximity and historical authority? St. Irenaeus, or Francis Sullivan? That’s simply no contest. Only someone operating under the hermeneutic of suspicion would think Sullivan more of a credible source about the episcopacy of St. Clement than St. Irenaeus, who had been taught by St. Polycarp, who himself had been taught by the Apostle John.

Doug claims that there are gaps in apostolic succession, but he does not specify what these gaps are, and whether they are gaps in the succession itself or gaps in his knowledge of the succession. It would be helpful if he would point to the gap in this list of popes. But, having asserted that there are gaps of some unspecified sort, he precedes forward as though he has established the premise that there are gaps in the succession from the Apostles to the current pope, Pope Benedict XVI. Doug writes,

In fact, the demonstrable existence of such gaps favors a position that allows for them (like classical Protestantism) and argues against any position that depends on an absence of gaps.

Notice that he claims the gaps are “demonstrable”, but he never demonstrates that these gaps exist. He uses an assertion for the point in question, as if it is so obvious and well-known that he does not have to provide the evidence.

He next adds:

the foundation for my faith assumptions about church history are found in Scripture. This means that I believe certain things about the authority of the Church on the basis of what Jesus and the apostles taught, not because I can produce an exhaustive set of minutes that prove, say, that Second Nicea was an unlawful council. I know what to think of Second Nicea on the basis of the Second Commandment, which I consider to be a senior Second.

That’s another way of saying that Doug is his own ultimate interpretive authority. When any Church council teaches something contrary to his own interpretation of Scripture, his own interpretation of Scripture  judges the Council’s teaching; the Council’s teaching does not stand as judge of his own interpretation of Scripture. Neal and I addressed that “solo scriptura” approach to Scripture in our article “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority.”

Doug next writes:

One last thing before we begin. Questions of scriptural authority cannot be separated from questions of ecclesiastical authority. The Bible, all 66 books of it, is the Word of God, and is the final and ultimate authority over all our disputes. But we have to acknowledge the role that Church played in the formation of that canon. The Table of Contents in front of my Bible is not the Word of God directly, but is rather the work of the Holy Spirit in and through the Church.

If Doug really believed in an “identification” of his ‘church’ with the “medieval church,” as he claimed above, then he would accept the canon taught by the medieval church, listed in Session 11 of the Council of Florence in 1442, the same canon spelled out later at the Council of Trent.

He adds:

And in the spirit of John the Baptist, the faithful Church says that Scripture must increase, and I must decrease.

Scripture can increase only by becoming more widely known and understood. And Scripture can become more widely known and understood, only if the Church increases. There is no reason to pit Scripture against the Church, as if one must decrease for the other to increase. They can both increase simultaneously, because they are not in competition with each other, but mutually illumine and inform the functional capacity of the other. Doug thinks that Scripture is akin to Christ, while the Church is akin to John the Baptist. But, while Scripture is the Word of God written, the Church is the Word of God mystically embodied, because the Church is the Body of Christ as St. Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 12. Christ increases in the world not only when the Word increases throughout the world, but also when His Church increases throughout the world. Neither increases without the other also increasing.

In getting to the heart of his article, Wilson refers to Hebrews 10:19-22, which reads:

Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Doug asks whether this text is referring to baptism. The answer, of course, is yes. Then he claims that “baptism fulfills, not only circumcision, but also a number of other typological features of life under the law, including the rite of ordination.” Doug’s evidence that baptism fulfils … the rite of ordination” is that being sprinkled with blood and water was part of the ordination rite under the Old Covenant. (Exod. 29:4, 21; Lev. 8:6, 30).

Of course the Catholic Church believes and teaches that by our baptism we are given a share in the common priesthood of all believers. As the Catholic Catechism teaches:

The baptized have become “living stones” to be “built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood.” By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light.” Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers. (CCC 1269)

But Doug’s reasoning falls short in the succeeding paragraph, where he writes:

We Christians in the New Israel are a nation of priests, and as priests, we have access to the heavenly sanctuary. This privilege is conferred, stated, promised, signed and sealed in our baptisms. Apostolic succession is therefore a priestly succession, and the New Testament teaches that even Gentiles (in Christ) can walk into the Holy of Holies as priests. Not just one Jew from the line of Aaron, once a year, but multitudes of Gentiles, all the time, not to mention all the Jews who came to faith as well. This means that ordination in the Old Covenant is not primarily a type of ordinations in the New (although there are ordinations in the New). These ancient ordinations are a type of what is declared of all Christians in baptism.

First he moves from the truth that by our baptism we Christians in the New Israel are a nation of priests, to the conclusion that Apostolic succession is therefore a priestly succession. Even though he is correct that Apostolic succession is a priestly succession, from the fact that by our baptism we enjoy the baptismal priesthood it does not follow that Apostolic succession (i.e. which includes ministerial priesthood) is a priestly succession except per accidens. ³ Doug is implicitly moving from the fact of our baptismal priesthood as a fulfillment of Old Covenant ordination, to the conclusion that Apostolic succession is only by baptism and not by the sacrament of Holy Orders. But that conclusion does not follow from his premise.

He then claims that because in the New Covenant the priesthood of all believers includes Gentiles and Jews alike, and not one Jew in a line from Aaron, this means therefore that ordination in the Old Covenant “is not primarily a type of ordinations in the New.” That too is a non sequitur. To arrive at that conclusion, Doug would have to conflate the baptismal priesthood and the ministerial priesthood, as though there were no distinction between them. And such a conflation would simply beg the question, i.e. assume precisely what is in question between Protestants and Catholics [and Orthodox]. Just because all believers by their baptism are given a share in the common priesthood of all believers, it does not follow that ordination in the Old Covenant is not a type of ordination in the New Covenant. Doug is assuming that ordination in the Old Testament cannot have more than one kind of fulfillment in the New Covenant. He is assuming that since baptism brings us all into the [baptismal] priesthood, therefore New Covenant ordination cannot be a fulfillment of Old Covenant ordination. In other words, he is assuming that if by our baptism we are all brought to the level of Aaron’s priesthood, then there can be no more priestly hierarchy in the New Covenant. But the assumption is itself a non sequitur. Just because by our baptism we all share in the common priesthood of all believers, it does not follow that there is no ministerial priesthood. The ministerial priesthood of the Apostolic hierarchy is greater still than that of Aaron, in as much as the New Covenant is far greater than the Old.

Next Doug writes:

If we see apostolic succession in terms of mere governmental actions, carefully noted in the minutes, the farther we get away from the apostles, the more obscurity will surround the entire question, and the disputes will multiply. I mean, look at them. Look at us.

Here Doug makes use of an obvious straw man. Apostolic succession is not a mere “governmental action;” it is a sacramental action. In it and through it, God authorizes the successors of each bishop. Doug thinks that the farther we get from the Apostles in time, the more obscurity will surround the question of who has succession from the Apostles. But if we look at the situation, as he invites us to do, we find just the opposite. We find the most chaos and confusion precisely where men have rejected apostolic succession, and claim to be directly and immediately authorized by God. They teach their followers, without authorization from the Church, but by their own self-declared authorization. They cannot resolve their interpretive disagreements, even five hundred years after separating from the Catholic Church. And so they remain fragmented, and continue to fragment. Doug’s own denomination, which he helped start, is only twelve years old, founded when some Protestants couldn’t clear up the obscurity of whose interpretation was correct, and who had ecclesial authority. And so he started his own denomination.

By contrast, where bishops authorize their successors through the sacrament of Holy Orders, the very nature of the act makes it clear to everyone who is the rightful successor, namely, the one authorized by the Church, not the one who usurps the role on his own authority. The unity of the Church is ensured by the pattern of authorization we find already manifested on Mt. Tabor, when Jesus was transfigured. There God the Father told the Apostles: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to Him.” (Mt 17:5) So likewise, the Apostles told the Church to listen to those whom they authorized to succeed them. And so likewise those bishops authorized their successors and told the Church to listen to them. And this pattern by which sacramental magisterial authority is handed down, continues in every generation. It is never a bottom-up source of authority, as though the people have the authority to ordain. It has always been only a top-down authority, handed down from Christ, through the Apostles, and their successors.⁴

Doug then says:

If in order to offer the bread of life and the wine of the new covenant to our people I have to be sure of the exact relationship between Clement and Linus, and other early pastors in Rome, the people of God will starve to death. If, before I open the Scriptures to declare what God has given to all of us, I have to make sure that the electrical current can make it all the way to me through one solitary line, then we are all in trouble.

Here he has offered two non sequiturs. The first is that if we need to know that the line of succession is unbroken, in order to offer the Eucharist, then we will not be able to offer the Eucharist. The second is that if we have to make sure that the line of authorizations goes all the way from the Apostles to the present, then we’re in trouble. Notice the hidden premise necessary in order to reach the conclusions: we cannot know that the line of succession is unbroken. Does Doug give any evidence that the line is broken, or that we cannot know that the line is unbroken? No. He assumes it, just as many people assume that we cannot know for sure that Christ rose from the dead. The Church has always known that Christ rose from the dead, and the Church has always kept the succession from the  Apostles. She has preserved the living memory of her unbroken succession from the Apostles, even in her liturgy. How do we know that the succession is unbroken? Because the Church is unbroken. In order for the succession to be lost, the Church would have to become extinct. And once extinct, it could never be re-established unless Christ returned in the flesh. No one could re-establish Holy Orders if it were ever lost. The conferring of Holy Orders is both public and bound by the laws of the Church. For that reason, no one who isn’t known to have received Holy Orders can confer them. The notion of ‘re-starting’ Holy Orders, is therefore impossible. But, all this is purely hypothetical, because Doug has provided no evidence that there was every a gap in the succession from the Apostles, or that it was ever re-started after it had been lost. Doug’s casting doubts on apostolic succession, is just skepticism. Skeptics come and skeptics go, but the Church continues onward, for two thousand years now, and will continue until Christ returns.

Doug then tries to justify rejecting the traditional doctrine of apostolic succession, by claiming that Jesus never promised that everything would be “nice and tidy.” Surely Doug recognizes that every heretic and schismatic in the history of the Church could have used this line, and it would not have justified their heresy or schism. That Jesus never promised things would be “nice and tidy” doesn’t justify schism or heresy. If Christ authorized the Apostles, and the Apostles authorized successors, and commanded them to do likewise, until Christ returns, then abandoning that ordinance established by Christ and handed down by His successors, cannot be justified by noting that Christ didn’t promise that things would be nice and tidy. Jesus said, “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me. (Luke 10:16) In the time of the Apostles, no one could be justified in separating from the Apostles and setting up one’s own ‘church’ on the basis that Christ never promised that things would be “nice and tidy.” And in the generation after the Apostles, no one could be justified in separating from their successors and setting up one’s own ‘church,’ on the basis that Christ never promised that things would be “nice and tidy.” And that is no less true today.

Doug then states:

Jesus did pray that His people would be one, as He and the Father are one. This has not happened yet, not anywhere. Not in Rome, not in Geneva, not in Constantinople. But Jesus prayed for it, and it will happen.

All of Jesus’ prayers are infallible, because He is God. The Church that Christ founded on Peter the Rock, has always been one. It is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. It cannot be divided because it is the Body of Christ, and Christ cannot be divided (1 Cor 1:13). Doug thinks Christ’s Church has never been one. He thinks that because he sees the separation of those sects in schism, but he does not recognize that these schisms are schisms from the Church that is one, not schisms within a Church that is divided.

Doug then writes:

The New Testament does teach us that government of the congregation is important, and we see in multiple ways how and why it is important. But John Murray argues rightly that any congregation of baptized Christians, that is to say, any congregation of priests, has the authority to establish such government among themselves. It is necessary that they do so, and the authority conferred by baptism enables them to do so with a clean conscience.

Doug appeals to John Murray in support of his claim that any group of baptized persons has the authority to establish an [ecclesial] government among themselves. The problem is that John Murray did not have Holy Orders, and so the appeal to John Murray simply begs the question, i.e. assumes precisely what is in question, by appealing to someone not having Holy Orders, to determine whether Holy Orders are necessary to possess the authority to make such determinations. Of course, if Doug is appealing to an argument made by John Murray, that is different. But Doug doesn’t provide that argument; he only alludes to it.

No group of Christians has a right or authority to form some other ecclesial government than the one already established by Christ; that would be the ecclesial equivalent of treason. No one can lay another foundation than was already laid. The Apostles are those foundations stones (Eph 2:20, Rev 21:14), and on those stones are their successors, and their successors, and so on. As St. Paul said, “According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how he builds upon it. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor 3:10-11) Just as no one can lay another cornerstone than the One that was laid, so no one can lay new foundation stones other than the Apostles, or other second course stones than their successors. The notion that any group of baptized Christians has the authority to establish their own ecclesial government presumes that they can lay a foundation again, as if the Apostles and successors have not already laid a foundation, and as if their present-day successors of the Apostles do not exist. In that sense, it begs the question, by assuming that there are no successors of the Apostles presently governing the Church. In addition, it presumes that the Church Christ founded is invisible, having no visible government to which all Christians should be subject.

Doug must know that most all heretics and schismatics in the history of the Church have believed that they have the authority to form their own ecclesial government, once they separate from the government of the Church. So, his similar claim should raise a red flag, and urge him to find some principled reason why they are not justified in doing so, but he is.

Next he writes:

This next thing may seem like a odd claim for a Protestant to make in a discussion with Roman Catholics, but I do not believe that this view is a disparagement of orderly government and ordination on my part as their view is a disparagement of the actual privileges conferred in baptism.

Here he asserts that the Catholic (and Orthodox) understanding of baptism is a disparagement of the privileges conferred in baptism, because the Catholic (and Orthodox) conception of baptism does not include Holy Orders within it. He hasn’t given any reason to believe that baptism confers what Holy Orders confers. He has simply asserted it. And the proper response to such an assertion is: “The fifteen hundred years of Church tradition, prior to the rise of Protestantism, testify against that assertion.” The evidence is overwhelmingly against his assertion. If baptism included Holy Orders, then there was no point in the Apostles laying their hands on the deacons in the book of Acts, and there was no point in St. Paul bestowing a gift of God on Timothy through the laying on of his hands. (2 Tim 1:6)  The Church universal, from the first century to the 16th, believed, taught, and practiced ordination by the laying on of hands by a bishop who was himself ordained in the same manner. That would have been pointless if all believers already had all ecclesial authority simply in virtue of their baptism. All of this testifies against Doug’s claim that baptism confers Holy Orders. But if baptism does not confer the authority of Holy Orders, then the baptized cannot confer Holy Orders, because no one can give what he does not have.

Doug continues:

Baptism is not just a matter concerning individual salvation, of placing a sign and a seal of Abraham’s faith on individual persons. Individuals can be baptized only because the world has been baptized. Baptism is the birthright of the new humanity, the citzenship papers of the inhabitants of the new heaven and new earth. Christ is a new Adam. The Church is a new Eve. All things have been made new.

A Catholic can agree with that, and Doug sounds quite Catholic in speaking in this way. But what he says here doesn’t imply or entail that baptism confers Holy Orders.

Next he writes:

As we congregate in churches, of course all things should be done decently and in order. But our lifeline to Christ is not a line of ordinations, except in the sense that the ordinations of the old order were rolled up into baptism and graciously given to us. God has made us kings and priests to rule on the earth. This was conferred upon us when we were baptized into the triune Name, ushered (in that formal rite) into the visible Church.

Here Doug asserts that our “lifeline” to Christ is not through a line of ordinations. He assumes that because by our baptism we have a share in the common priesthood of all believers, therefore we (baptized believers) have all the priesthood there is to have. His assertion, therefore, simply begs the question against the Catholic (and Orthodox) understanding of baptism and Holy Orders. His claim is not an argument or evidence for the Protestant position against the Catholic position; it is simply an assertion of the Protestant position, as if he is unaware of the Catholic distinction between the baptismal priesthood and the ministerial priesthood. And so by showing that through baptism we have priesthood of some sort, he mistakenly believes he has thereby shown that all the baptized each have all the priesthood there is to have.

He continues:

A position like this makes Christian catholicity, catholicity of spirit, possible. It recognizes the baptisms of all Trinitarian communions, and does not try to solve the lamentable divisions in Christendom by holding up the hands and saying, “Brethren! These divisions are disgraceful! Our proposal for eliminating them is for everyone to stop being obstinate and join us!”

Doug’s position also makes schism from the Church impossible, because everyone remains invisibly one in the ‘invisible Church,’ even though visibly divided. If a person is  excommunicated from one “communion,” he may go to the next, or start his own. Why? Because he always remains in the invisible Church. In Doug’s ecclesiology there is no visible catholic Church; there are only visible “communions” all divided from each other.  Any ecclesiology that makes schism from the Church impossible, shows itself to be false, because of the testimony of Scripture and the Fathers prohibiting precisely that. What is prohibited cannot be theoretically impossible. Therefore, any ecclesiology that makes schism from the Church impossible, shows itself to be false.

“Catholicity of spirit” is another term for ecclesial relativism founded on ecclesial docetism; it is the notion that we remain ‘one’ in spirit, even though in schism., as though schism does not affect our spiritual unity. But what happens in matter affects the spiritual. Doug’s claim that no Church is the Church that Christ founded, is exactly what schismatics love to believe, in order to believe that they are not in schism from the Church that Christ founded. Doug has not shown that no Church is the Church Christ founded; he has merely asserted it.

Finally he writes:

At the same time, we all have our own views, and nothing whatever can be done about that. But catholicity of spirit requires that we subordinate our views to the profound declaration made in our baptism — one Lord, one faith, one baptism. We subordinate our views, which is not the same thing as abandoning our views. And as this process continues apace, I believe the regrettable errors made by Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and people just like me do temporarily get in the way of declaring the true unity of that baptism to an unbelieving world.

Doug claims that catholicity of spirit requires that we subordinate our views to the declaration made in our baptism — one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Of course Catholics agree. But implicit in his claim is that we should all subordinate our views to his conception of what it means to share one Lord, one faith, one baptism (and one body). (Eph 4) Doug thinks that the “errors” made by Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and people just like himself (but, apparently, not including himself, since he doesn’t include himself in the list of institutions and persons in error) get in the way of declaring the true unity of our baptism. What those errors are, how we know them to be errors, who has the authority to determine what is an error and what is not, and how we know who has this authority, he does not say. He merely asserts in passing that there are errors, as if merely assering it is sufficient. But it is not sufficient. For Protestants and Catholics to be reconciled in full visible communion, we have to take the level of dialogue to a deeper level, where we seek to understand each other’s positions charitably and fairly, patiently explain our objections, and listen sincerely to our interlocutor’s replies.

What we do not find in Doug’s article is an answer to the question: Where is the visible Church? If Doug were to claim that the visible Church is just wherever there are baptized persons, then apostates and those who have been excommunicated will nevertheless remain within the visible Church. He claims to believe in a visible Church, but his ecclesiology has no visible Church; it has visible human beings, and visible congregations and visible denominations. But no visible catholic Church.

I’m writing this in the hope that it helps bring understanding of the point of disagreement between the Catholic Church and Protestants like Doug. I’m also hoping it helps further Protestant-Catholic reconciliation.

1. Doug himself says later in his article,

   All this said, I want to note that the foundation for my faith assumptions about church history are found in Scripture. This means that I believe certain things about the authority of the Church on the basis of what Jesus and the apostles taught, not because I can produce an exhaustive set of minutes that prove, say, that Second Nicea was an unlawful council. I know what to think of Second Nicea on the basis of the Second Commandment, which I consider to be a senior Second.

   When the working assumption is that everything we need to believe about the faith can be confirmed or disconfirmed by our own interpretation of Scripture, this is a form of restorationism, whether it calls itself succession or not, because except for its role in the formation of the canon, the Church need not have authoritatively determined anything whatsoever over the last 2000 years.

2. Neal and I explained this essential equivalence between sola scriptura and what Keith Mathison calls ’solo scriptura’ in our article titled “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority.”
3. For more on our baptismal priesthood, see paragraphs 1120, 1132, 1188, 1273, 1279, 1546, 1547, and 1669 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
4. Even when the laity participated in nominating candidates for ordinations, the laity themselves did not ordain, since they could not give what they themselves did not have.

Throughout the past year on Called to Communion, the various blog posts and full-length articles by the contributors have been met with objections of various stripes and sizes. It has been a mixture of excitement, hope, prayer, frustration, and calls for mercy for me to read many of those posts and the dialogue that has followed-my hope is that this venture has led us all to grow in learning more about one another and where we come from in our understanding of the Christian Faith.One comment which I have observed that seems to be repeated with an ever-growing frequency by some of our Protestant readers goes something like this: “Well, you Catholics argue for X but so do the Eastern Orthodox!”

Be it Apostolic Succession, opposition to Solo/Sola Scriptura, a Canon that is based more on the Septuagint than the Hebrew Scriptures as collected in Jamnia, or what have you, it seems that the essence of this argument is that because other Christians apart from Catholics assert something about our faith, that something does not argue for the particular correctness of Catholicism. Well, yes and no.

Yes, Catholics adhere to X, and yes, so do other Christians of the Apostolic Churches. Does it then logically follow that the common voice of Catholics and the other Traditional Christian Churches should not be heeded? Not by any means. As I recall my own days of searching and wrestling with Tradition as contrasted to my former Reformed Protestant home, I knew that the variety of options before me did not make their common voice any less persuasive, or fearful to consider. I recall saying with much trepidation that God had clearly called me to become Catholic or some flavor of Orthodoxy (Eastern, Oriental, Coptic, Armenian, etc.). It was a huge change that I knew would come to my life, and while I did not know where I would end up exactly, I knew without a doubt that the arguments over Apostolic Succession had me needing to leave Protestantism.

And so I write this post in dedication to the ones who make this sort of argument–realize what you are saying when you say that the Orthodox Churches also advocate a particular doctrine being supported by the writers on Called to Communion. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches speak in unison about so many things. That we differ on important matters like the nature of the episcopacy, particularly the successor of Peter, is worthy of reflection for Catholics, Orthodox and those Protestants who see our common message. But despite our differences, we are so close. We make the same call to communion with the Church Fathers. We venerate the Holy Mother of Our God (on this note, I want to parenthetically state that devotion to the Blessed Virgin is more full and flowering in the East than the West in terms of during the liturgical services, but my point is that Protestants should feel less at home in an Orthodox or Eastern Catholic Parish than they would in a Roman Catholic service, if Marian devotion is troubling). We beseech our Lord and King to have mercy on the souls of those who have gone to their eternal Rest. We view some of God’s faithful saints who lived lives of exceptional holiness as those to whom we may call upon in prayers on earth. We see the laying on of hands from the Apostles and their successors as something integral to ordination. We proclaim that we partake of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharistic Mystery. We call upon Christ’s representative to hear our confessions of weakness and trust in his priestly prayer to absolve us of our sins, not through his own power, but through the grace of the ministry of Christ our high priest which has been passed down through that laying on of hands. We are anointed with oil for a fuller reception of the Holy Spirit in confirmation/chrismation. When we see our frailty of human illness, we are anointed again and partake of the body and the blood of Our Lord if possible, confident that the words of St. James will be true for us, and that any sins we have committed will be forgiven, again through the prayer of the elders who pray to God for us. We join ourselves to history with a liturgical calendar that reminds us of the rhythm of life. We fast on a regular basis. We see sacred art as a help and not some idolatrous hindrance to our spiritual life. In fact, we were together at an Ecumenical Council where iconoclasm was not only thought to be bad aesthetics–it was declared to be heresy.

Doctrinally, we do have our differences. But for my part as a Catholic, I am taught to thank God for the fullness of the sacraments that exist in Eastern Orthodox Churches that are not in communion with the Pope. In fact, as of the time of this writing, I have two good friends who are catechumens in the Antiochian Orthodox Church. When I have heard of their departure from Protestantism, I did not hesitate to express my joy at this growth in union with the Church that has existed since the time Our Lord’s ministry.

This joy is not something that I do of my own analysis or affections. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is even more joyful than me when it speaks of what we share in common with the Eastern Orthodox. Let’s examine two key points from its discussion of the Orthodox Churches.

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

And later in the Catechism we read:

1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all – by apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.”238

All of the sacraments that the Orthodox Churches celebrate are viewed by Catholics to be entirely valid. We are separated, yes, but we are united in sharing the holy mysteries. This may be something that some readers do not know. One friend of mine who left evangelicalism for Orthodoxy had no idea that we as Catholics accept all of the sacraments of the Orthodox, but yes, our affection goes beyond smiles. It goes to the center of our spiritual life in the Church. If I were on my deathbed and there were no Catholic priests around, I would beg an Orthodox priest to say the last rites to me, and I would be faithful to my devotion to the Pope as the Bishop who is first among equals.

In contrast, the Catholic Catechism is clear that while our Reformed background is worthy of some admiration, it is simply not on the same ecclesial footing as the Orthodox Church.

1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.”239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, “when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.”240

Here we read that there is a deficiency in the sacramental life of the Protestant ecclesial communities, as compared to that of the Orthodox Churches. The same words of closeness and sacramental fullness that were uttered regarding the Eastern Churches are not poured out by the councils and catechetical writers when thoughts turn to Protestantism. Forthcoming discussions here on Called to Communion will flesh out our understanding of the sacrament of Holy Orders, but for now I simply want to emphasize that Catholicism sees Orthodoxy as something far grander than Protestantism. Therefore, if one sees these arguments as a Protestant and feels called to communion vis a vis a conversion to Orthodoxy, this is not something that I as a Catholic bemoan. It is not a nudge in the right direction. Leaving Protestantism for Orthodoxy is to possess the fullness of sacramental life, despite not being in communion with Rome.

In a forthcoming post, I will explain the qualifications to my joy. But before qualifying my joy, I want to embrace and celebrate it. I thank God so much for my Orthodox brethren, and am truly happy to hear of God calling people to Himself through growth in the sacramental life that occurs when one leaves Protestantism for Orthodoxy.

May we all be faithful to His call to growth in faith, hope, and charity. May the divisions that scandalize the Lord and His Church end, so that they may no longer be causes for excuses to consider Tradition.

Another example of this circular reasoning in action is when the Reformed attempt to discredit, say Judith or Tobit, on account of its apparent use of literary convention rather than a strict record of actual history.  They say, ‘this is not found in the canon,’ but that begs the question.  The question at hand is whether or not the books are canonical!  How can you say it cannot be in the canon because nothing else like it is in the canon when we haven’t yet settled the question of the canon?  By that rationale, Hebrews is not canonical because nowhere else do we find Jesus called the High Priest.  And many more examples could be given.

To avoid this circularity in reason, as Tom Brown showed in his article on the canon, the canon must have an external standard for itself and this is incompatible with Protestant theology.

Temptation, Fall, and Expulsion
Brothers Limbourg (1411-1416)

When a Catholic monk named Martin Luther posted ninety-five theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg in October of 1517, he initiated a controversy that eventually led not only to his excommunication on January 3, 1521, but to the subsequent separation of Protestants from the Catholic Church. During the following two decades the Church attempted to effect a reconciliation with Protestants. These efforts culminated in Pope Paul III convoking an ecumenical council in 1542, the nineteenth ecumenical council in the history of the Church.² This council met in the city of Trent, and had its first session in 1545. The purpose of the Council was two-fold: to extirpate various heresies that had arisen, and to reform the morals among the clergy and the lay faithful.³

The First Session formally opened the Council. The Second Session set forward the manner in which the bishops should conduct themselves during the Council. The Third Session expressed the Creed of the Church. The Fourth Session addressed the canon of Scripture. The Fifth Session addressed the doctrine of original sin. And the Sixth Session addressed the doctrine of justification.

It was not by accident that the Council addressed the doctrine of original sin before taking up the doctrine of justification. The doctrine of justification depends in part on the doctrine of original sin, as I shall show below. So in order rightly to understand the Council’s teaching on justification, one must first understand its teaching on original sin. In previous posts in this series, I presented and explained St. Thomas’s theology of original sin. (See “Aquinas and Trent: Part 2,” in which I explain the essence of original sin, according to St. Thomas, and “Aquinas and Trent: Part 3,” in which I explain the effect of original sin, according to St. Thomas.) I will not repeat here what I have said there; and what I say here presupposes that the reader has read at least those two posts in this series.

Why is the Council of Trent relevant to the reconciliation of Protestants and Catholics? Shouldn’t we just put the past behind us, and move forward? The reason why the Council of Trent remains relevant is that the canons of the Council of Trent are infallible, so the Church has no authority to overturn them. Whatever was declared heretical at Trent will remain heretical until Christ returns in the clouds in glory. The authority of the canons does not depend on whether those claims were in fact affirmed by any person. Nor does it depend on the bishops’ degree of understanding of the Protestants’ theological positions. But the canons condemn only the claims stated in the canons; they do not condemn unstated positions that may have been held by Protestants. Doesn’t the infallibility of the canons of Trent make ecumenical dialogue pointless? Not at all. To understand why, see my post titled “Two Ecumenicisms.” Protestants and Catholics can be reconciled only by coming to the truth concerning their separation in the sixteenth century. And that requires coming to terms with the Council of Trent. Protestants can no more reject the Council of Trent on the basis of their own interpretation of Scripture than any other heresy in the history of the Church could justifiably reject the teaching of an ecumenical council on the basis of its own interpretation of Scripture.

The Fifth Session: The Decree Concerning Original Sin

The Decree of the Fifth Session begins with an introductory paragraph:

That our Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God,⁴ may, after the destruction of errors, remain integral and spotless in its purity, and that the Christian people may not be carried about with every wind of doctrine,⁵ since that old serpent,⁶ the everlasting enemy of the human race, has, among the many evils with which the Church of God is in our times disturbed, stirred up also not only new but also old dissensions concerning original sin and its remedy, the holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding, wishing now to reclaim the erring and to strengthen the wavering, and following the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures, of the holy Fathers, of the most approved councils, as well as the judgment and unanimity of the Church herself, ordains, confesses and declares these things concerning original sin:

Here the Tridentine Fathers affirm that the Church’s faith, without which it is impossible to please God, includes things concerning original sin and its remedy.  In other words, the gospel includes a teaching on original sin. The bishops explain that they are addressing this subject in response to what they believe to be the work of the devil in stirring up dissensions new and old concerning the doctrine of original sin and its remedy. They state again that they are assembled as a “general and ecumenical” council, in accordance with the laws of the Church, and presided over by legates of the Apostolic See (i.e. Rome). For this reason they are assured of the presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church into all truth (John 16:13), most assuredly when her bishops are assembled in ecumenical council.⁷ The Council states its intention to bring back those sheep that are erring, and to strengthen those sheep that are wavering. Lastly, the bishops affirm that what they are teaching regarding original sin follows both the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, and that of the unanimity of the Church, not only at that time but throughout the 1500 year history of the Church preceding the Council.

Next the Council in five paragraphs addresses five errors pertaining to original sin. I will examine each of these five paragraphs in turn.

I. The Error of Denying Original Sin

In the first paragraph the Council declares:

1. If anyone does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he transgressed the commandment of God in paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted, and through the offense of that prevarication incurred the wrath and indignation of God, and thus death with which God had previously threatened him,⁸ and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil,⁹ and that the entire Adam through that offense of prevarication was changed in body and soul for the worse,¹⁰ let him be anathema.

In this first paragraph, the Council is condemning the error of denying that Adam, by his sin, lost the original holiness and righteous that God had given him. According to the Council, when Adam transgressed God’s commandment, the following five things happened: (1) he lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted, (2) he incurred the wrath and indignation of God, (3) he incurred the death with which God had previously threatened him, (4) he incurred captivity under the power of the devil who from that time on had the empire of death, and (5) he was changed for the worse both in body and soul. The statement about the change in “body and soul” is a reaffirmation of the first canon of the Second Council of Orange (529 AD), which canon was intended to refute the error of those who taught that not the soul but only the body was damaged by Adam’s sin.

The loss of the original holiness and justice in which man had been constituted refers to the loss of what St. Thomas treats as the third good of human nature, explained here and here in previous posts in this series. There too I laid out his explanation for death as the result of sin, and what it means to be “changed for the worse” both in body and in soul. The wrath and indignation of God I discussed in my post on St. Thomas’s doctrine on the Passion of Christ. St. Thomas discusses man’s captivity under the power of the devil in Summa Theologica III Q.49 a.2.

The most important thing to understand in this first paragraph, with respect to reconciling Protestants and the Catholic Church, is what the Council is saying when it teaches that by his sin Adam lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted. The holiness and justice to which the Council refers are due to the presence of sanctifying grace and agape in Adam’s soul. Adam was holy because he had sanctifying grace in his soul, that is, he was a participant in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), and enjoyed the indwelling of the Trinity.¹¹ And he was just (or righteous) because he had agape, i.e. love for God as Father. This original holiness and justice was not something Adam produced by his own nature. Nor were they part of the essence of his human nature; otherwise, in losing them he would have ceased to be human.

Why is this important for Protestant-Catholic reconciliation? Many Protestants believe that grace is only for the forgiveness of sins, and hence only something Adam and Eve received after they sinned. For this reason they tend to treat salvation prior to the Fall as by human-works-apart-from-grace, and salvation after the Fall as by grace-apart-from-human-works. But the notion that Adam and Eve, apart from grace, could have merited the Beatific Vision, is a form of Pelagianism.¹² Only God has His [divine] inner life and the perfect happiness of seeing God, by His very nature. Man could have the Beatific Vision by his nature without grace only if he were God. But man is not God; man is a creature. Therefore, in order to attain the Beatific Vision, which is supernatural end [i.e. an end above the reach of man's nature as such], man needs grace. In order for man to enter into heaven, i.e. into the perfect beatitude of the inner Life of the Trinity, God must give to man a participation in this inner Life; man must receive the gift of grace from God.

The Second Council of Orange (AD 529), which was primarily responding to Pelagianism, declared:

“Even if human nature remained in that integrity in which it was formed, it would in no way save itself without the help of its Creator.” (Can. 19)

Notice that “save” is not only from punishment, because human nature would remain in that integrity in which it was formed, only if Adam had not sinned. And where there is no sin, there is no punishment. But yet, according to Orange contra the Pelagians, even a sinless Adam and Eve would have needed divine help in order to be “saved.” In other words, they would have needed grace, to attain heaven, even if they had not sinned. St. Thomas concurs, writing:

But man’s perfect Happiness, as stated above (Question 3, Article 8), consists in the vision of the Divine Essence. Now the vision of God’s Essence surpasses the nature not only of man, but also of every creature, as was shown in the I, 12, 4. For the natural knowledge of every creature is in keeping with the mode of his substance: thus it is said of the intelligence (De Causis; Prop. viii) that “it knows things that are above it, and things that are below it, according to the mode of its substance.” But every knowledge that is according to the mode of created substance, falls short of the vision of the Divine Essence, which infinitely surpasses all created substance. Consequently neither man, nor any creature, can attain final Happiness by his natural powers.¹³

And that is why, in Catholic theology, Adam and Eve were given grace by God, prior to their Fall. It was by grace that they were able to walk with God in the cool of the day. No one can have friendship with God apart from grace, because no one can have friendship with God without agape, and no one can have agape without grace. Agape is supernatural;¹⁴ it is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit.¹⁵ Man does not cease to be man if he loses agape. Hence, agape is not an essential component of our human essence or human nature. If agape were had by nature, then man without agape would be a contradiction in terms. God did not have to walk with Adam in the cool of the day. He did not have to form a friendship with man. He did this gratuitously, as a gift. This divine friendship with man as Father to son was a superadded gift of grace, not something man has by his nature as man.¹⁶

Yet, when we recognize that grace was necessary prior to the Fall, in order for Adam and Eve to have merited the Beatific Vision, then we no longer have a principled basis for excluding works done in grace from being meritorious toward the Beatific Vision under the New Covenant. And the role of works under grace is explicitly one of the points of disagreement between Protestants and the Catholic Church. It is also addressed in the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent. So here we see that rightly understanding the reasons for a doctrine taught in the Sixth Session requires understanding what was taught in the Fifth Session.

II. The Error of Denying that Adam’s Sin Deprived His Posterity of Original Holiness and Justice

In this second paragraph, the Council declares:

2. If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam injured him alone and not his posterity,¹⁷ and that the holiness and justice which he received from God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has transfused only death and the pains of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle who says: By one man sin entered into the world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.¹⁸

In this second paragraph, the Council is condemning the error of denying that Adam’s sin deprived his posterity of original holiness and justice. The Council here affirms three things: (1) Adam’s transgression did not only injure himself, but also his posterity, (2) Adam’s transgression lost not only for himself but also for us his posterity the original holiness and justice that he had been given by God, (3) Adam’s transgression transfused to us not only bodily pains and bodily death, but also transfused sin, which is the death of the soul, into the whole human race. Adam was supposed to be propagate sanctifying grace to his offspring. In this way, the sexual act would have been a means of grace for the child conceived. But, by his sin, Adam passed on to his offspring the privation of sanctifying grace and agape, and hence the privation of holiness, righteousness. And that is precisely what original sin is, the privation of original righteousness. That is what it means for the soul to be dead, not for it to lack natural life, but for it to lack divine life, i.e. sanctifying grace and agape.

In addition,  because Adam lost the original righteous he had been given, he also lost the preternatural gifts (integrity of powers of the soul, infused knowledge, impassibility, and immortality)  he had enjoyed, and therefore he passed on concupiscence, ignorance, suffering, and death to his offspring. Those who claim that grace is only needed for forgiveness of sin, falsely conclude from the fact that the infant has committed no actual sin that the infant does not yet need grace for salvation, and therefore does not yet need baptism. This again, is Pelagianism, because it denies that sanctifying grace is absolutely needed to attain to heaven.  Similarly, those who mistake concupiscence (i.e. disordered appetites) for original sin find that such disordered appetites remain after baptism, and falsely conclude that baptism is not the remedy for original sin. But the fundamental problem of man, is not that he has disordered lower appetites, but that he lacks sanctifying grace, and hence lacks agape.  That’s what original sin is; the privation of sanctifying grace and agape. And for that, the remedy is baptism, as we will see in the next paragraph.

III. Errors Regarding the Remedy for Original Sin

3. If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which in its origin is one, and by propagation, not by imitation, transfused into all, which is in each one as something that is his own, is taken away either by the forces of human nature or by a remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ,¹⁹ who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification and redemption;²⁰ or if he denies that that merit of Jesus Christ is applied both to adults and to infants by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church, let him be anathema; for there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.²¹ Whence that declaration: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sins of the world;²² and that other: As many of you as have been baptized, have put on Christ.²³

In this third paragraph, the Council condemns two errors. The first error is to claim that the remedy for original sin is something other than the merit of Jesus Christ, the Second Adam. The second error is to deny that adults and children receive Christ’s merit through the sacrament of baptism. Positively, in this paragraph the Council is teaching three things: (1) the sin of Adam that is transfused into all his posterity by propagation, not by imitation, is in each of us as something that is our own, (2) this sin [of Adam] in each of us is not taken away either by the forces of human nature or by any remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has reconciled us to God in His own blood, and (3) the grace that Christ merited in His Passion, by which the sin [of Adam] in us is removed, is applied both to adults and to infants by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church.²⁴

This paragraph is relevant to the reconciliation of Protestants with the Catholic Church because many Protestants deny that baptism is anything more than a sign or symbol, not recognizing baptism as the sacrament Christ established as the means through which we receive the sanctifying grace He merited for us in His Passion. For these Protestants, to be forgiven only requires believing the message about Christ and trusting in Him; baptism is something one does subsequently in obedience to Christ’s command. But the Church has always believed and taught that it is in baptism that we are joined to Christ, and receive the grace He merited for us in His Passion. This is what we say in the Creed: “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” And the efficacy of baptism as the sacrament of salvation is taught unanimously by the Church Fathers.²⁵ Of course faith does come by hearing. But in Catholic doctrine the sanctifying grace through which we have the virtues of faith, hope and agape, comes to us through the sacrament of baptism. We first come to believe the good news, and have love for Christ, by hearing the gospel.²⁶ But in the sacrament of baptism, faith, hope and agape are deepened; they are made to be firmly planted dispositions in our soul. In baptism they become theological virtues.²⁷ In baptism we are ingrafted into Christ (cf. Rom 6), and by becoming firmly rooted dispositions faith, hope, and agape become part of who we are, not just acts we do.²⁸

IV. The Error of Denying that Infants Need Baptism as a Remedy for Original Sin

4. If anyone denies that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, are to be baptized, even though they be born of baptized parents, or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins,²⁹ but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood not as true but as false, let him be anathema, for what the Apostle has said, by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned,³⁰ is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church has everywhere and always understood it.

For in virtue of this rule of faith handed down from the apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that in them what they contracted by generation may be washed away by regeneration.³¹ For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.³²

In this fourth paragraph the Council condemns two errors. The first is the error of denying that infants are to be baptized. The second is the error of denying that infants should be baptized for the remission of original sin. Positively, the Council here teaches four things: (1) Newly born infants are to be baptized, even if born of baptized parents, (2) Newly born infants are to be baptized for the expiation of original sin from Adam for the attainment of eternal life, (3) The words of the Apostle Paul in Romans 5:12 should not be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church has everywhere and always understood them, and (4) According to this rule of faith [i.e. how Romans 5:12 has everywhere and always been understood by the Church] handed down from the apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are (like adults) truly baptized for the remission of sins in order that what they contracted by generation [i.e. original sin] may be washed away by regeneration.

The primary problem for the newborn infant, prior to baptism, is not that he is not yet a member of the covenant family by a public sign or seal. The primary problem for the newborn infant is that he does not have sanctifying grace and agape, and thus does not have original righteousness or holiness, and thus is not in friendship with God. And that problem infinitely outweighs all other problems because what is at stake is eternal life and eternal separation from God. Doing a baby-dedication is a pious act, but Christ never instituted ‘dedication’ as a means by which anyone would receive grace; He instituted baptism. We know, of course, that God is capable of acting in extraordinary ways to give grace to whomever He wills at whatever times He wills. It is surely not beyond His power to do so. But we must not treat the possibility of the extraordinary as an excuse not to pursue with all our effort the ordinary means God has established through Christ by which adults, children, and infants are given the grace that translates them from death to life, from enemies of God to His friends.

V. Errors Regarding the Removal of Sin Through Baptism

5. If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or says that the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only canceled or not imputed, let him be anathema. For in those who are born again God hates nothing, because there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death,³³ who walk not according to the flesh,³⁴ but, putting off the old man and putting on the new one who is created according to God,³⁵ are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, joint heirs with Christ;³⁶ so that there is nothing whatever to hinder their entrance into heaven. But this holy council perceives and confesses that in the one baptized there remains concupiscence or an inclination to sin, which, since it is left for us to wrestle with, cannot injure those who do not acquiesce but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; indeed, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned.³⁷ This concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin,³⁸ the holy council declares the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin in the sense that it is truly and properly sin in those born again, but in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin.But if anyone is of the contrary opinion, let him be anathema. This holy council declares, however, that it is not its intention to include in this decree, which deals with original sin, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God, but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV, of happy memory, are to be observed under the penalties contained in those constitutions, which it renews.³⁹

In this fifth paragraph the Council first condemns two errors. The first is the error of denying that by the grace of Christ which is conferred at baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted. The second is the error of claiming that the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but that the [debt] of sin is merely canceled or not imputed. The Council then proceeds to teach six things: (1) God hates nothing in those who are born again [i.e. those who are regenerated through the grace conferred in baptism], because by their baptism they have been buried together with Christ, put off the old man, put on the new man, made innocent, free from condemnation, immaculate, pure, guiltless, beloved of God, heirs of God, and heirs with Christ, so that nothing hinders their entrance into heaven, (2) In baptized persons there remains concupiscence, which is an inclination to sin, and which is left with us to wrestle with, (3) Concupiscence cannot injure those who do not give into it, but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ, (4) Those who have lawfully resisted concupiscence shall be crowned⁴⁰ (5) The Catholic Church has always understood concupiscence not to be sin in the sense that it is truly and properly sin in those who are born again, but to be sin in the sense that it is of sin (as an effect) and inclines to sin (as a cause), and (6) What this Council says about the universality of original sin in mankind should not be taken to apply to the blessed Virgin Mary.

Of all five paragraphs in the Fifth Session of the Council of Trent, this last one was the one most incompatible with the theology of Luther and Calvin. Luther and Calvin agreed that the grace of Christ that is conferred at baptism remits original sin. But, they denied that this grace removes the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin. Instead, they claimed that sin remained in the baptized person, but the debt of sin was canceled, and the remaining sin was not imputed or counted. This is typically referred to as simul iustus et peccator (simultaneously justified and sinner), illustrated in the cartoon at right.⁴¹ Whereas in Catholic doctrine, the grace of Christ given to us through the sacrament of baptism truly removes all our sin, in Luther and Calvin’s opinion, the grace of Christ does not remove all our sin; it leaves sin in our soul, but by God’s favor on account of Christ, sin in our soul is no longer counted  against us.

Two things need to be said here. First, in Catholic doctrine, there is a sense in which that cartoon is correct, but there is also a sense in which that cartoon is heretical. In order to understand these two senses, we must distinguish between mortal and venial sin. Mortal sin removes agape from the soul; venial sin does not. That’s because in mortal sin the sinner directly chooses something else over God as his last end.  By contrast, the person committing venial sin still loves God more than himself, and still seeks God as his final end, but chooses something other than the best path by which to attain to God. Even the saints sinned venially every day (the Blessed Mother excepted). So, if the sign held by the person in the cartoon above is referring to venial sin, then it is true that the baptized person remains a sinner. But even so, it is not that Christ’s righteousness hides or covers his venial sin. God sees every venial sin. But He sees it as venial, as still coming from a heart that loves Him above all else. And so He sees it with mercy, not wrath. Yet if the sign in the cartoon is referring to mortal sin, then the cartoon is heretical, because then it is affirming the second error condemned in this fifth paragraph of the Fifth Session of Trent.

The reason why it is impossible to be simultaneously in a state of mortal sin, and justified, is because God cannot lie. God can only count as righteous that which is actually inherently righteous. That’s because the relational problem between man and God necessarily depends upon the internal condition of man. As St. Thomas said, “But the effect remains so long as the cause remains. Wherefore so long as the disturbance of the order remains the debt of punishment must needs remain also.”⁴² In other words, so long as man is turned away from God, and without agape, the debt of sin remains, because the cause of that debt remains. God does not only look at the outside of man; He looks at the heart, and is related to man according to the condition of the man’s heart.⁴³ If a man has sanctifying grace and agape in his soul, then his relation with God is one of friendship and he is justified, and the God who cannot lie cannot claim that he is unjust. But if a man does not have sanctifying grace and agape, then he is not a friend of God, and the God who cannot lie cannot say that he is just, without first making him just in his soul.

The Protestant response is to claim that God is speaking truly when He declares us just, because He performs an extrinsic relational transaction in which the merits of Christ are credited to our account, and the demerits of our sins are credited to Christ’s account. However, the problem with that position is that for a God from whom nothing is hidden, there can be no difference between what one is internally, and what is in one’s account. Necessarily, before the God of Truth, what is in one’s ‘account’ is always and only what one actually is. God cannot pretend that I am Christ or that Christ is me. God cannot pretend that my account is His, or that His account is mine. He always sees everything for exactly what it is, nothing more and nothing less. And therefore for a God of Truth, there can be no swapping of accounts. Because our ‘accounts’ are based on what we really are, the notion of account swapping presupposes that God is capable of deceiving Himself into thinking that Christ’s account is mine, and that my account is Christ’s. But a God of Truth cannot be deceived, and therefore there can be no swapping of accounts.

When Protestants think about being inherently righteous, they tend not to think about agape, but about having perfectly kept every law, and not having any wayward thoughts. And they tend to think that that is impossible, and so find forensic imputation much more plausible and attractive than this [seemingly] impossible standard of perfect legal righteousness that God expects of us. So, for example, they find vices in themselves after baptism, and take that as evidence that they are in fact unrighteous, and that provides the attraction of simul iustus et peccator. Yet in Catholic doctrine the law is fulfilled by those having agape,⁴⁴ and venial sins (by definition) do not remove agape from the soul. Our righteousness before God (as friends of God) is not determined by or effected by our venial sins. So, while at the Judgment we are judged for all that we have done in the body, yet, our justification only requires that we have agape. Not having the mortal-venial distinction makes many Protestants conceive of the Catholic life as one of losing justification many times a day. And that seems (rightly) ridiculous to them. But in Catholic doctrine it is agape by which we fulfill the law, and mortal sin (in which agape is lost) is not something we should (ordinarily) be committing on a daily basis.

The second thing that needs to be said about this fifth paragraph, concerns concupiscence (i.e. disordered appetites). The Catholic Church teaches that concupiscence is not itself a sin. Concupiscence comes from sin, and it inclines to sin. But it itself is not sin, because sin requires the use of the will.⁴⁵ , and the motions of concupiscence are not willed. We discussed this in Aquinas and Trent: Part 2. Nor is concupiscence original sin. Baptism removes original sin, by giving the person sanctifying grace. But baptism does not remove concupiscence. Christ leaves us with concupiscence so that we, by manfully resisting it, may merit a greater reward. The early Protestants, however, believed that concupiscence was itself sin. And therefore, finding concupiscence in themselves daily, even after baptism, and not recognizing  the mortal-venial distinction, they concluded that justification does not depend upon the internal condition of the sinner, but upon a forensic declaration. Because they [wrongly] believed that concupiscence was sin, and because they [rightly] believed that concupiscence remained after baptism, they concluded that after baptism there remains in us something that God hates, and for that reason were drawn toward to the notion of simul iustus et peccator.

From the Catholic point of view, the notion that we are simul iustus et peccator, where the sin in question is mortal sin, is extremely dangerous, because it leads people to think that their sin doesn’t really matter, so long as they continue to trust in God. This notion removes all motivation for pursuing the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.⁴⁶ It produces no saints. Its danger cannot be underestimated, because what is at stake is eternal life. The notion of simul iustus et peccator could lead persons who are in a state of mortal sin, and thereby at risk of dying in a state of mortal sin and remaining eternally separated from God, to think that they are right with God. Of course some Protestants think that the Catholic Church teaches a false gospel. I will address that when we discuss the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent, on the doctrine of justification.

May Christ our Lord lead all Protestants and Catholics to unity in the truth, and full reconciliation. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

1. A fascinating summary of his life and death can be found here.
2. The Pope had originally attempted to convoke this council in the city of Mantua in 1537, but for political reasons the council was unable to meet there.
3. cf. Session Three
4. Heb 11:6
5. Eph 4:14
6. Gen 3:1ff; Apoc. 12:9; 20:2
7. Cf. Acts 15:28. In that passage we see another example of a non-monergistic way of conceiving the cooperation of men with God. The Apostles recognize that what seems good to them, in council, is what also seems good to the Holy Spirit, precisely because the Holy Spirit is directing them in council.
8. Gen 2:17
9. Heb 2:14
10. Cf. II Synod of Orange (529)
11. Jesus said, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.” (John 14:23)
12. Pelagianism ultimately reduces to one of two claims: it either denies that man has a supernatural end, and thus denies that man needs grace [i.e. participation in the divine nature] to attain man’s natural end, or it denies that grace is a participation in the divine nature, and thus implies that man, by his own natural power, can attain to the supernatural end that is heaven. The former denies that God has called man to enjoy eternal participation in His inner Life. The latter essentially denies the Creator-creature distinction. It claims that man, who is infinitely below God, can by his own natural power of intellect and will ‘climb up’ into the inner Life of the eternal Trinity.
13. Summa Theologica I-II Q.5 a.5 co.

14. All virtues have as their final scope to dispose man to acts conducive to his true happiness. The happiness, however, of which man is capable is twofold, namely, natural, which is attainable by man’s natural powers, and supernatural, which exceeds the capacity of unaided human nature. Since, therefore, merely natural principles of human action are inadequate to a supernatural end, it is necessary that man be endowed with supernatural powers to enable him to attain his final destiny. Now these supernatural principles are nothing else than the theological virtues. They are called theological: (1) because they have God for their immediate and proper object; (2) because they are Divinely infused; (3) because they are known only through Divine Revelation. The theological virtues are three, viz. faith, hope, and charity [agape]. (Catholic Encyclopedia article ‘Virtue‘.)

15. Romans 5:5
16. For more on this see The Natural Desire to See God According to St. Thomas Aquinas and His Interpreters, by Lawrence Feingold, (Sapientia Press, 2010).
17. 1 Cor. 15:21f.; II Synod of Orange, c.2
18. Rom 5:12
19. 1 Tim. 2:5
20. 1 Cor 1:30
21. Acts 4:12
22. John 1:29
23. Gal 3:27
24. By “rightly administered in the form of the Church” they mean according to the form taught by the Church, namely, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
25. We plan to post something showing this in the near future at CTC.
26. The Council acknowledges this in Session 6 Chapter 6.
27. See Session 6 Chapter 7.
28. This becomes relevant to Session 6 Canon 9, because that canon is condemning the notion that merely believing the message about Christ is entirely sufficient for justification, and that repentance (as a preparation for baptism) and baptism itself are not also necessary for the justification we receive through the sacrament of baptism, wherein belief in Christ is made to be the virtue of faith.
29. Acts 2:38
30. Rom. 5:12
31. C.153, D.IV de cons.
32. John 3:5
33. Rom. 6:4; C.13, D.IV de cons.
34. Rom. 8:1
35. Eph. 4:22, 24; Col. 3:9f.
36. Rom. 8:17
37. II Tim. 2:5.
38. Rom. 6-8; Col. 3
39. Cc. 1, 2, Extrav. comm., De reliq. et venerat. sanct., III, 12.
40. Those who castrate themselves, for example, are resisting concupiscence unlawfully.
41. This cartoon is from Michael Horton’s Putting Amazing Back Into Grace.
42. Aquinas and Trent: Part 5
43. “ God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” (1 Sam 16:7)
44. cf. Rom 13:8, Gal 5:14, James 2:8
45. See Aquinas and Trent: Part 5
46. Hebrews 12:14

The reason that God cannot lie is simply this. There is nothing which exists except that which God has created, and things exist solely and uniquely by God’s declaration of their existence. God did not say “Let there be light” and then subsequently create light. God said “Let there be light” and by that very act, there was light. It would have been impossible for God to say “Let there be light” and light not exist. Men can say things that are not true or will not become true, but God cannot do such a thing because God is truth. ¹ If God could lie, it would contradict His very essence, which would make Him incoherent with Himself which is impossible. Further, a lie is a corruption of goodness, and no corruption of goodness (evil) comes from God whatsoever; neither can God do any evil.

This truth has a wide range of implications. Among the most prominent is the doctrine of Transubstantiation. For in the same way that a private becomes a captain by the very words of his general, “You are a captain,” so too does the bread become the Body by Christ’s words, “This is My Body.”

But while God cannot lie, He can speak metaphorically. But if He speaks metaphorically of a thing, then its result or consequence must be understood metaphorically.  Obviously it was metaphorical when Jesus spoke of gathering Jerusalem as a hen does her chicks, and so if Jerusalem actually did comply, it would only be metaphorically that the “chicks” (Jerusalem) would be gathered under His ‘wings.’ Likewise, if Jesus spoke metaphorically when He said, “This is My Body,” then it is only metaphorically that we shall receive His Body. i.e. We will not receive His Body any more than Jerusalem shall be gathered under His “wings.” And if God the Father speaks metaphorically when He declares us righteous, then we shall only metaphorically go to Heaven. i.e. We will perish in our trespasses.

But clearly God cannot be speaking metaphorically when He speaks of justification. He is therefore either saying something true (you are justified) or something false (you are Simul justus et peccator). Now we know the second is impossible since God cannot lie, so it must be the case that God’s declaration of man as justified is true. God did not look on man and find him to merit initial justification by anything in him. In the same way that light came into existence by God saying “Let there be light,” grace comes (is infused) into man by God declaring Him righteous because God cannot lie.

1. cf. John 14:6

In this article, Gerstner critiques something that he tells his readers is the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification. Those who would like to learn a little bit about that doctrine, particularly as defined by the Council of Trent, would do better to read these introductory articles: Aquinas and Trent: Part 1 (and the five parts following) and A Reply from a Romery Person. As Bryan explains, particularly in the latter post, Protestantism and Catholicism differ on justification not merely in detail, but paradigmatically. Readers of the Ligonier blog will likely miss this important point. Then again, this excerpt from Gerstner has every appearance of preaching to the (Reformed) choir, and none of actually engaging Catholic doctrine.

For example, Gerstner does not present the distinction in Catholic theology between initial justification, progress in justification, and final justification, even though these distinctions are crucially related to the point he is trying to make concerning the role of works before justification. Gerstner’s failure to point out this key distinction belies his critique of the Catholic Faith, according to which:

But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.¹

In this article, Gerstner and Ligonier Ministries mislead their readers in a fundamental way on an all important aspect of the Catholic-Protestant debate. The reader is left with the impression that the Catholic Church teaches that justification is merited by works which precede justification, whereas the Church clearly and emphatically denies this.

Gerstner’s Dilemma

Apart from his garbling account of the Catholic doctrine of justification,   there is an interesting inconsistency in Dr. Gerstner’s own soteriology.

When critiquing the Gospel according to “Romanism,” he writes that:

So all Rome’s error is in putting works before justification, but how fatal the error! The theological cart is hopelessly before the theological horse. Neither works nor justification can function. Meritorious works are no works and an achieved justification is no justification. [Emphasis added]

On the other hand, when the target of his critique is the Gospel according to Dispensationalism, and dispensationalist writer Zane Hodges in particular, Gerstner writes the following:

Hodges fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the issue when he thinks that works are some sort of addendum, something beyond the faith itself. We maintain that it is implicit in the faith from the beginning.”…

Again, this fundamental failure [of Hodges] to comprehend is evident. Lordship teaching does not “add works,” as if faith were not sufficient. The “works” are part of the definition of faith.²

Now here’s the rub: If works are “implicit in faith from the beginning,” as Gerstner claims, then how can he charge the Catholic Faith with delivering a false Gospel on the basis of “putting works before justification”? Faith comes before justification, in the sense that we are justified by faith. But if works are implicit in this faith from the beginning, then works come before justification, according to Gerstner’s definition of faith, but contrary to the Gospel according to Gerstner.

Does Francis Turretin Help?

There is a possible way out of this dilemma, but it is fairly technical, and I don’t think that it actually succeeds in solving Gerstner’s problem concerning the place of “works” in justification. It is important to note here that in Catholic theology, the essence of “good works” is love (agape), which inheres, with faith and hope, in the soul transformed by grace.

Francis Turretin states his Reformed perspective on the relation between faith, hope and love in justification as follows:

The question is not whether faith alone justifies to the exclusion either of the grace of God or the righteousness of Christ or the word and sacraments (by which the blessing of justification is presented and sealed to us on the part of God) which we maintain are necessarily required here; but only to the exclusion of every other virtue and habit on our part….³

According to Turretin, there is a sense in which “every other virtue and habit” are excluded from justification per sola fide. But notice that he immediately writes the following:

The question is not whether solitary faith (i.e., separated from the other virtues) justifies (which we grant could not easily be the case, since it is not even true and living faith); but whether it “alone” (sola) concurs to the act of justification (which we assert); as the eye alone sees, but not when torn out of the body…. The coexistence of love in him who is justified is not denied; but its coefficiency or cooperation in justification is denied. The question is not whether the faith “which justifies” (quae justificat) works by love (for otherwise it would not be living but dead); rather the question is whether faith “by which it justifies” (qua justificat) or in the act itself of justification, is to be considered under such a relation (schesei) (which we deny).⁴

Thus, Turretin, like Gerstner, insists that agape inheres with faith in the justified person, but excludes this inherent agape from justification per se, which exclusion is also crucial to Gerstner’s Gospel (at least, as stated in the Ligonier article). The distinction here can be understood in terms of the different modes of perseity, a per se relation being one in which a thing is known through itself rather than by inference. On the Catholic model, love belongs to justifying faith per se as a matter of definition. “Justifying faith is formed by love” is analogous to “Man is rational”. On the Reformed model, love belongs to justifying faith per se as a matter of material causality. “Love is always present with justifying faith” is analogous to “A living body is always present with the act of sight”. In the first case, “love” is an essential predicate of justifying faith. In the second case, “love” is a proper accident of justifying faith.

Obviously, both modes of perseity involve an intimate relation between faith and love. But it remains the case that in Reformed theology love is excluded from faith (sola fide) in the sense that, in the act of justification, faith is not considered in relation to love. What is hereby underscored is the fact that Catholic and Reformed Christians understand the formal cause of justification in very different ways: Faith is reckoned to us for righteousness (Romans 4.3). If justifying faith is, by definition, faith formed by agape, then it is easy to understand justification in a realist way: God pours loving faith into our hearts, and on this basis (truly) declares us to be righteous. If, on the other hand, God’s declaration of righteousness is predicated upon faith that is, in this regard, exclusive of agape, then it is difficult to understand justification in other than a nominalist manner (i.e., the predicate does not, in reality, correspond to the subject of which it is predicated).

Faith Formed by Love and Justification by Faith, Or Neither

Turretin’s distinction between the faith that justifies and faith considered as justifying puts a fine point upon an important difference between the Catholic Faith and the Protestant religion. However, this distinction does not seem to help Gerstner. If agape (good works) is part of the definition of justifying faith (per Gerstner), as opposed to simply being omnipresent with justifying faith (per Turretin), then it is not possible to be justified by faith without also being justified by works. One could say that we are justified by one aspect of faith apart from some other aspect of faith (e.g., the intellectual aspect apart from agape), but this would result in justification by something other than (living) faith, since works/agape, according to Gerstner, is part of the definition of (living) faith.

All in all, it seems to me that Gerstner has a correct definition of justifying faith, which he selectively applies. His critique of Catholicism is inconsistent with his definition of justifying faith, and his critique of Dispensationalism is inconsistent with his critique of Catholicism.

_________________

1. Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 8.
2. John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc., 1991), 226 (emphasis added); cited in Zane Hodges, “Calvinism Ex Cathedra: A Review of John H. Gerstner’s Wrong Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 1991–4:2 (available here).
3. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Sixteenth Topic, Eighth Question, V-VI.
4. Ibid.

The Church gathered in 325 AD to settle the Arian controversy, but assuming that the Scriptures alone are infallible, it seems inconceivable that any council could reliably settle a doctrine of faith, especially one so critical, if she had not first settled the question of which books could be considered as an infallible basis for such a decision.

One might object that such a question is only a concern for those who believe in solo scriptura, but this is false because there is no principled distinction between solo and sola scriptura. Another objection might be that the Church, widely and by general consensus, knew the canon, at least of the New Testament. But the New Testament canon was still in question at the time as no authoritative council would consider the matter for two more generations. To use such an objection would be to base certainty on doubt, an inconsistency that simply won’t suffice.

The reality we are left to consider is that the Church gathered and under the full weight of her authority made a critical theological decision, and the question of the canon never came up. This is inconceivable if the Church had ever considered the Scriptures the sole source of infallibility.

Download the mp3 by right clicking here.

Man, on the other hand, whose nature was to be a mean between the angelic and bestial, He created in such sort, that if he remained in subjection to His Creator as his rightful Lord, and piously kept His commandments, he should pass into the company of the angels, and obtain, without the intervention of death, a blessed and endless immortality; but if he offended the Lord his God by a proud and disobedient use of his free will, he should become subject to death, and live as the beasts do—the slave of appetite, and doomed to eternal punishment after death.

Augustine, City of God Book 12, 22.

He explicitly states that Adam’s destiny was to be with the angels, yet in a bodily manner.

This is a deep criticism of the errors of Gnosticism and it sheds light on the reality of Christ’s body, the means of salvation, and our final beatitude. The body of Adam and the body of Christ are essential to comprehending the Christian faith.

My challenge to Calvinists would be this: how does this bodily emphasis inform our ecclesiology (identified by Saint Paul as the “Body of Christ”) and how does it inform our understanding of the Eucharist as the true, substantial Body of Christ in our midst? As Augustine writes elsewhere:

And was carried in His Own Hands. How was He ‘carried in His Own Hands’? Because when He commended His own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know, and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, ‘This is My Body.’

Augustine, On the Psalms 33:1, 10.

It would seem that the doctrine of an “invisible church” and the belief that “the Eucharist as bread, not really the body of Christ” leans away from Augustine and leans toward Gnosticism. I’m sure that most Reformed Christians will feel that this is an unfair analysis. However, as has been repeatedly stated on Called to Communion, it seems that the Reformed traditions cannot account for the biblical data regarding the corporeality of the Gospel.

Thoughts?

In 2008, several of us who contribute here were involved in a Catholic Philosophy forum when Sean Patrick noted that most of us who were in the forum had previously been Reformed. Sean suggested that we start a group blog aimed at dialogue with a Reformed audience. Tom Brown, in the process of converting to the Catholic Church, about the same time, envisioned a site titled “Called to Communion” that would feature weighty articles published in careful sequence, as opposed to the sporadic nature of a blog. The goal was to encourage an in-depth consideration of these important theological issues. We married the two ideas, and the site as it stands now is the result.

Our early lead articles, such as this appreciation of Reformed Christianity, were well received and did not cause much debate. We wanted to focus initially on important issues where we felt we could establish some common ground. Our next set of articles were ecclesiological. Although they presented direct counter-claims to the Reformed position, there weren’t any notable refutations; none of the replies we received challenged the conclusions of the arguments. This was a bit discouraging, and as predicted, those same false assumptions which were refuted in the ecclesiological articles, mostly ecclesiological, continue to be the go-to arguments against our position for many of our regular interlocutors. e.g. We say, “You must read Scripture with the Church,” and they say, “We do,” but they continue to use “Church” in a different way, despite our earlier arguments against their concept of Church.

Certain readers have perceived some of us, particularly myself, as coming across cold and overly confident in our discussions. Part of this, no doubt, is due to personal shortcomings. But some of it, to be fair, is attributable to our culture of relativism. Though we do not speak for the Catholic Church, we represent her in a way. And the Catholic Church is a beacon heralding objective and knowable truth amid the stormy sea of relativism and skepticism in which we’re so accustomed to living, thinking, and unfortunately, worshiping.  To represent her faithfully is, on some level, to stand against the chaotic billows of society.   None of this is an excuse for poor tact (mea culpa), but as Dr. Liccione said in a recent discussion, the Catholic claim is extremely difficult to demonstrate to those caught in the grip of the ‘hermeneutic of suspicion.’ Moreover, one who truly believes in a visible Church established by Christ, when speaking of such, will always clash with another who has only a nominal conception of the same.

Our next set of articles focused on the authority of Scripture and was recently concluded by Tom Brown’s article on the Canon. Bryan Cross and Dr. Neal Judisch previously co-wrote a thorough refutation of Keith Mathison’s thesis regarding sola scriptura versus solo scriptura, which thesis has gained tremendous popularity in contemporary Reformed apologetics. Some readers attempted to contradict this article, but the rebuttals failed to show the arguments to be false. Taken as whole, the Protestant objectors didn’t quite know whether to agree with the argument and disagree with its implications, or to agree with its implications but disagree with the argument. Those in the second camp were the ones whose rebuttals were refuted in the lengthy combox.

We are preparing to close our first major round of lead articles with the next two: on holy orders and apostolic succession. These two will complete the general opening argument we have been making, that without an objective criteria for “Church” independent of personal interpretation of Scripture, an individual assumes for himself the full authority of the Christian magisterium. That is, the individual assumes the entirety of the authority which Catholics reserve to the successors of those appointed by Christ including the successor to St. Peter.

Regardless of how bad the situation in the Church gets, schism is never justified. Moving forward, we hope, against overwhelming odds, to heal that schism. These words I write are unwelcome to those who disagree, but I hope my readers can ask themselves a question that Bryan Cross once asked a denier of schism: “If Rome really were the Church, and you, as a Reformer, were actually in schism, how would you know it?” The Reformers have no answer except, “I would know it because Rome would be faithful to the Scriptures and I would be unfaithful.” But as Mathison stated, any appeal to Scripture is an appeal to private interpretation of Scripture. Therefore, the answer is really, “I would know it because Rome would agree with me.” This natural internalization of the faith is painfully difficult to avoid. “I know I’m a Christian” we reason with ourselves, “and I can’t have been deceived on the fundamentals of what it means to be Christian.” To honestly entertain the possibility that one, especially one advanced in age or ecclesial status, has inherited and acquiesced to an incomplete version of the faith, which is the center of their life, is something akin to fitting a camel through the eye of a needle.

With this difficult road ahead of us, that is, the road to unity, let us proceed in humility and with much prayer.