Responding to a Catholic Critic
Welcome to the Uncut Podcast.
I'm Pastor Luke. And I'm Pastor Cameron. And this is the Uncut Podcast where we talk about things in an uncut and honest
manner, talk about faith, life, theology, ministry, anything that particularly,
maybe gets under our skin a little bit.
Today we're going to be diving into an interesting video that was sent to us by one of you who's listening.
I think this is going to bring some good conversation to the forefront.
So I'm excited to kind of dig in here a little bit.
Me too. It certainly is a good video to spark conversation.
It's got me all worked up inside feeling things.
Sure. Um, so we were sent a video and we'll have that linked at the,
in our description and in our show notes and everything like that.
So you can go and you can watch that video if you would like to,
but we will cover pretty much the pretty much, well, I mean it depends on how long this conversation takes us.
I can't say we'll get through it all in one episode, but we'll cover it pretty much. I mean, there's not much to describe other than it's a Catholic
who is of the persuasion that Protestantism is a heresy is the word that she used to describe all
of Protestantism. I'm gonna have a hard time saying that word.
She didn't even that's like not even abroad because that is that's the opening,
It's a it was an Instagram video. Yeah, I was an Instagram real. Okay, so it's really short. Yep, and there was like this,
Punching music. Oh, yeah, and it was like, okay I'm gonna show all the Internet why Protestantism is a heresy and and so that's like the title,
Like that's the opening is why is Protestantism is a heresy? Yes And just so you know if you're not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox you are a Protestant right just clarify that if you're Baptist.
Lutheran Presbyterian non-denominational like you were you fall underneath the category of Protestant. Yeah out of the Protestant Reformation,
Anyway, but it doesn't even feel like it wasn't even just it's not like a broad brush,
it's like a.
Broad, it's like a mile wide paint sprayer that she just paints all Protestantism with.
And it's why, I think that's why I get so fired up about this kind of stuff. It's nothing to do
with her questioning theological beliefs vis-a-vis the Catholic Church. I think that's
actually kind of a healthy thing is to have those conversations. And if you know me at all.
You will know that I, I mean, I think pretty highly of the Catholic church.
Right. I, I feel like I do more. I feel like I end up spending more time like giving apologetics
for like making the Catholics seem reasonable to other people who don't
like the Catholics. Right, well because here at Conduit we for whatever reason I
don't know we have a we have a pretty large expat Catholic population of people who have come out of the Catholic Church and who have not had,
positive experiences and we do a lot of okay well but yes so much so that like
sometimes maybe we need to clarify that we also aren't Catholic and that we
don't agree with everything that the Catholic Church does and believes correct it's why we're not Catholic it's why I'm not Catholic right why I'm not a
priest. Also I enjoy being married.
And so people might see this as an anti-Catholic thing. It's not an anti-Catholic thing. No.
It's an anti-generalizations, and it's not even a pro-Protestant thing. It's more of like,
for me, it's more of a like, let's have reasonable discussion based on actual
truth from scripture and actual truth from history rather than let's put together a
punchy reel on Instagram to kind of send one over the bow of the church. So if you're watching this,
whatever your name is, springtime Catholic, I think it is. It's not personal.
No, it's not. But I think it'll be a good launching pad for us. And also, I don't think,
I mean, I don't know, Catholicism is such a broad, is so big, and there is so much literature,
and so many edicts and councils have been had, that I can't say with certainty. But I don't
think that her technical categorization of the Protestant church as a giant heresy is technically
the stance of the Catholic church anymore. I don't think so.
I think they tend to call us something brothers, like disconnected or something like that. I think
they've- That's a good question. I don't know the answer to that. So, I don't know. Obviously,
they probably sit in the same category as us and say, well, you know, we think you're wrong.
But I don't think that the Catholic Church's general posturing and stance as a whole is that.
Of considering us at large heretics. No, maybe with the exception of denying us the Eucharist,
but other than that, I don't think so. Yeah. So we'll kind of start by just
kind of going through. She kind of makes that initial statement, and then she kind of just
has kind of point by point kind of a statement that she kind of feels like is her, her like.
I don't know, proof or kind of like, you know, Proposition 1. And so the first one is,
and you want to talk about something that definitely is a dividing issue for Protestants
and Catholics, at least as far as like popular ones that gets talked about.
Can we, can we, can I make one clarifying before we get into the first point? Yes.
Which is when she says Protestantism is heresy, like understanding what heresy is.
Yeah, that's a good point.
Yeah, because it is kind of, it can be a term that you use.
It attacks, like it's a confusing term for some because of the way that it's been used.
Well, it's a very, like historically it's complicated. Complicated, yeah.
But heresy is generally any theological belief, doctrine, or position that goes against
or flies in the face of what has been well established throughout the history of the church,
specifically the earliest generations of the church where doctrine was formed out of personal relationship.
With Jesus and being contemporary to the time of Jesus. And then really being firmly established
in the ancient creeds, most notably the Nicene Creed.
You know, first written in 325 AD, then kind of edited and reestablished
as the Niceno-Constantinople Creed in 381 AD,
which kind of established what is Orthodox Christian,
doctrine, which both Protestants and Catholics can and should affirm.
They do affirm, right? So that's heresy. Anything that flies in the face of
the established Christian Orthodox doctrine.
I think heresy is complicated also by the fact that like, churches, both Catholic and Protestant,
I think, at different points killed people over heresy. Oh, yeah.
So, like, it's a pretty loaded term, particularly throughout the Middle Ages, it became like,
heresy became an executionable offense, which is a dark side of church history.
Yeah. And even like not, maybe not quite as dark, but equally as sinister is it became a way for the
church as an institution to blockade or for, to use a Catholic term, excommunicate people from
the community of faith, denying them the Eucharist, denying them any sacraments, denying them the
fellowship. Which might not sound like a big deal to you if you're a Protestant or particularly if
you're a non-denominational person through and through,
but it's a massive deal if you have a Catholic understanding of salvation and the church.
That's mediated through the Eucharist. Right. So they're in a sense saying,
we cut off access to salvation for you.
Yes. You're on your own. Yep.
So, okay. Okay. So, the first kind of thing she points out is that the Bible tells us to call Mary blessed,
but Protestants don't.
Okay.
So does the Bible, the first question, not even getting into really the,
The theology of Mary herself, right? But it's just a just just the Bible tells us to call Mary blessed but Protestants don't is that,
True. Well, she has three verses that she quotes. Well, let's look at those three verses. She says,
verses about Mary Luke chapter 1 verse 48,
Seems like you should look at that one Okay, and Luke verse 1 or chapter 1 verse 28 and then you look at John chapter 19
26 through 27 John 19.
Draw your swords Yeah, Bible drill if you're listening along We expect you to hold that Bible high and quickly turn go,
Now, who, I mean, it's completely possible that she's probably wanting us to read on the Vulgate.
You know? She wants us to read the Latin. Right. That would be, yeah.
So that, mine is John 19, you said? Yeah, John 19, 26 through 27.
Okay, so this is at the crucifixion of Jesus, the Mary at the foot of the cross.
When Jesus saw his mother there, Mary, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby,
he said to her, Woman, here is your son.
And to the disciple, here is your mother. From that time on, this disciple took her into his home." Okay.
It does not say to call. No, I'm pretty familiar with the Greek of this passage as well, and nowhere is there
the illusion of calling her blessed.
I mean, I think the only thing you get from this passage is maybe we should call Mary woman,
which I'm not sure they would think is very appropriate. No, right?
So Luke 1, 28 says that the angel went to her and said, greetings, you who are highly favored,
the Lord is with you.
And then if I go later in the chapter, she is mentioning verse 48,
which is probably her strongest verse out of all these verses.
Verse 48 is the song that Mary is kind of singing, the Magnificat, if you're familiar with that.
Verse 48 says, "'For he has been mindful of the humble state "'of his servant God, has been mindful of Mary,
"'and from now on all generations will call me blessed.'" So that would be the.
That would be probably her strongest at first. But I could be kind of nitpicky about that
say that that's more of a declarative statement and less of a command statement? Well, and not, yes, I think we can definitely make that point as
well, but it's also the difference between, you know, like I think you,
probably consider blessed to be an adjective.
In that rather than a noun. Yes. Although the Greek doesn't really the Greek language is complicated in the sense of it's not formulated exactly like English is but it's what I'm basically saying is that Mary isn't Mary's not necessarily referring to the word blessed as a title right as much as it is of a like a place where she sits.
Like she sits in a place of being blessed because of her faith.
Right. And I would agree. She is blessed.
She was the mother of God. Of course. Like that's a really important thing. Yeah.
Um, I do think like, you know, so obviously there is like a way in which I, and we as
Protestants can come forward and say, well, actually we do think Mary is a blessed
individual. And maybe there's even room for us to talk about, this is how Catholicism usually comes
up in conversations I'm having, is usually there is so much fear or hurt around Catholicism that
usually I end up trying to bridge some of the overcompensation that we've done. So,
as Protestants, we almost never talk about Mary. And even when we talk about her during Advent.
There's one particular storyline we like to emphasize. We like to emphasize her plight and
invulnerability, but we don't always necessarily highlight the faith and the belief and the
fact that she was chosen, that God did choose her to be the physical mother of Jesus, of God.
That is a massive deal.
Massive, yeah. Thank you.
We don't come to this. That does not, I know it doesn't, come to the same category as the person
who made this video when she's saying we don't call her Mary.
We don't call her Mary.
Yeah. We don't call her Blessed. Blessed, yeah.
Well, in… The title, I'm assuming. Right. Like we don't hold the perpetual virginity of Mary is not… We believe that James,
The book of James was written by the biological half-brother of Jesus, so we believe that,
Mary did go on to have children. She did not remain a virgin her entire life.
And a whole bunch of other kind of stuff that gets wrapped up in this belief about Mary.
She was decidedly human. Yes.
If she was not, she did not share a, any type of miraculously or supernaturally divine part of her being or personality that would somehow give her, you know, special blessedness as is equal to the Lord.
Lord. Yeah, well it's interesting because like this is one of the
topics and one of the reasons I think that this Mary becomes a tricky or has
been a tricky topic for people to juggle theologically is because anytime we come
close to the line of dealing with God, Christ, being fully human and fully God.
There is a tension on both sides of those, and I would say the tension that
we probably run into more often is the tension to remove Christ from humanity a
little bit. We begin like, it's something that my theological, one of my theology professors at college said, and he was like, it's not untrue to say that
God died on a cross.
But if you say that, like I've said that here at church on a Sunday morning and I've seen
people get visibly like...
Huh? Right? Because we're not used to talking in those terms, but that is true. Now, God also
resurrected from the dead, right? And so he was both fully divine and fully human. And at different
points in the story, we like to emphasize Christ's divinity or his humanity because it might make us
is uncomfortable to say God died.
It also makes us uncomfortable to say that God was born of a relatively ordinary woman.
It can be for people. Right. And that like there was a lot of normalcy there.
Well, maybe digging into a little bit more, and I know we got a lot of things to talk about
with this video, but we'll just see where it goes.
Is like, what are the reasons that a statement like this, like I think what she's doing is she's pointing out
the angst that Protestants have with Mary.
Yeah.
And they'll call her blessed.
And what is typically the uncomfortableness.
That Protestants have around the theology or beliefs around Mary that maybe the Catholics have,
or maybe not so much the orthodoxy of Mary, about the orthopraxy of.
Worship. Yep What what would your what would your I've got thoughts on that, but I'm interested in know like,
Why do people why do Protestants get so?
Angsty about Mary well for Protestants right so like we were teasing a little bit earlier Catholics
Don't technically believe that you're saved by anything other than Christ but they do believe that things mediate the grace of Christ. And so, and that's, you know,
and we can dive more into that into the church, but that also comes down into the way in which
we pray. And so the idea of praying to Mary is very, very off-putting to Protestants because
Because we so strongly believe that there is one mediator between God and man, and that
is the Holy Spirit, Christ, God himself, acts as our high priest.
Therefore, to put anyone as a mediator through any form is to elevate them to a place where
they're not called to be.
Do we have good evidence to suggest that that position of there being one mediator between
God and man, that being Jesus Christ himself.
I'm pretty sure the Bible says that. Pretty sure the Bible says that in more than one place. Yes.
And, you know, I'm aware probably the strongest passage on the other side of the argument
of people who do pray to saints and to Mary is the Hebrews passage, Hebrews 12.
But even though they act as a cloud of witnesses, there's nothing there indicating that we ought
to be praying for them.
That is a theological… And even to put that into biblical context, Hebrews probably speaks the most directly
about there being one mediator, one great high priest, and that being Jesus Christ.
Melchizedek, priest and king. Yes.
So that's a theological sticking point. And so the reason why Protestants probably often put such
a strong arm against any talk around Mary is because of they want to protect.
They don't even want to approach the worship of Mary. Exactly.
Okay. So, and was there anything else you wanted to say on that topic?
Oh, there's so much I want to say. There's only so much I'm willing to say right now.
Okay, okay All right next point this one. We'll see if we can get off of this topic once we get on it,
Jesus tells us to consume the Eucharist as it is truly his body, but Protestantism doesn't teach that,
Okay.
So So we have a whole episode that we would like to do yeah on on the sacraments. Yes.
And the Eucharist, or what Protestants probably know it better as is communion, is,
one of two main sacraments.
One of the two main sacraments that the Protestant church celebrates, right?
We can quibble over the amount of sacraments, but it.
That being communion and baptism.
And the washing of feet.
Marriage. Anyways, we're gonna get in trouble. But no, the two being Eucharist or the communion
and baptism. So let's try to first, without getting into too many differences between
between like Second Vatican Council and all of that.
What is the Catholic position on the Eucharist.
Or on communion from a theological standpoint? Now, what was the statement again that?
Jesus tells us to consume the Eucharist as it is truly his body,
But Protestantism does not teach that.
All right, so it's maybe kind of hard to determine what she's actually saying we don't teach,
whether that the Eucharist is his body or that we don't have to take it or consume it.
So maybe we can kind of take them in two different steps.
Does Protestantism, which is, again, a super wide brush, because what Protestantism are you talking about?
So we're talking about everything from Lutheranism to us, which is very different.
Right. You have Episcopalian, which is like a sliver away from being Catholic. Right. Anglicans.
Church of England, yeah. Or you have non-denominational conduit ministries in the middle of Jamestown, New York, which
doesn't look like anything highly liturgical.
Right. You're Baptist, you're fundamentalists, you're independents, you're free churches, you're...
Right.
So, so.
Protestantism doesn't teach that we should take communion. It's just, I don't even want to address
that because it's not even worth it. Of course we take communion, and of course we think that
it's important. Yes. Well, so, yeah. So, it is, I guess I have my opinions about the frequency in
which churches should practice taking communion. I am of the opinion that we should practice it
more frequently. I know that in the past our tradition of churches have kind of strayed away
from doing that because the fear out of doing it on a regular basis makes us look Catholic.
Makes us look Catholic. Or devalues it. Or that we're just doing it because it's what we always do. Right? So they
wanted to reinvigorate meaning into it. And so there's so much there. I think that was the wrong
decision. I think you reinvigorate meaning by exploring and teaching the meaning, not by doing
it less. And so, I'm not going to be naive. I know that there are churches out there that rarely.
If ever, do communion, and that makes me angry. I think we should do communion.
Yeah. I don't know if I'm angry about it, but I certainly think that they're missing
something in their theology. And I certainly think they're missing something in their practice.
Do I think that Jesus, do I think that Jesus tells us to take communion?
I think that's a tricky statement because, because I don't think that what Jesus was doing
at the Last Supper, Matthew 25, you know, was.
I don't think that Jesus had in his mind in that moment, I'm establishing a sacrament for my church to use
for now until I come home, or until I come back to earth.
I don't necessarily think that he was thinking in the same way about communion in particular
as we would want to say that he was thinking and what he was trying to institute in that moment.
I think that I agree that we don't take communion enough. I agree that it has lost,
in its infrequency, has lost some of its meaning which actually goes like the opposite of why
why people were doing it infrequently, right?
But I think it goes to the reason that you would do it more frequently would be,
and this is why, this is one of the things that I love about the Catholic faith,
is one of the reasons that you would do it every week or would do it so frequently is because of how central
it is to proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ,
the broken body of Jesus Christ, to shed blood of Jesus Christ for the remission
and forgiveness of our sins and us taking that by faith, receiving by faith the forgiveness of Jesus Christ
for our sins, I don't think it becomes,
I don't think that message becomes less important the more you do it if the basis of it is understanding
it's God's gift to us in Jesus Christ.
You wouldn't, any other gift to us in Jesus Christ from God,
we wouldn't be like, I only want this on the first Sunday every month, because if I get the gift every week, then it won't be as important or special to me.
Right.
Anyway. Anyways, so all that to say, simply at least addressing the potential of her two points
in this one point, Protestants do teach that you should take communion. Correct.
Like, it would be, like, we can say that with a broad stroke.
And these two Protestants think that we should probably take it more than once a month.
Yes.
Yeah. And then so the second part of that then is that she might be emphasizing not the first part,
but the second part, which is the part where there is some difference between what Protestants
teach and Catholics teach. And how does she put it? She puts it, consume the Eucharist as it is
truly his body. So… RL – So this is the point, this is the theological point of the Eucharist
that usually is most significant in departure from Protestantism and
Catholicism is what actually is the Eucharist? What is the bread? What is the
cup or the wine or the juice or whatever what is it and Catholics would say
They would say a big fancy word called transubstantiation. Transubstantiation.
Yep, that one. Transubstantiation, in case you didn't get that and us trying to say it together.
And again, I am not a Catholic scholar.
I want to say that very clearly.
And there's been volumes and volumes and volumes and probably people literally killed over
divergent beliefs on transubstantiation.
Definitely.
Yeah. So we wade into waters that are a little murky with blood, honestly. Yeah.
But that the elements in the proclamation of the gospel, in the words of institution by the priest,
that they actually transform.
Yes. become the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Now, not that the bread will then appear in its form.
To be flesh in its essence. Right, so there's this whole,
that's where it gets a little bit murky for us,
is that it's an understanding that the bread remains looking like bread and tasting like bread,
and the wine remains like juice or wine.
But the essence of it, its true essence behind curtains of sense
become the body of Christ in its trueness.
So that's a really philosophical and very platonic and Greek understanding,
but that's my best attempt at explaining it.
Right, and I guess my question for Catholic scholars, if you're a Catholic scholar and you're listening to this
or watching this or whatever, make a reply video or jump in the comments or whatever.
But where is the, it feels a little bit to me like a distinction without there being a real difference.
It still looks like bread and it still looks like wine, like wine, but in a supernatural sense, it is actually the body and blood of Jesus.
Al-Right. So that's the Catholic view, and then if we get into…there's a wide range of views
within Prostantism. And there's…I can't even remember the Lutheran name for theirs,
which is so similar, it's almost difficult to parse the difference.
I don't recall it either.
Or there's the Reformed view, I think, that the presence of God is...
Above, under, and in.
There's this very large category, which is just kind of the catch-all, which is, I'll put my cards,
which is probably where I land, which is real presence.
It's just generally we believe God is present in the Eucharist or in the elements, but I'm not gonna tell you how he's present, right? Like I'm not gonna, it's a spiritual presence,
it's a physical presence, it's an essence presence. I'm not gonna make any,
jump to that conclusion because I don't feel like the Bible clearly defines that.
Right.
And then there would be people who would say these are symbols. Correct.
And so, and the biblical basis for all of those views I feel like is just as substantial. Some
people look at the passage where Christ institutes the supper and he says, do this in remembrance in
me and make that the emphasis and others read that in passage and they see where Christ
says this is my body, this is my blood poured out and broken and shed for you and make that the emphasis.
And so that's kind of the...
Yeah, I mean, for instance, if you look in the Matthew account, Matthew 26, starting
verse 26, I said 25 earlier.
While they were eating, Jesus took bread.
When he had given thanks, he broke it and he gave it to his disciples saying,
take and eat, this is my body.
Then he took a cup and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them saying, drink from it, all of you.
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now until that day, when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."
When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
There's not a whole lot there. No.
You know, so there's not a lot by way of what does the scripture actually say.
It becomes, I think, a game of spiritual or theological inference.
What did Jesus mean behind the things that he was saying, which is a really, I don't,
know, dangerous maybe is not the right word, but it becomes an exercise in futility to
say this is what Jesus actually meant.
You know, in the Mark account, Mark 14, while they were eating, Jesus took bread.
When he had given thanks, he broke it, gave it to his disciples, saying, Take it, this
is my body. Then he took the cup.
When he had given thanks, he gave it to them. They all drank from it.
This is the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." Essentially, it says the same thing as in Matthew.
Truly, I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day
when I drink anew with you in the kingdom of God.
So I suppose, I don't know, it makes me want to do a little bit more re-study and re-reading,
on the nature of the history of Catholic theology and how even the doctrine of substantiation
was—do you know how the doctrine of substantiation was formed or what it was formed out of?
I do not. I do not. It definitely was a developed theology, though. It was not something that we've
got a whole lot of indication that the early church had the exact same understanding that
the current Catholic Church has over that.
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean, so the Luke account, Luke 22, verse 19, took bread, gave thanks, broke it,
gave it to them saying, this is my body given for you.
Do this in remembrance of me.
In the same way after the supper, he took the cup saying, this is the cup of the new
covenant in my blood which is poured out for you.
That's it. Yep.
So, nothing about, like, do this in remembrance of me? It's not really clear what that even means.
No, not necessarily. Yeah, I think John's probably, at least John is the passage, or the gospel that I hear
most quoted often with sacramental theology surrounding communion.
I'm interested to see if that account is a little bit more robust in any way.
But I don't think it has any unique elements that are that, again, it's where
the emphasis is lying and how we're deciding to understand Jesus. Is Jesus speaking in some sort of literal sense where he's saying, this is my body, this
is my blood? Or is he doing so with an understanding of metaphor? What does it
mean to be doing something in remembrance of me? Does that simply mean calling into mind or in doing in remembrance in that it's actually.
Reenacting in a very spiritual sense of what Christ has done? So, the range of
meanings there that are possible to kind of understand from that passage is wide.
All right, what's our next question? All right. So let's see. Next question. Our next statement.
Oh, this one's fun. Jesus gave us the papacy, yet that is commonly rejected.
Please tell me she's got verses for it. Oh, she's got verses for that.
Is it like you are Peter on this rock?
Her only verse for this particular point is in Matthew 16, 18-19, which I'm guessing is the Peter passage.
It's the passage where, you know, who do you say that I am? Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, still there's Jeremiah or one of the prophets.
But what about you?" he asked. Who do you say that I am?
And Peter answered, you are the Messiah, the son of the living God.
Jesus replied, blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you
by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the
gates of Hades will not overcome it.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.
Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Okay, so that's fairly predictable.
He also calls Peter Satan in the next verse. I'd be interested to see that integrated into papal theology.
So the idea here in Catholic theology is that the papacy or the office of Pope has come as an
instituted, I guess you could call it office or position within the true Jesus-instituted church.
And I think that there was a time, a historical period where it was out of the actual lineage
of Peter that a pope had to be. CB. Yes, I think so too. He had to somehow be a disciple of Peter,
for having been.
But then at some point, again, I suppose I need to buff up on my Catholic history,
it became one who essentially stands within the spiritual lineage of Peter.
Which is usually a cardinal, right? Someone who's coming out of the office of cardinal in the Catholic
church. And so now Jesus has obviously established that Pope Francis is the
leader of the true church. Well first let me just be the one to say that like I,
can affirm her statement. Protestants don't teach the papacy.
Protestants do not teach that Jesus established the papacy. Correct.
So we can agree with this particular point. We are not papists.
No. No, we believe that there is one leader of the church.
Christ. Jesus Christ. Exactly. Jesus Christ alone.
He calls men and women to serve him and to lead in a place of service and humility according
of the giftings that the Spirit has given to those people by faith in him.
And correct, I do not believe that there is a long spiritual line or lineage tracing back
to the actual person of Peter or the spiritual lineage of Peter that must be established
in order to lead the church.
Yeah, we understand that passage referring to Peter as...
Being an establishment of the church, right? And the authority of the church,
not the authority of the office of papacy.
Yeah, or like the question there in what Jesus says, you are right, and I will call you Peter,
and on this rock, I will build my church.
Right. Oh, yeah, yeah. What is the rock? Well, it's a little bit of a play on words with Jesus, okay, because the word, the name Peter
actually literally meant rock in the Greek. But I don't think that the Greek, the actual Greek of
that whole passage is very clear on Jesus saying, it is on you, Peter, as a person that I will build
the church. But instead, seems to, because it is in keeping with the rest of the theology of Jesus.
That it is on the truth of the proclamation of Peter, where he says, where Peter says,
you are the Messiah, the son of the living God. That it is upon the proclamation of Jesus' Lordship.
His messiahship that the church is built. Now, that would square very clearly with all of the
rest of Orthodox theology that we have, all the Pauline epistles, the rest of the Gospels,
that it is on the proclamation of Jesus as Lord that the church is built, not the fairly impetuous
disciple Peter that the church has built.
Well, and the thing too being is that we don't see really much. Peter absolutely was a significant
leader in the early church and during the time in which a significant portion of the New Testament
was written. But we don't get any reference to edicts or anything approaching Peter operating
and what would be easily identified as an office of Pope.
If anything, the New Testament would make a stronger argument for Paul as acting as a Pope of sorts.
Right, and if Paul believed that Jesus established Peter as the papal line, or the papal head of the church.
He certainly wouldn't have gone to Jerusalem.
And confronted him to his face, as he says in the Book of Acts.
I'd like to see someone go do that with the current Pope. I would love the opportunity.
I doubt that I'll get it. So yeah, we don't affirm. Agreed. Agreed. Yep, she's right. We
don't teach that. We are saved by faith alone. The Bible says so yet. Oh, no, no, no. Let me say
this correct. She is stating the fact, this is her assertion, she says that we
are not saved by faith alone. The Bible says so, yet that is rejected.
I'm still confused as to really what she's actually saying there or what she's asserting. Well, she's asserting two different verses from James and,
Two different passages from Matthew, but okay, so we know the James one James ones, right? Yeah, you know we are,
You see that faith in faith and works,
Working together. Yeah, and then she's talking about Matthew Matthew 19, 17 and Matthew 26.
So I'll go to James just so that we're clear here.
So she's looking at 2, 14 through 17 and 2, 24. So what good is it my brothers and sisters if someone claims to have faith but has no
deeds can such faith save him?
Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food.
If one of you says to them, go in peace, keep warm and well fed, but does nothing about
their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself,
if it's not accompanied by action, is dead.
But someone will say, you have faith, I have deeds. Show me your faith without deeds,
and I will show you my faith by deeds.
Was that it? Two, 14, three, 18? Yep, and then 24. 24.
You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
Very clear in that, which is not clear in the English,
but which is very clear in the Greek, is the emphasis of the language there
at the beginning of the sentence, you see.
It's not a declarative statement, it's actually a statement of being able
to visually inspect with the senses
the validity or the strength of someone's faith or the fruit by which their faith expresses itself
in daily life, and the fruit by which my internal faith in Jesus Christ, my saving faith expresses itself,
should express itself in works.
Bottom line is like, if you can't tell that I have saving faith in Jesus Christ
by the things that I do or don't do in life, then it should be a question of whether or not
that faith truly exists.
It's not as if my works or non-works substantiate or create my faith.
It's that those things establish my faith as empirical fruit and empirical evidence
that faith already exists within me.
So what's Matthew? So Matthew, she is mentioning, oh, let me make sure I got this right.
Matthew 19, 17, which says, Why do you ask me about what is good?
Jesus replied, There is only one who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.
And then Jesus goes in to kind of teach about the Ten Commandments, and then she's mentioning Matthew chapter,
26. This one, not entirely sure why she's mentioning this one. Matthew 26 verse 40,
which is Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, and it says Then he returned to the disciples and found them sleeping.
Couldn't you men keep watching with me for one hour? He asked Peter.
Okay. So she is either quoting the wrong verse, or I am just vastly missing her extrapolation from
that passage. Well, I think even if it is, the gospel passages are pretty weak in terms of making
her argument. James probably makes the strongest argument, but it doesn't make it well when you
understand the whole thrust of James' argument. And the remain, this is classic, what we call
proof texting in the church, which is you grab a verse, you pull it out of its context.
Not only the context of the original place that it was written or for the reason that it was
written, but you pull it out of the context of the whole counsel of Scripture. Because if you
were to line up all of the verses that even kind of alluded to salvation by works, James chapter 2,
Kind of, maybe, but not really. And then you lined up all of them that not just alluded,
but flat out say, we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and not by work so that no
one can boast. That's Ephesians chapter two. It could not be more clear in the whole counsel
of Scripture that we are saved through the grace of Jesus Christ to us by faith.
Right. Yeah. I think the thing that comes down to is maybe that sometimes we have an anemic
understanding of faith, right? Faith as being simple assenting to a belief.
Yes.
Right? It's just simply like faith is nothing more than saying that I believe Jesus to be God, right?
Well, doesn't James say that doesn't he say sorry to cut you all no No, like doesn't he say even demons believe that and they shudder. Yes, he does, you know, you're right
He says you see that a person is considered.
Or no, where was it? Oh, yeah Show me your faith without deeds and I will show you my faith by my deeds.
You believe that there is one God.
Great, right? That's the ascent, right? We just believe in a principle, right? Even demons believe
that, and they shudder. Yeah. Yes. So taking all of scripture together, right? We understand that
we are saved by faith, but that faith is more than a simple mental ascension to something or
or belief of something, it is also a,
like, it's a full grabbing onto Jesus.
I don't know how else to kind of say that. And that results in works.
Well, it's a loving, it's a love of the Lord, our God, with not just our mind, right?
Not just an empirical or an ascenting belief, but with all of our heart, all of our soul,
all of our mind, and with all of our strength,
and to love your neighbor as yourself, which we would assume would be a demonstrable type of action.
Right, Jesus often in the gospels, right now I'm looking at a bunch of passages
where Jesus talks about trees that bear fruit, and you know the tree by the fruit which it bears,
so like our works would be the fruit.
And the faith would be the type of tree we are.
Right? We become children of God and we bear fruit because we are children of God. CB Yes.
RL And not that we tape fruit onto the tree to make it a certain tree, right? Like if I were to take an apple and tape it onto the branch of an
orange tree, it does not become an apple tree, right? And so, this is where that kind of our
prioritization phase comes. CB So, you're correct.
RL Yeah.
We do not preach that salvation is by faith.
We don't preach that, because it's not true.
Or that salvation is by works. We do preach that it is by faith.
Right, yes. She is again correct. She is accusing us and we are found guilty.
And we'll be happily guilty of it.
The next thing is, and this will be an interesting one to parse.
The Bible does not teach sola scriptura.
Correct. Right. So for those who don't know what Sola Scriptura is, Cameron, what is Sola Scriptura?
Sola meaning only or soul and Scriptura meaning scripture, right? That scripture,
scripture only, or only scripture as part of the five solas of the Reformation.
So that's one of them right for those who Gloria yeah who are not listening or who are listening
I have tattoo on my arm says solely Darrell Gloria only for the glory of God yes,
So what does solo scripture mean you're so you say like only?
Scripture, but what does that like theologically mean?
Well I mean it It depends on who you ask. I feel a little bit like Jordan Peterson right now. It's like,
the question is dumb. The question is not clear.
Well, so this is the way I've heard it explained. And I think a lot of people take sola scriptura
to mean that the Bible is the only authority on all things. That's how it gets played out
in a lot of places. And that's where we get into, and we have an earlier episode about this,
one of the first episodes we did, where we take the Bible and we try and make it to be a textbook
or Wikipedia book about everything, and we come up asking the Bible really strange questions that it
was never intended to answer. And so it doesn't have an answer, and we end up extrapolating things.
From it that aren't there. I've heard someone make an apologetic for Sola Scriptura, and they
have said that it does not mean so low, it's the only, but that it is the highest
authority for the things which it chooses to speak upon. So like over what the Bible proposes to teach, so it proposes to teach the nature of God,
it is the highest authority on the nature of God. So that's the definition I was given when I was
younger, but I have encountered so many people who are angry about Sola Scriptura, but they're
angry about it because they seem to understand it as meaning that the Bible is the highest and
only authority on pretty much all topics. It's a limiting doctrine.
And so, the qualifications that I'm making, at least the understanding I had once upon a time,
is that it's not the only, it just happens to be the highest. So, the highest, not the only.
So, there's other ways that we can, like nature reveals things about God, it provides an avenue
for general revelation to still exist, but then also it limits itself to the
scope through which the purpose of the Bible.
I'm going to take a moment and just say that like, that's what I was told a long time ago.
And I don't actually know if that's a, just someone's really nice apologetic that they kind
of came up with as a better alternative to what solo scripture has actually meant throughout the
history of the church. My, whether or not that is a representation of what, and what that doctrine
in that phrase has, has meant and continues to mean, I'm not entirely sure. But I would say I
I am closer to that than the Bible is the only
and the highest on everything opinion.
I would agree. I think we run pretty closely. Although I would say that the Bible is,
there's no better authority for the revelation,
of the things of God in reference to at least the things in which the Bible speaks about.
You're not gonna get a better revelation or truth about X, Y, or Z,
if the Bible talks about it, that is the end, right? What are the problems with that?
The problems with that are that we we isogeet all kinds of things, right, you know, so,
Then we'll go into the bible and be like well it obviously like i'm gonna find out what the rules for dating are,
In the bible. Yeah. Well, I will tell you that any.
Um I'm gonna take some pot shots. Uh Mental health and counseling and self-help books are the worst for this.
So I'm a fan of attachment theory, which if you're like a counseling nerd, you
know what I'm talking about. But I've run across books and they're like,
well let's find attachment theory in the Bible and see how Jesus is the most
securely attached individual we've ever known. And really just getting to know
Jesus and becoming securely attached to Jesus helps us have secure attachment
in our other relationships.
That is eisegesis. By eisegesis we mean bringing meaning and inserting it into the Bible
rather than taking meaning out of the Bible.
The Bible was not written with the intention of displaying to us what secure psychological attachment
means, so if that made no sense to you, sorry, but that's one of the best examples I know of.
Well, even like, so going back to like our preferred understanding based on what we talked about,
like let's say that it offers us the best revelation or description on the things it chooses to talk about.
Yeah. Right. And going back to the first, I think it was the first episode that we did,
which handled the question, what does it mean to be biblical?
And the things that came out of that conversation, I, you know, even that definition, I think it begins to,
begins to It begins to get weak.
Maybe in particular around Christology and the nature.
Or not even Christology, but even Trinitarian theology itself.
Because if we were to say, okay, Sola Scriptura,
scripture offers the most clear representation of the nature and character of God.
It's the highest. that alone, scripture alone.
I would say, I don't know what you would say, I'll let you comment yourself, I would say incorrect.
I would say that Jesus Christ, the person of Jesus Christ,
offers us the most clear, decisive view of who God is.
View of who God is. The fullness of God dwelled in Jesus himself. All of the Godhead was wrapped
up in the nature or in the person of Jesus. Now, and not scripture. So it was like, okay,
does scripture clearly demonstrate the nature and character of God or does Jesus
more clearly demonstrate the nature of God.
The sun is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
You know, this is in Colossians. For in Christ, all the fullness of the deity
lives in bodily formed.
So even scripture itself describes that the most clear.
Authoritative picture of who God is, is in the person of Jesus, not in the pages of scripture.
So I don't know if we could make, maybe if we thought long enough about it,
we might be able to make arguments
for that same type of movement with other theological things with other theological things, but that's the one that came to mind.
RL – So, I agree. I think the avenue through which I would probably approach and is the,
biggest thing to a very strict or limited view of authority and revelation and understanding
that revelation is that Sola Scriptura is kind of why we have, like, there's some ridiculous amount,
like, I think there's probably two new denominations every year. Like, there's thousands
of denominations, particularly in America, that are so small, they're very regional, many of them
you will never heard of and you will never hear of because there's only maybe like 10 churches
that belong to that particular denomination. But one of the reasons we continue to have.
New denominations pop up, and a large portion of them hold a high view of Sola Scriptura,
and they're saying, well, everybody else is doing it wrong because we're gonna go take the Bible
and rediscover Christianity, me, and the Bible. Or just do everything that the Bible says.
To do everything that the Bible says. Every other church is doing things that the Bible doesn't say.
We're gonna be the church that does everything that the Bible does say.
Right, so like, I made a very small offhand comment earlier when we were talking about sacraments,
and I said foot washing is a sacrament.
There are a few small denominations that believe that that is a third sacrament.
I ran into one at one point, and they were like, we believe that communion is a sacrament,
baptism as sacrament and foot washing as sacrament.
Actually, if you look at the text, it has just about as much emphasis as the communion narrative does.
It's the same in John chapter 13. Yeah, so they would regularly,
I think instead of not just having communion once a month, they would wash each other's feet once a month.
Was a regular part of their worship.
Okay. So that's, I can't remember what that denomination was,
but that was a core element of that church denomination.
Now the rest of their things were just bland evangelical.
Everything else was pretty much the same. And so the question.
That philosophically we run into, and part of the problem of saying only the Bible.
Is that it's what we end up meaning by that is only the Bible and my particular interpretation
decisions on the Bible.
Everyone puts on some glasses when they read the Bible, And it is highly dangerous to walk, say,
I'm just gonna take the Bible and I'm just gonna go into the woods
and I'm just gonna be there with the Holy Spirit.
I'm gonna decide what the Bible means, me and the Holy Spirit and the Bible in the woods, right?
That's a very, like I'm characterizing, but not too hard. But also not.
The amount of people who I run into who just like, I don't need church.
I've got the Bible, like it's just me, God, the Holy Spirit, the Bible, and that's my church, right?
And you wanna talk about how many different cults get started, it's because someone takes the Bible
and disregards everybody else and then runs into the woods and reads it by themselves and then creates
a new understanding of it.
And so without getting overly far into the weeds, But every single one of us, if you do any level amount of Bible study, you bring something along
with you that guides you in your biblical interpretation. You are not opening a passage.
You and I, when we open a passage on Sunday morning, we are not opening the passage,
and we are not open to being persuaded that we're not Trinitarians.
Correct. Right? Like we come with an assumption that the history of church's orthodoxy, the creeds,
the things the church has universally believed across ages, is a thing that we can bring along
as interpretation tools, not as things to be necessarily re-judged again in our weekly sermon
prep. Correct. And you out there, if you're listening, watching, you probably do the same
thing, but you maybe do it through the lens of what does my favorite three preachers think about
this passage? And you're using them as interpretive guides and guardrails. All of us do that in some
way. And to pretend that we don't is… It's foolish.
Foolish and ignorant. So that's my rant. Wow. You ranted so hard. I know.
You guys are like, if anyone ever wondered what Luke unhinged looks like. That was it.
That was it. Uncut. Uncut. Oh goodness. So, um, good grief. So she's got two more.
Protestantism rejects truly Christian ideals even when the Bible explicitly states otherwise.
Is so vague as to be meaningless in my opinion.
Yep. I don't know what she means by that. Nope, me neither.
Yeah, and that's where her proof texting stops, so she doesn't have anything to say there.
And then her last thing is, Protestant individuals may have the best intentions and really love
God, but as long as they reject the one true church, they are still buying into a heresy.
Essentially, just comes back to her initial point that all Protestants are heretics.
You would have to define what is the one true church. She obviously defines it as the Roman
Catholic Church. And I don't think Jesus was a part of the Roman Catholic Church.
No. Well, it wasn't Roman. Exactly. Exactly my point. Exactly my point.
Something happened when Roman became a significant modifier to church.
Church, right. And so, that's a whole history lesson. But I think that's, yeah, like if you think,
if you're of the persuasion, and there are Protestant, small Protestant denominations
out there that do believe that they are also the one true church. There are those out there,
and they think everybody else, all the other denominations are wrong and are not Christians.
That's not what we believe, right? Maybe this would take, maybe we'll just kind of end out with,
since we're a little bit on our longer side as far as episodes go, maybe just end with a brief,
Do you think it's worth mentioning how we do use the word Catholic?
Yeah, I mean, we can. There's Roman Catholic, which is indicative of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Pope. The Pope, the papacy, right? Episcopal structure, all of that.
Then there is the word, little c, Catholic, which historically tends to just mean universal.
Like throughout all ages, those who express faith in Jesus Christ in any denomination.
Who belong to the invisible church. Invisible universal church triumphant in heaven with Jesus right now and church on this earth
and church to come before us. Universal Catholic Church, which is why, especially in the Apostles
Creed, probably one of the more famous of the creeds. There has historically been, I believe,
the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church. And people are like, ooh, the Catholic Church,
ooh, I don't believe in the Roman Catholic Church. And it's not Roman Catholic Church.
It's written before the Roman Catholic Church existed. Exactly. So it's talking about the universal church, which is why you'll see some Protestant
denominations, of course, change the wording in their hymn books or in their use of the Apostles' Creed.
RLF – Or put an apostrophe next to it. DRH – Right.
And they'll cancel out Catholic and they'll put universal because they don't want to.
Give anyone the Roman Catholic heebie-jeebies by saying the word Catholic in a Protestant church.
RLF – Right. Catholic has a meaning apart from the Catholic church.
DRH – Right. Which is unfortunate because I think it's almost like the word Catholic has become a
brand associated with the Roman Catholic church.
Yeah, how we would refer to Roman Catholicism is by calling them Catholics. Right. And using that singular.
Adjective in that name, and so no longer we have a... We don't talk often about this concept. And
so I think that hot take, I think that can sometimes lead churches to being overly antagonistic towards
one another in the Protestant realm of thinking, we've got it, you don't. We're doing it right,
you're doing it wrong, which is not one of our cores here at Conduit. We want to leave
even celebrate that there are lots of churches proclaiming the good news of Christ. And there
are great churches and we hope you go to one. It doesn't have to be us.
Dr. John SantaLucia Right, exactly. We pray for universal awakening in the body of Christ across
all denominations, both Catholic and Protestant. That's even important. We even have really
important questions about the difference between Roman Catholicism in South America and Roman
Catholicism in the Northeast of the United States.
Yep, yeah. Big difference.
Yep. Big, big difference. And not as, again, we said this up front,
maybe it just merits reiterating, we don't hate Catholics. I actually love them. Yeah.
And I love 90% of their theology.
Yep. Most of their orthopraxy. Yep. I have a number of Catholic authors who I like to read.
Yep, I watch Bishop Barron on YouTube, listen to his podcast.
I think he's a great thinker, great theologian of the church.
But we remain staunchly not Catholic. Yeah, I remain staunchly not Catholic.
I don't pray to Mary.
I don't believe in transubstantiation.
I don't believe that the Pope has any larger spiritual authority over me than anyone else in the church.
Cool. Well, if you thought this was interesting or you've run across a similar video that
you want to send us to get us going, um, you can send that to us.
Um, you can text us links and you can also just text us, um, questions and topics at a phone number, 7 1 6 2 0 1 0 5 0 7.
So if you text that to us, we won't necessarily respond, but we will get those and we do respond to those mailbag episodes.
So, um, hope that you send that and that you enjoyed this episode.
Thanks for joining us. See you next time.
Music.
