R.C. Sproul, Roman Catholicism Series, Part 3 "The Church and Salvation": A Commentary by Teresa Beem

(I'm skipping the pictures for sake of space.)

I was asked to listen to and comment on a series of lectures on Roman Catholicism by Calvinist Dr. R.C. Sproul. I have already commented on the first two in the series of lectures, and now I am going to comment on the third entitled, “The Church and Salvation.” 

Lies and Fear
There are two types of lies. One is taking the facts and presenting them in a way that gives a false impression. The other is presenting errors as facts. Dr. Sproul, in the first two lectures, I believed was a sincere man who was involuntarily giving a false impression with facts. In this lecture, I am still giving him the benefit as to his culpability but it is a little bit worse because he is presenting errors as facts.

There are people who genuinely and fairly looked into Catholic doctrine and simply do not believe Catholicism is of God. I have zero problem with them. God bless you and we will love and respect one another. However, there are Christians who look only into Catholic doctrine via Protestant scholars who do not genuinely look at Catholic doctrines except to condemn and expose. They will take history and Catholic writings out of context and weave together such as false impression of Catholicism that it pains a Catholic to hear it, it so smacks of ignorance. 

For the first couple lectures I very much thought R.C. Sproul was in the first group. After listening to this last lecture on the Church and Salvation it is clear that he either has done extremely limited and poor research, or he is deliberately portraying the doctrines of Catholicism wrongly. I just pray that he is sincerely misunderstanding Catholicism or else he needs to repent for bearing false witness against his Catholic neighbor.

Because I do not have the time to do a thorough refutation of all the errors I heard the professor state in this lecture, I will pick a few and at least give as short explanation of why he is wrong. (However this will be very long because I will have to deal with several points.)

The Priests and the Priesthood of Believers 

Dr. Sproul stated that Roman Catholicism is based upon a sacerdotal system in which salvation is mediated through the functions of the priesthood. His exact wording gave the impression that Catholics teach that salvation can only be attained through the sacraments given by the Roman Catholic priests. Not true.

The sacerdotalism that Catholics claim for themselves is that the priests is the minister of Divine worship. He exercises “sacerdotal” functions in behalf of and in unity with the entire priesthood of believers (all Christians are priests) when he offers the sacrifice of the mass.  This is based upon Hebrews 5: 1, “for every high priest is taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins.”

But Catholicism does not believe that this is the only means of salvation, but the system Christ Himself set up as the ordinary, most effective and efficient means of becoming holy. 

The Preaching of the Word

Dr. Sproul emphasizes that the Protestant worship service is focused on the preaching of the word. The center of attention is the pulpit. Then he states that Catholic worship is centered on the altar, giving the impression that the Catholic worship is lacking in attention to God’s Word. Emphatically false.

Enormous emphasis is placed upon the understanding of sacred scripture in Catholic church. The Catholic service is divided into the Word and the Eucharist. The first half is dedicated to reading scripture, singing scripture and the homily when the priest explains the scriptures we read. I have been to great hour-long Protestant expositions of one bible text that included story after story, a continual repetition of the point. The ten minute homily in Catholic mass is based on a 2000-year-old understanding of human nature. It condenses the words, but not the information.

Then the second half is dedicated to the heart of Catholic worship--receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. 

The Sacraments Save Us?

Dr. Sproul claims that Catholics teach that, “The sacraments impart saving grace to people.” 

Protestants read that statement as: “The doing of the rituals of the sacraments are the way you earn eternal life.”

The proper Catholic understanding of Dr. Sproul’s statement is: “As the Bride prepares to meet Her Husband face to face (the Beatific Vision) you follow God’s disciplines (sacraments) in order to receive the grace to overcome sin and become holy.” 

But the sacraments are not the only way one can become holy. It is the “ordinary” way Christ established. As sovereign God, He has many extraordinary ways to give graces to those who wish to be holy. Catholics teach that saving graces are given in prayer! Anyone can receive those.

Theological terms can trip up understanding. Let me show you how. The term “being saved” and “born-again” are synonymous to Protestants. To a Catholic they are two very separate things. The phrase “born-again” means you have entered the kingdom of heaven on earth and indelibly marked as a child of God. For Catholics “being saved” happens much later after you are born-again, after you have run the race and finished it. Salvation is a state where you can see God face to face. You are perfect, without sin. 

The sacraments are given to us by Christ to develop holiness. But they themselves do not give us salvation. They give Christians within the New Covenant grace (God’s power) to overcome sin. 

Grace and Salvation Outside the Catholic Church

Dr. Sproul asks, “If redemption comes by the means of grace dispensed by the priest and controlled by the church...what happens when a person is not a member of [this type] of community?”

If Dr. Sproul had simply picked up a Catechism, the answer would easily be found. 

1260    “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved...

Salvation Through Grace Alone

Several comments about this statement of the professor's that Catholics believe “redemption comes by the means of grace.” Yes that statement is true. A Catholic believes sola gratia, not sola fide. We are redeemed through the grace of Christ. Yet grace is not exclusively the church’s. 

The rest of the sentence is, “dispensed by the priest and controlled by the church.” That assessment by the doctor is wrong. The Church doesn’t control grace. To say we believe the church “controls’ grace is a statement Dr. Sproul knows to be untrue for later in the lecture he admits the church acknowledges saving grace outside the church.

The Gospel Economy of the Kingdom 

We are born-again at baptism and become children of God. Then we prepare to meet God face to face by becoming holy. Christ set up the sacraments to guide us into holiness. You are still a child of God and remain within the kingdom if you don’t receive the sacraments. But you will not become as holy as you could receiving the sacraments and will not be prepared to see God face to face at death. So then, you must be prepared to spend a lot more time in purgatory. For you must be holy to enter the presence of an Almighty God. 

The Catholic Church has always understood that God is sovereign and can save anyone He wants. The Catholic Church teaches that God set up a system by which the gospel can not only be spread but be lived. It is through His church, His bishops, His teachers, etc the gospel is to go forth and people be saved from their sins. I think the New Testament absolutely supports this idea. Through the organized church we can learn about the kingdom of Heaven, enter the kingdom of Heaven and live the Kingdom of Heaven until Christ comes again.

The church also tells us that since we are a nation of priests, a royal priesthood, we too can administer the sacraments. It is the ordinary way for the priests to do it but the extraordinary way allows for other believers. That is why in Catholicism a baptism is considered valid if done, “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” by a layman. That is why you see lay people giving out the Eucharist. A priest isn’t necessary for a wedding to be valid. So, Dr. Sproul places a stricter definition of sacerdotal than Catholics do. 

History of the Catholic Church and Salvation

Dr. Sproul claims that the church has changed positions on if you can be saved outside of the church over time, becoming progressive and inclusive. Again, he doesn’t understand Catholic history.

Many issues are debated over and over, in cycles. What the early church believed about Sabbath was argued for seven hundred years by different theologians in different areas (including impassioned writings by popes who disagrees). All this was unknown to 99% of Catholics who just followed the rules and lived peaceful, productive Christian lives. Then it was dropped and picked up again in the 16th century when the Puritans insisted on a Sunday Sabbath. When sabbatarianism  began to make inroads in Catholic Africa, Pope John Paul II again addressed the situation in his encyclical, Dies Domini. The theology of all those years of debate was fleshed out and made clear. Nothing changed. But the theology of the Sabbath was then codified for the church because of a heresy afflicting the people, not because a few handfuls of theologians were infighting.

When an Adventists looks at the centuries of Catholic debate, they can certainly piece together popes’ and theologians’ statements to support the SDA position on the Sabbath, but they must understand that Catholic theologians are free to, and even encouraged to debate theology in case a new light be shed upon an old doctrine. Theology has layers of truth and the Catholics are always encouraging us to see layers of truth and perhaps even discover a layer of truth that no one has yet seen. Never to change the official dogma or doctrine only add to the understanding of it. So today, like in the times of the Apostles, the Sabbath is the seventh-day of the week, but fulfilled in Christ. Catholic doctrine stayed the same even with a paper trail of Catholic debate.

This example is how to understand the historic and present view of salvation. Catholics have always understood that those who followed God before Christ came would be in heaven. The debate was always about fine details--babies of non-Christians who died, unbaptized Christian babies? People who haven’t heard the gospel but were born into a Christian world? (see Catechism of the Catholic Church 846-7; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14). 

Dr. Sproul quotes third-century church father St. Cyprian as saying there is no salvation outside the church correctly. “..[T]here is no salvation outside the Church.” (Letters 72[73]:2). But he was directly talking to heretics who had martyred themselves for their heretical views. Look at the whole quote: "[T]he baptism of public witness and of blood cannot profit a heretic unto salvation, because there is no salvation outside the Church." But even St. Cyprian of Carthage qualified that with saying immediately after that unbaptized people who are love Christ and want to join His Church and are martyred (ie. who cannot be baptized) are saved. 

Even though St. Cyprian’s beliefs were strict, they were not official church doctrine as Dr. Sproul suggested. A hundred years earlier, Justin Martyr explained how most of the church thought on Salvation outside the church:

"We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid" (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]). 

Bishop Clement of Alexandria, within fifty years of St. Cyprian wrote something similar to Justin Martyr: 

"Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the law did the Hebrews" (Miscellanies1:5 [A.D. 208]). 

And then Origen a prominent theologian who was a contemporary of St. Cyprian wrote the following: 

"[T]here was never a time when God did not want men to be just; he was always concerned about that. Indeed, he always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the wisdom of God descended into those souls which he found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God" (Against Celsus 4:7 [A.D. 248]). 

 Ambrose of Milan

"But I hear you lamenting because he [the Emperor Valentinian] had not received the sacraments of baptism. Tell me, what else could we have, except the will to it, the asking for it? He too had just now this desire, and after he came into Italy it was begun, and a short time ago he signified that he wished to be baptized by me. Did he, then, not have the grace which he desired? Did he not have what he eagerly sought? Certainly, because he sought it, he received it. What else does it mean: ‘Whatever just man shall be overtaken by death, his soul shall be at rest [Wis. 4:7]’?" (Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian [A.D. 392]). 

St. Augustine only a hundred years after St. Cyprian had an opinion that the church officially adopted that includes the idea that no one can be saved outside the church and at the same time there is a possibility of being saved and not being formally attached to the church. You will see how this works in a moment, but first St. Augustine’s quotes: 

"Whoever is separated from this Catholic Church, by this single sin of being separated from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life, but the wrath of God rests upon him" (ibid., 141:5). 

"[According to] apostolic tradition . . . the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal. This is the witness of Scripture too" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34 [A.D. 412]).  

"I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person. . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44–48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13–19]" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:21:28 [A.D. 400]). 

"That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although not baptized, it was said, ‘Today you shall be with me in paradise’ [Luke 23:43]. Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart [i.e., baptism of desire] if, perhaps, because of the circumstances of the time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism" (ibid., 4:22:29). 

So how can we understand the Churches doctrines that she has always taught, that there is both no salvation outside the Church and yet, there is a possibility of non-Catholics in heaven?

With one sentence I can wrap it all up, but it will still need further explanation: Christ and His Bride are one flesh. That is the basis of all Catholic doctrine. You must see all Catholic doctrine through those eyes.

Christ’s physical body through His life and death bought our salvation and Christ set up a physical church to be His Body and Bride. The Catholic Church has always seen marriage as a shadow of the relationship between Christ and the Bride. The Bride is one church that all belong to.

[Side note: Dr. Sproul made a big deal about Catholics saying there is only one true church. Correct. It is because there is only one Bride. To say there are many churches is to describe a God of polygamy. The church cannot do that. The Catholic Church simply annexes in Christians of other faiths into the true church and calls them “separated brethren” because they cannot be held accountable for the sins of those who were Catholics and broke the Body of Christ and started new congregations. They are fully Christian brothers because they truly love and obey Christ.]

Back to the theme of the Church as the Body of Christ.

All who are saved, are saved through the Body of Christ. Just as Protestants insist that there is no other way of salvation but through Jesus Christ, Catholics will say the exact same thing. Since the Church is Christ’s Body now while He is in heaven, it is through the Church all mankind is saved, for we are His Body. 

Then in the middle ages the doctrine was further explained by St. Thomas Aquinas, who spoke of being in the Church in voto (in desire) rather than in re (in reality) And then after the Reformation a new class of Christians arrived, those who truly loved Christ and had been raised in heresy for several generations. Therefore, the Catholic Church clarified again at the Council of Trent, which taught that we can be justified and consequently saved by water baptism or a desire for it. 

In the last few centuries has come a refinement of the Church's understanding of what constitutes the votum (desire) needed for in voto membership. An implicit desire is sufficient. A person who seeks and tries to conform himself to the truth has an implicit desire or votum for Christ and for the Catholic faith because, by seeking to conform himself to the truth, he is seeking to conform himself to Christ (who calls himself "the way, the truth, and the life") and his Church, even if he doesn't know it. 

The Church must proclaim that sinners are to enter the fold of the true shepherd to protect them from wolves in order not to endanger their souls. But the church cannot say that all sheep outside the fold is automatically going to hell. (“There are other sheep outside this fold.” And the mystery of their salvation is kept secret that we accept the total sovereignty of God.) So we know some outside the fold are God’s. However the security of the Church and her sacraments are the normative way of knowing you are in the Kingdom of Heaven now. It is through the church you know you have eternal security.

The Priest as Mediator
Dr. Sproul brought up the 5th century Donatist heresy. (Some Catholics believed if a priest or bishop had caved to pressure and failed to stand up for Christ and then repented, they could no longer be priests and bishops. They showed a lack of commitment for God and shouldn’t offer the Christian sacrifice at mass. Yet, the church responded that Israel priests didn’t have to be good in order to present the offerings and sacrifices to God.)

The whole point of the Donatist conclusion should prove to the Protestants that we do not believe a priest stands between us and God. God uses the priest but it is He who dispenses grace, not the priest. God uses the material, often faulty as it is, as a means of giving truth and grace.

Is the Catholic Church Changing its Doctrines Over Time?

Dr. Sproul in these three lectures seems to have an agenda to show that the Catholic doctrines gradually change over the centuries (and with papal infallibility is gets progressively more strident, but with salvation more liberal.) While Catholics absolutely believe there is room for doctrinal development and better understanding the basis of the doctrine never changes.

Just like new translations of scripture are written based upon words changing, just like the Bible developed and the Trinity doctrine and the full divinity of Christ developed over time. Sometimes things need to be clarified and developed, but not changed. The seed of truth was always there and a cherry seed didn’t produce an oak tree. Like the Protestants seem to try to make Catholic doctrine do… go from one doctrine to a different one. Yet, the truth is that the seed of doctrine develops into a tree of that kind!

If you go back into Catholic Church history you will see this. The mustard seed became a huge mustard tree as Christ prophesied--not only in a physical sense but also in an understanding of the Kingdom. 

God always presents revelation slowly! The Bride, the Church is coming into perfection before Christ comes both as individual Christians and also as the Bride herself as a corporate group. This is very Biblical. Many allusions to God’s people in the OT are as a group, not as individuals. And the development of the corporate Israel as a going to idolatry or as becoming more righteous. So, this idea is not unbiblical. 

Done for this post. I will write another one about America and its anti-Catholicism to explain what Dr. Sproul was talking about when related stories of his childhood in a community that was polarized by religion. But for now, I will begin part four of the series.

Blessings to all who took the time to read this. You are very patient!

RC Sproul, Roman Catholicism, Lecture 2, "Papal Infallibility" by Teresa Beem

This is the second of my comments on the fairness of Dr. R.C. Sproul’s explanation of Catholicism. The second lecture is about Papal Infallibility. Here's the first.

Did Dr. Sproul correctly present the Catholic Doctrine of papal infallibility?

As in the first lecture, I have to say he got some technical things correct, but failed to bring his audience to an understanding of the teaching. Why he chose this topic I don’t know, it is such a very peripheral doctrine on the Catholic horizon. There are something like three paragraphs in the Catechism about it, but I suppose it is a topic Protestants are concerned with.  

I have few quick points before I get into some more important comments on this lecture.

Hans Kung?

I find it interesting that the professor continues to quote from Father Hans Kung (a Swiss priest who has been stripped of his teaching office and told he can no longer teach under the name of Catholic. Father Kung is not a balanced source.) 

Encyclicals

Dr. Sproul also continues to give the impression that Papal encyclicals are infallible. They are not. The official Catholic encyclopedia explains that a papal encyclical is a letter from the pope to the archbishops and bishops concerning matters which affect the welfare of the church at large. They condemn some prevalent form of error, point out dangers which threaten faith or morals, exhort the faithful to constancy, or prescribe remedies for evils foreseen or already existent.

Anathema

Since Dr. Sproul brought up some anathemas the church announced, I just want to clarify that an anathema does not mean someone is sent to hell. It means that when a Catholic comes to mass they cannot receive the Eucharist. However,

excommunicated Catholics are encouraged to continue to attend mass so that they may turn from their ways and be received back into the church.

Many Protestants excommunicate Catholics, but they don't just keep them from observing the Lord's Supper with them, they actually judge their eternal salvation and refuse to call them Christians. For some, it is tantamount to damnation. Catholics do not understand anathemas to mean that. 

Roman titles

I wasn’t too worried about it, but my husband was concerned that Dr. Sproul’s bringing up that Christians adopted Roman titles and words for leadership made it seem as if Rome was already adopting paganism. I didn’t at all read it that way. I assume everyone knows that Christians adopting the local civic language wouldn’t  necessarily be evil. Adventists adopting the word “president” for their leadership isn’t evil. Christians adopted spelling, the alphabet, names of the weeks and months from the Romans and no one thinks that is sinful.

Theological Controversies
Dr. Sproul emphasizes the theological controversies among the few vocal scholars but that isn’t the real story of Catholicism. If the series of lectures is to help students understand certain Catholic doctrines, why spend most of the last two lectures on a few Catholic theologians infighting? Catholicism is always swatting liberal flies. The real story of Catholicism and its doctrine is huge. Dr. Sproul focuses on one infinitesimal little part. To be fair with Catholicism he needs to put down the theological microscope and put on his astronaut suit.

The Role of the Pope

I like the way George Weigel (Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington’s Ethics and Public Policy Center) put it when writing on Pope Francis at the blog, "First Things."

"[Popes] are not authoritarian figures, who teach what they will and as they will. The pope is the guardian of an authoritative tradition, of which he is the servant, not the master. 

"Thus the notion that this pontificate is going to change Catholic teaching on the morality of homosexual acts, or on the effects of divorce-and-remarriage on one’s communion with the Church, is a delusion, although the Church can surely develop its pastoral approach to homosexuals and the divorced…"

The popes are not theological dictators.

What is Papal Infallibility?

The topic of papal infallibility is the reason for his lecture and I want to add some vital comments that will fill in where he left out.

The Holy Spirit prevents the pope from officially teaching something that is sin to be truth. It is the promise of God not to let the shepherd of His flock lead His sheep into hell. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation. 

The pope can’t just get up and make an infallible papal pronouncement. Almost all the infallible statements have come when the Magisterium comes together to deal with a grave matter of faith. Like the American system, the pope (like the president) has to sign off on the Magisterium’s statement.

When things like cloning, euthanasia or contraception become a moral struggle, the magisterium together with the pope, come together and seek the will of God, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, with scripture and they review the long Tradition of the church and then make an infallible pronouncement to be held forever. There can be no changing of this once it is made and all Catholics must abide by it. So this happens extremely rarely. 

History of Infallibility

As Dr. Sproul said, the idea of papal primacy goes back all the way to the Apostles and he reads the Epistle to the Corinthians by Pope Clement as an example.

Other ancient proofs include: Ignatius of Antioch’s second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]). 

Cyprian of Carthage deal directly with papal infallibility in the year AD 256: "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has

spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).

Though the popes have had the ability to make infallible statements on faith and morals without the magisterium, that has only happened twice in the two thousand year history of the church. Pope Pius IX’s (1854) defined the dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Pope Pius XII’s (1950) defined the dogma of Mary’s Assumption. In both of these cases, the Pope was not teaching something new. Rather, he was confirming and clarifying something that the Church had already believed as part of God’s revelation.

Bible Texts that Support Infallibility

Jesus promised the apostles and their successors as leaders of the worldwide church: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16). "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). Jesus promised to His entire church the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings, even if individual Catholics might. The Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. And Peter and His successors have a special role as the Supreme Shepherd on earth just as Moses and Abraham were: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . "). 

What I find confusing in Dr. Sproul’s lecture is that he shows historical evidence of the primacy of the pope but then emphasizes that it wasn’t made official doctrine until the 19th century. Why is when it was made doctrine important?

When I was studying Catholicism, I understood the importance of the church’s infallibility with one comparison. If God kept His written Word infallible through all these centuries, why could He not also keep His Church’s pronouncements also infallible? There is no less need for the church to maintain God’s Word for the millennia when most people couldn’t read than when they can. God protects His Word. Made sense to me.

---------------------------------

Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 890-891

Lumen Gentium, 25 

http://catholicexchange.com/the-pope-and-infallibility

1-800-MY FAITH (693-2484)  www.cuf.org,

Catholic Answers “papal infallibility”

For more on infallibility, see “Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth: The Infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church” and “(No Bull: Papal Authority and Our Response”

R C Sproul Roman Catholicism (Scripture and Tradition)

A few days ago, I was asked to comment on the fairness of Calvinist scholar R.C. Sproul’s presentation of Catholic doctrine in a series of lectures entitled: Roman Catholicism. 

I haven't spent a lot of time listening to or reading R.C. Sproul, so please do not take anything I write as a criticism of him personally. I am certain he is a great man of God and deserving of my utter respect and humble attention. Therefore, for the sake of the person who asked and those who might be interested in my analysis: here is my commentary to the first of the five lectures entitled “Scripture and Tradition.” 

Also keep in mind that I am not presenting an apologetic for the Catholic Church, only attempting to explain where the good doctor misapplied or misunderstood Catholic teachings.

Does R. C. Sproul present the Catholic doctrine correctly?

If this is a heresy trial, as often I feel when a Protestant asks me questions about Catholicism and they strictly want a yes or a no answer, then I would be forced to answer “yes.” But that would not be fair to the truth. A simple yes might be technically correct but you would, after hearing Sproul, walk away with a wrong understanding of Catholicism. 

And, if you simply want evidence to cement your position that the Catholic Church is trying to deceive the world with a false gospel, then a yes is sufficient and you will read no more.

However, if you are truly interested in understanding Catholicism then my yes must be followed by a no and a lengthy explanation.

Let me start with a short example of what I mean by something being technically correct but utterly missing the truth. Look closely, at the picture below and you will

see that this picture mosaic is comprised of many little photos. If someone were to focus in on and describe each tiny picture individually, they would be technically correct. However, the person listening would completely miss the bigger picture. In this lecture, Dr. Sproul is giving some technically correct small points but is sorely failing to give his students a true comprehension of Catholicism. 

This is hard to grasp but true: you can’t get to an understanding of Catholicism through a Protestant worldview. Just as it is impossible to understand the full picture above by simply going through the tiny photos individually, one by one without seeing them all together.

I know, it took me many years of studying both Catholicism and Lutheranism (and to some degree Calvinism) to grasp that we are looking at spirituality through two different perspectives that won’t compare. Like trying to compare a GPS with a sextant, both can get you the same place, but the vocabulary and methods won’t interchange. 

If you are going to follow along with the lecture, I will start where he gets to the meat of the debate more than halfway through the first lecture. I will also deal with his misunderstandings from most important to the least important and go from overarching philosophy to detail. The first being the difference between the Protestant teaching of the development of the Biblical canon and the Catholic. 

The Infallible Bible from a Fallible Canon
(Canon: the set or list of books that are in the scripture--the index.)

Some background: During the reformation different sects of the Reformers were so upset at the abuses they saw in the church that they decided all things Catholic must go. While they were re-examining theology, they re-examined the books that were in scripture and decided that the Catholic Church didn't put the correct books in. Each group, though believing the Bible was the infallible Word of God and proclaiming to the death that it was their sole authority, weren't sure which books were the Word of God. So they started taking some of them out. Luther wanted to take out a bunch of books from both the Old and New Testament. The Calvinists took out seven books from the Old Testament: I and II Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch.

Now we have a Protestant Bible and a Catholic Bible, the Protestant one is missing seven books.  

Dr. Sproul correctly reports that Catholics believe the Holy Spirit infallibly guided the church to choose the correct books that were to be in scripture. The Protestants believe that the church may have been mistaken about which books were supposed to be put in the Bible. More technically it is put: the

Protestants believe in a fallible collection of infallible books, while the Catholics believe in an infallible collection of infallible books. 

Dr. Sproul explains that Luther absolutely believed in the inerrancy of scripture even if he wanted to take several books out such as the book of James. Sproul claimed that Martin Luther said, “The scriptures never err, but I don’t believe James should be in the canon.” So Luther was going to remove it from the Bible he was translating. Then later repented of his foolishness.

My response is utterly dumbfounded at Sproul's acceptance of this.

Imagine the Lutheran Bible if Luther had fixed the canon’s “mistakes.” For some years it would not have included the books of James, Hebrew and Revelation (and the deuterocanonical books). But as the

Reformer aged and learned, the book of James would have been put back, then eventually the others. Luther’s Bibles would have changed as he spiritually matured. Is that what Christ wanted-- personalized Bibles according to our spiritual maturity and education? 

If, in our early spiritual discernment, we felt free to pluck out from the Bible the books we thought were not sufficiently inspired, that would actually inhibit our ability to spiritually mature by not being challenged by the truths of the books we took out.

And in fact, that is exactly what happened during the Reformation. The differing Protestant sects began to literally rip out parts of scripture they did not find corresponded with their theology. Some European museums contain these 16th and 17th-century Bibles that had books torn from them and the spine binding folded and sewn back to make them appear to be complete Bibles.  

And this need to purify the infallible Word of God continues today. A few current scholars are attempting to put back into the canon false teachings such as the Gospel of Thomas that were rejected by the Catholic church. There are other scholars who think other books, such as II Peter, much of Paul’s epistles and Revelation are spurious and should be taken out. And with the theology of a fallible collection of books, there is no reason the canon shouldn’t be open again for “reformation” today. If there really is a fallible choice of books, the Bible would cease to exist there would be so many versions of canon. Each Christian would be picking which books they personally believe are inspired. (Which is basically happening in our morals! Choose the Bible books that work with your personal morality.)

A Room With Fifteen Books

It seems as if God placed us in quite the dilemma with a fallible collection of infallible books. An analogy Dr. Sproul uses to explain what the early church had to do to put together the Bible is: God dropped fifteen books into a room and said that ten of them were perfect, incorrupt, infallible, His Word. The other five were corrupted. And the church had to choose which ones were infallible and bind them together as the sole authority of His Church. The Protestants claim the Catholics may very well have chosen poorly. Therefore, since they failed at changing the Catholic Church, they changed the Bible. 

And when your sole authority is scripture…. there must have been a lot of pressure for the different reformers to choose which books of the Bible were infallible and which were not. (God was gambling the reformers would get it right? Would God really take His Holy Word so trivially?)

What is Underlying this idea of a Fallible Canon?

Some Protestants will never believe the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to perfectly pick out His Holy Word, so they teach the Church’s choices of the books could have been wrong. They still teach today that the majority of Christians on the planet use a Bible with corrupt books in it. 

It is irrational to assume that God allowed apocryphal books to enter the Bible through the Catholic Church corrupting church doctrines for 2000 years. If the church based its doctrines upon the corrupted scripture all those centuries, why blame the church? Why not blame God for allowing His Holy Word to be chosen fallibly? And how can we trust a new, also fallible, group of Christians today to have more perfect discernment in choosing a canon that reflects God’s hidden list of infallible books to make up the Bible?

This theology absolutely crumbles the foundation of an inerrant and infallible, holy Word of God. For when someone studies II Peter or Esther they will wonder if the book is meant to be in scripture or not.

It is the height of spiritual arrogance that assumes we can discern which books are God’s Word and which are not.  

What’s so Important About Infallibility?

Let’s say NASA is preparing for a space shuttle. Some of their equipment has been inspected and found to be working perfectly, some are corrupted. And when you get into the shuttle as a passenger you are told to sign a form stating that you understand that the engineers cannot be 100% certain they placed put the perfect equipment on your shuttle. Would you trust your life to this gamble? That is the dilemma the Protestants have put us in. Our souls are at risk and there is no way of knowing if we are trusting a perfect or imperfect authority to tell us how to find eternal life.

Infallible Collection of Infallible Books
Dr. Sproul and his audience laughed about Catholicism’s claim to infallibly chosen infallible scripture. Why is claiming the Bible is infallible so reasonable and then a church who was put in charge by Christ himself then be ridiculous in claiming the Holy Spirit guided them in selecting the books so that God’s word would be preserved? 

The Inerrant and Infallible Word of God

What Dr. Sproul did not bring up is that the entire premise of an infallible Bible is not what the Bible claims about itself. It does not claim to be the final authority either. These are extra-Biblical traditions not found within the text. Catholics realize this and we believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible because that is what the authority of the Catholic Church teaches from Tradition. 

Also nowhere in the text of the Bible does it say which books are to be included or which books are inspired! 

If you believe that God wants us to know absolute truth, you cannot both believe in sola scriptura and believe in a fallible collection of infallible books. The Protestant model profoundly contradicts itself. Why? If God wants us to know His absolute truth through the Bible which is compiled of many books and then allows us to guess at which books are His authentic Word, no matter how fantastically intelligent and Holy Spirit driven the guess is, it is still open to being wrong. If our selection of books is fallible, then there is zero ability to know if any book is supposed to be in scripture or not and then there is absolutely no way of proving if Catholic doctrines (based on their Bible) are the absolute truth or Protestant doctrines (based on their Bibles.) For us to know truth absolutely, we must have a set of books in our Bible that are absolutely God’s Word. There cannot be anything fallible about it.

From the writings of scripture, to the choosing of scripture, to the interpreting of scripture, it must all be infallible or we have no absolute Truth according to the Protestant model of Biblical authority.

The Reformers invented the idea of Sola Scriptura as a reaction against the church's claim of infallibility in interpreting scripture. Where they disagreed on the church's interpretation, the Reformers thought their interpretation more infallible. So they basically traded the church's infallibility for their own infallibility and it ended up in the total chaos of Christian relativism. Since we all disagree about how to interpret… there must be no way of knowing the infallible interpretation.

The Bible does not claim:

• It is infallible
• What books are supposed to be in it
• That it is the sole authority

So why are Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura teaching and defending this man-made tradition? 

The Protestant Bible is the Same as the Hebrew Bible

During the time of Christ, the Hebrews had not yet put together a final group of scrolls that they said were the Old Testament. There was argument over which scrolls were absolutely God's word. The Jews living in Babylon, in Alexandria, in Samaria and in Palestine has different scrolls they thought were sacred. In general, the Christian used the Greek set of scrolls called the Septuagint. They included the books under discussion here… I and II Maccabees, Tobit…etc.

The Hebrews did not close the official canon (decide which books were to be in the Old Testament) until about fifty to a hundred years after Christ died. Among the reasons the Jewish Rabbi’s rejected the Septuagint is because it was the Bible of the Christians.

Interestingly, the early church fathers quoted from the deuterocanonical books as if they were scripture. So the early Christians thought Judith and Baruch and Wisdom (among the others) was scripture.

Dr. Sproul said that the Reformers rejected the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament canon and embraced the Palestinian (later to become the Jewish scriptures.) And he asserted that few scholars will disagree that the Hebrew canon did not include the deuterocanonical books. 

Correct. Yet, why would Protestants accept a canon that was put together by those who had rejected Jesus as the Messiah?

Two Sources or One?

Dr. Sproul presented some information about the sources of Catholicism’s authority that more than anything else in the lecture showed that he didn’t understand Catholicism. He created contention where Catholics do not see it. He, as do so many Protestants, pitted Tradition against Scripture, as if there are two separate sources of Catholic authority. As if the Bible is on one side of the boxing ring and the magisterium is on the other.

There are not two sources of Catholic teaching but one. However, let me start from the beginning:

• The Holy Spirit uses Man: Catholics do not believe that all truth is downloaded into our brain by the Holy Spirit. We must seek outside sources to learn the fullness of the truths God has given us. The Holy Spirit’s ordinary way in which He gives us wisdom is through the physical and material world--via people. People spread the gospel of truth. The Apostle's wrote down some of what the Christ and the Holy Spirit told them, but not all. The Bible is truth because God used man through which to make Himself known. The Bible was birthed by man whose source was God.

• Catholics believe in all of what God spoke: 

It is written, "One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” Matt. 4: 4

We need to understand and obey all that God spoke. God’s complete Word is our authority. Every single thing God taught is not to be ignored. Catholicism teaches that the Apostles faithfully passed down the teachings of Christ. All truths began as oral Tradition (that which is passed down orally). Later the Apostles wrote down part of this oral Tradition. So the Catholics draw from the well of God’s Word from both Oral Tradition and Written Tradition. But they are both from the same source. In fact the written Word was birthed by the Oral Word.

The scriptures tell us that Christ said and did more than what was written. (John 16: 12, 21:25, Acts 1:3) And that Oral Tradition is valid: 

Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us. 2 Thess. 3: 6

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. I Cor. 11:2

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our lette 2 Thess. 2: 15

They are really simply one source: the Word of God. We, both Protestants and Catholics, believe in the same exact source of final authority. The Word of God. Catholics just have a bigger source pool than the Bible alone.

Catholics and the Authority of Scripture

Dr. Sproul also misunderstands another Catholic view of scripture. Which, let’s face it, with Catholic dogmas and doctrines and disciplines and councils and synods and encyclicals and which is infallible and which is binding but not infallible, it’s confusing even for Catholics. And with two millennia of a worldwide covenantal family where words and cultural and language changes over time and geography, it is understandable why so much is confusing. 

Dr. Sproul brings in some quotes from liberals today and contrasts them with historical data and makes the connection that the Catholic Church is changing its view of the Bible. That though we started out teaching the Bible is inerrant and infallible, that slowly over time we now teach that the truths of scripture are inerrant and infallible. As if that is different from what we always taught.

We do know two things about the Catholic Church and her official position about Holy Scripture. Catholicism has always taught that the sacred writings are inspired by God, instruct us for salvation and: 

...is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

This doctrine has never changed since Paul wrote these words. But Dr. Sproul, along with a lot of other people, look at the church’s claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible and then, with the advent of the “higher criticism” crowd, read its recent clarifying statements that the church believes the truths of the scripture to be inerrant and think we have caved to the liberals.

But, in fact the church has always believed this. The minute Dr. Sproul began speaking I knew he didn’t quite know the whole story, because whatever the church means by “inerrant and infallible” it isn’t what the Protestants I know mean. For  Dr. Steve Cobb, a theological scholar whose church I attended for years, believed the Bible was inspired from the index at the beginning to the maps at the end. As does the King James Bible only crowd. This has never been the case for Catholics. Protestants assumed that Catholics have had the same definition of inerrancy of scriptures as fundamentalists, but that is to ignore history. 

In the fourth century, at the same time the Church was considering and debating which books should be part of the general canon of scripture, it was aware that the scriptures were also in need of a better translation. The pope asked St. Jerome to move to Jerusalem in order to be able to have a new translation of the Old Testament directly from Hebrew because the Latin versions of that time were so corrupted.

So the infallibility of the scriptures were obviously seen as residing in the original words and not the translations.

Yet at the same time the church also taught that the scriptures were God-breathed? How can we reconcile those two things? How can the scriptures they were reading be both God-breathed and at the same time so full of errors that they had to toss the Old Latin transcripts and start over from scratch?

Throughout the centuries the Church has understood that those who study, copy, translate and teach scripture must be extremely vigilant to keep pure exactly what God said. Because words, phrases, colloquial usages change, the Bible is always in need of better clarification by His ordained teachers. Not to add or detract, but to better express the original and holy meaning of the words of scripture.

Catholic scholar Erasmus, while translating the scriptures got special permission from the pope to change the word  “penance” to “repentance” and when Luther read this it lead to his famous tower experience of understanding righteousness by faith! So there is abundant evidence that the Catholic Church both understands that the scriptures meaning must be made clear and that can occasionally mean retranslating the Bible. So it can also state infallibly that the scriptures are free of error and yet also know that the scriptures--the copyist, the translation, the ink on paper is not infallible. Nothing has ever fundamentally changed about the Catholic view of scripture. Black ink on paper is not infallible, but what God means to convey to us is.

And that what it all comes down to: Not “what does the Bible say?” but “what does God mean by what He wrote in scripture?” And no matter how infallible and inerrant the scriptures are, if a person reading them misunderstands or deliberately twists the words then fallible corrupted teaching is coming from the infallible Word. 

The Church also recognizes that the theology of an infallible scripture is useless without an infallible interpreter. For if the purpose of scripture is to impart holy truth upon the heart, the inerrant scripture is of no use if the person interpreting it is fallible in his personal translation. So God also gave us an infallible guide to help us not pervert scripture once it has been taken from the paper into our hearts and minds.

Heretics?

Dr. Sproul also tossed around the word “heretic” in his assessment of Pius XII encyclical. As if he called anyone disagreeing with him a heretic. I carefully read it over and the word heretic, heresy, or cognate was never used. That is a serious word for Catholics, for heresy is a grave sin and when Dr. Sproul’s causally used the word to describe the pope’s intent, I realized again that he does not fully understand Catholicism.

Dr. Sproul makes much ado about the American progressive Catholics who are working very hard at destroying Catholic foundations and making the church into her image. Well, that is truly a problem. However it is not new. Apostolic Judases in the church have always been attempting to destroy the church from within and at the very top. Catholic history if full of unfaithful shepherds and sheep. 

But I do understand. Dr. Sproul is attempting to make sense of what he thinks he is reading today, so he is tracing back into Catholic history to show where the liberals squeezed and twisted doctrine to fit their agenda-and they are winning in the church. 

The liberals have not won.... the dogmas have remained the same since the beginning and no pope or magisterium can change dogmas. It is not in their power to do as much as the liberals are wishing they could force them.

And Dr. Sproul failed to tell the rest of the story of this liberal vs. conservative bantering. Pope Benedict, a giant of theology, wrote several encyclicals putting the hammer down upon the higher criticism scholastics. But it will take some time for this particular liberalism to peter out but it will... as has many attempts have been made to change Christ's words. 

Magisterial Interpretation of Scripture

Dr. Sproul indicated that when a Protestant is speaking to a Catholic about interpretation of a Bible text, the Catholic will not budge when it comes to the texts which the magisterium has infallibly interpreted. Absolutely. Where Christ has spoken... we are silent. 

(However, keep in mind the verses upon which the church has infallibly spoken is about fifty texts in all of scripture. That few hardly keeps us from doing a lot of individual interpretation.)

Protestants become upset when we believe God speaks through the church. They will scoff, “It is not God who has spoken, it is a bunch of haughty, arrogant, power hungry men.”

But even with her flaws, Catholicism teaches that the Church is the beloved Body of Christ, the Bride. What she says is what He says. They are one flesh. That is one perspective that is vastly different from Protestants and vital in understanding. The Catholic Church sees itself as the physical Body of Christ on earth. The Bride in an eternal dance with her Husband, each step he takes she follows. And though not yet perfect (imputed with His righteousness) He sees her pure and holy. Through the centuries the vicious war with the Devil has at times knocked her down, but with God’s strength she arises each time. 

Knowing Catholicism

If you wanted to understand why Republicans voted for Ronald Reagan, don’t ask a liberal Democrat. If you want to discover what Republicans believe go to the official Republican platform. And if you truly wish to understand Catholicism, don’t to to R. C. Sproul or any Protestant. People who wish to continue their views of Catholicism as the whore of Babylon will only listen to anti-Catholic views. Of course to really study a subject you need to look at all sides. And absolutely do that. But don’t listen only to the theological enemy's opinion of Catholicism. (I have no idea of R.C. Sproul considers his theology at enmity with Catholicism, so I refer more directly to James White and his crowd.)

For primary sources, don’t go to any Catholic on the street, even a cradle Catholic, often they have no idea what Catholicism teaches. Don’t even go to Denzinger as Dr. Sproul suggested. Go to the authentic teachings of the church found in the Catechism. The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives the Roman Catholic interpretation of the Word of God. It should be your first primary source. That is what all Catholics are required to believe to call themselves Catholic.

It is also vital that you understand that to faithful Catholics, the Church is Christ on earth, the kingdom of heaven, the mystery of salvation for which the whole universe was anticipating. The visible Church is what Christ began. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 

(Part II commentary coming up…)