Defending the Faith: YouTube Commentary (Part 3)

Responding to a video that critiqued Sacred Catholic Tradition…

I’ve always liked Jim and his calm demeanor. He asks questions that others refuse to. And the fact that he says he’s willing to explore both sides is incredible.

That said, I see confirmation bias permeating this talk. It is amazing for anyone to go into Christian history and completely leapfrog Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, as if there was an underground church for 1,500 years. No mention of the heresies that were condemned during that period, the truths that were declared (most of which modern-day Protestants would affirm and be grateful for). The councils were not held by some nebulous Protestant-esque church (which, by the way, happens to be a body which is divided beyond recognition).

One thing that never gets mentioned when critiquing Catholic Tradition and authority is how a parallel is taking place in Protestantism. Their foundation of teaching authority largely comes from former Catholic men (via the Reformation). These men, and those who came after, don't affirm an earthly authority, even as they themselves become authoritative (saying they are truly the ones being guided by the Holy Spirit). They don't affirm infallibility, even as they themselves declare the "true" meaning of various verses. Additionally, they tend to dismiss Tradition, even while ignoring their own tradition of interpretation (knowing what is correct exegesis and what is not).

If you dismiss the pope and other Catholic clergy, you must defend why your interpretation is correct and whether or not it itself is infallible (and at the same time, you need to explain where such interpretation originated). And you must explain why your exegesis trumps your fellow studied Protestant who holds to a completely different view on, say, baptism and salvation. You cannot escape authority and tradition. It's impossible.

The person who holds to sola scriptura isn't really saying much. If their interpretation is wrong according to others who also hold to sola scriptura, who is right? The one with more time in seminary? The one who unpacked the Greek meaning? The one who received a vision? Sola scriptura, without an ultimate authority, is a dog chasing its tail. Sadly, simply saying, “I follow the Holy Spirit” or “It’s me and Jesus” isn’t the answer, as it has produced exponential separation and a diluted view of absolute truth.

We must go upstream and follow each split and division. Over time, it--at the very least--leads to Catholicism and Orthodoxy, not a historic Protestant church or the hazy “Biblical Christianity.” It's simply not there and has no continuity, just rebellion based on sins of others, disagreements about who has authority, and a complete dismissal of anything that seems contradictory to an ever-changing “modern” understanding.

Who founded your denomination? Which man or woman? What year? And where did they come from? Where did they get their proper interpretation? Is such interpretation infallible? If the Reformation was loaded with Catholic men who disagreed with the Church, what were they returning to? When will we reach a satisfactory reform in their memories? Which denomination got it right or is in the process of getting it right?

...work out your salvation... …those who persevere… ...eat my flesh... ...shall not inherit the Kingdom... ...as by fire... ...no unclean thing... ...bind and loose... ...forgive and retain... ...upon this rock... ...cloud of witnesses... ...God of the living... ...transfiguration... ...we can do nothing apart from God... etc.

Not my interpretation, but that found in the Tradition of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

Responding to a gentleman who left the Catholic Church and insisted that Catholics shouldn’t see things in terms of denominations. Instead, they should realize that Bible believers are a single body…

I understand your point. I guess it has less to do with a “founder” and more to do with the source of interpretation. In other words, unless all exegesis is infallible and all paths lead to heaven, many groups of people are clearly getting it wrong. Many can’t agree on salvation, baptism, altar calls, cessation-continuation, Calvinist–Arminian, etc. All church groups have a source for their interpretation, a source of their non-negotiable doctrines.

If, for instance, a given practice or theology originated with Calvin, then so be it. No one should be afraid to state such. It doesn’t seem fair to clearly use an individual’s interpretation, but claim that it is somehow what the church always taught, even without consistency throughout church history.

I do look to the Word of God, but I don’t rely on myself because that is a potential can of worms. I either submit to Christ and His Church or submit to myself under the guise of the Holy Spirit. Which church do you go to and how do you know their fundamental biblical beliefs have been properly exegeted? The Holy Spirit is leading countless people to highly conflicting viewpoints, so either the Holy Spirit is wrong or humans are wrong.

Since humans are wrong, to whom shall we go? Our own private interpretation of what the church should be? I read the same 27 NT books you do and I see Catholic teaching throughout. “Eat my flesh”, “by fire”, “fear and trembling”, “bind and loose”, “forgive and retain”, “not by faith alone”, “pillar and foundation”, etc.

On one end of the spectrum is the Catholic Church, declaring dogmas and doctrines. On the other end, is what is nebulously classified as Biblical Christianity, which, in fact, also declares its own dogmas and doctrines (even if not labeled as such). One group has a foundation dating back to Christ; the other has a foundation dating back to the 16th century. The very notion of sola scriptura isn’t even Scriptural. It is a house of cards built on the idea that “abuses must mean we need to show the world the real truth — a truth that has no historic bearing.”

Followers of Christ (under the heading of Catholic or Orthodox) were not saved for 1,500 years and beyond? Thomas Aquinas was wrong, Ignatius of Antioch was wrong, Irenaeus was wrong, Justin Martyr was wrong, Joan of Arc was wrong, Francis Xavier was wrong, Therese of Lisieux, Mother Theresa, etc. etc. etc. They certainly believed in the three-legged stool of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. All under ONE roof.

Meanwhile, Luther was right, Calvin was right, Spurgeon was right, Wigglesworth was right, Knox was right, Grebel was right, Smith was right, Wesley was right, Mary Baker Eddy was right, James White is right, John MacArthur is right, the house church of 8 people is right, etc. etc. etc. All going on the one-legged stool of Scripture via personal understanding. Or, at best, a two-legged stool that would have to admit their own “tradition” of what is correct exegesis and what is not. All under countless roofs.

Thankfully, they all claim the same thing: all Scripture is inerrant and infallible. Very true.

However, all interpretation is not. That is unavoidable.

If you left the Church because of the sins of (or the ineptitude of) someone, you chose Judas to represent the entire Church. But with this acknowledgment, why would you believe anything at all? There are Judases in EVERY walk of life, every denomination, every group of believers. Why wouldn’t you leave Protestantism and become atheist the minute someone who is a Bible-believing Christian let you down?

It cannot only go one way, right?

Responding to a woman who was frustrated by all church division and didn’t know where to turn next…

I hear you! I was the same. However, by the grace of God, I reverted last year. Pray and pray some more. Visit The Journey Home website with Marcus Grodi. Tons of folks who vouch for Church history and address misunderstandings, sins of others who poorly witnessed to the faith over the years, etc.

Even when it looks so foreign, you must trace all divisions upstream and realize that the foundational, Protestant “correct” interpretations came from former Catholic men via the Reformation. There has since been so much divorce, the “Parent” Church looks unrecognizable.

It is quite a paradigm shift, but one that is beyond rewarding. Most attacks on the Church are about its followers who do the antithesis of what the Church actually teaches. Or from their own biased anti-Catholic interpretation. As you dig into history, it’s messy indeed, but Truth is found there. At the very least, Protestantism becomes a house of cards and you’re left with Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

For example, only a few years after Luther’s 95 Theses, you already see vehement disagreements in the Protestant camp about fundamental, sacramental issues such as Baptism and the Holy Eucharist (or Lord’s Supper). And where agreements could not be reached, you see stark division because there is no head umpire on the field to make a final call. So, in the process, each person (Luther, Zwingli, Grebel, Calvin, Karlstadt, etc.) became their own head umpire while repeatedly claiming that the papacy is ridiculous.

And don’t get me wrong, the same thing will always persist in Catholicism. Schismatics will continue to go rogue, not realizing they’re cutting the very branch they were sitting on.

Reform happens from within the walls, not from without. Otherwise, it isn’t reform at all; it’s simply the beginning of a series of new churches, each with their own stories of victimhood and pride.

And the cycle simply repeats itself.