Part 1A friend of my family, who knew me growing up until my early teenage years, reacted to some things on this blog and posted his comments on his
blog (see the comments section of this post). I'd like to respond to some of his comments here.
Let me begin by thanking Eric for the thoughtful and concerned response.
Let me also say that the internet is chock-full of these kinds of back-and-forth theological conversations, and they are often tedious and long-winded. Both of us also expressed a desire to avoid a prolonged debate. So if Eric responds, I'll let him have the last word, and will post his response here.
Eric is primarily responding to my two posts,
Figuring Out the Church (Part 1) and
Christianity and Authority.
First, I notice that you are well into a theological journey away from "Protestantism." On your blog, you have endorsed writings by notable Roman Catholic apologists, including Scott Hahn, Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, Steve Ray, etc. In a recent entry, you praise a particular conversion story as "magnificent," say that Catholic Answers' site is "great", and Dave Armstrong's site is "impressive" and "thoroughly scriptural". So I am confident that you have had thorough interaction with these resources.
You begin with a couple misrepresentations off the bat. The conversion story I call magnificent is Thomas Howard's
Evangelical Is Not Enough, which is about his journey from Evangelicalism to liturgical and sacramental worship, not Roman Catholicism per se. Howard is an incredible writer and thinker and I would think the work magnificent for it's literary style alone.
Dave Armstrong's site,
Biblical Catholic, as I said before, has "an impressive
amount of work". I don't think anyone can dispute the sheer mass of information he has there. However the site layout and design is pretty atrocious, and I think many of the articles could use some polishing.
However, I am not convinced, despite your years in evangelicalism and the protestant resources listed, that you are as familiar with the "arguments on both sides" as you could be. I am guessing that you are attracted by the historicity of the Roman Catholic Church. You have interacted with Roman Catholics who have a long, historical view of the church, and are familiar with the church fathers and church history. But you have yet to interact at the same level with Protestants who have a long, historical view of the church, and are familiar the church fathers and church history.
One can always be
more familiar with arguments on both sides. I'm not sure arguments about scripture, tradition, salvation, sacraments, etc. can ever be exhausted. Many of them have been argued for centuries by much smarter and holier men than I. The deeper one goes into these arguments, the less helpful they are to a common guy, like me. For example, they will usually become a historical disagreement over the facts or the interpretation of the facts. Or they become an in-depth exegetical disagreement usually requiring a thorough knowledge of greek, hebrew, biblical culture, etc.
And if I could attempt to summarize your main point: You assume that because I am somewhat complementary of a few catholic apologists & theologians I've had "thorough interaction" with them; but that years of evangelical Protestantism and reading and enjoying and interacting with the likes of Francis Schaeffer, CS Lewis, Charles Ryrie, James White, Doug Wilson, and others is an insufficient interaction with historically aware protestants?
Like I said, I think I understand both sides of many of the arguments. But it's doubtful you will believe me,
because if I really understood, I wouldn't change my views. That's ok. Most commited evangelicals that know me are going to have to find a scapegoat to blame for my changes.
"Chad didn't really understand historical protestantism."
"Chad needed an authoritarian structure."
"Chad needed more historical connections."
"Chad always thinks he's right, just like the Catholic Church."
While some of these are true to varying degrees, it's not just the historicity of the Catholic Church that interests me, but its unity, its holiness, its catholicity, its apostolicity, and much more. I hope to cover more of these topics in later "Figuring Out the Church" posts.
For those reading along that are still confused as to why this change could happen to me, let me recommend this fair and scholarly article from the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, called
From Wheaton to Rome: Why Evangelicals become Roman Catholic by Scot McKnight.
As an example, one article on your blog takes reformed protestants to task for their identification with Augustine, and identifies Augustine as a "catholic bishop". While this is true enough, your article seems to imply that the term "catholic bishop" means the same of Augustine that it would mean when applied to a bishop in the Roman church today. However, in Augustine, we find a different view of the bishop of Rome, a non-transubstantiational interpretation of John 6, a different canon, and a different view of grace. Augustine had no concept of Papal infallibility or the Marian dogmas. So while we could certainly not call Augustine a "Protestant"--that label would be anachronistic--neither can we view him anachronistically as a "Catholic" in the modern sense. This is but a single example; others would be multiplied as you continue to interact with historically aware protestants.
I'm going to assume that Augustine, the bishop of Hippo, is much closer to "the Roman church" today than he is to Reformed Protestants. To prove otherwise, you would have to show me how he disagrees with the fundamental ecclesial structure of the Church and allows for absolutely no development of doctrine within that ecclesial structure. For example, this is like saying we can't consider Thomas Jefferson an american president, because he had no concept of the 13th Amendment in 1801.
The differences in belief between Augustine and modern Catholicism are primarily differences in degree and clarification, not differences in nature.
You say that you hesitate to make "faith alone" definitional of the faith--so are you less hesitant to make some other other formula definitional of the faith? Or are you simply uncertain at this point in time? If you are uncertain, then this is exactly the time that you should be interacting with "theological heavyweights" to assist you in working through the issues. Especially since your spiritual journey and the things that you decide are not without consequence--they will have a profound effect on you, your wife, and your children, as well as those around you.
Yes, of course I am less hesitant to affirm a different formula that does not use phraseology specifically denied by scripture. Paul never says "justification is by faith alone" (except for the convenient Luther Bibel 1545 translation). James on the other hand says "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." Harmonize and contextualize and greekify (it's my blog, I can make up words) all you want, but the reformational formula does violence to the testimony of Scripture (and Tradition).
This is probably something different than you were hoping for when you posted your first comment this morning. But I was glad to hear from you, and to see Brendan, and to spend some time learning about your life since leaving Carbondale. Sandy says "Hi". I hope I'll hear from you again soon!
I admit it was a little surprising, but I enjoyed the opportunity to interact with your concerns. Thanks again for writing and posting them. I will continue to read your blog with interest, especially your upcoming series on the importance of the local church. I think we can both agree that the Lone-Ranger Christianity is a growing and dangerous trend.
May God bless you and your family.
Part 2
