Tying up some loose ends from yesterday: "The one true church"

Andrew asked: John I have a slightly off topic question for you. It is my belief that while Roman Catholicism itself is a non-christian religion, there is enough light there, mostly through the scripture, that there are probably individual Roman Catholics (many perhaps?) who do understand the gospel and are themselves, Christians. Where do you come down on this? I am interested in your view because of your having been a self-described "devout Roman Catholic".

Andrew, I believe there is one church. I believe the Westminster Larger Confession came very close -- very, very close -- to accurately describing this one true church in biblical terms:

Q. 63. What are the special privileges of the visible church?
A. The visible church hath the privilege of being under God’s special care and government; of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies; and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation, and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come unto him.

Q. 64. What is the invisible church?
A. The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head.

Q. 65. What special benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ?
A. The members of the invisible church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.

Q. 66. What is that union which the elect have with Christ?
A. The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling.

So yes, I believe that Christ calls even Roman Catholics, and gives them union and communion with him in grace and glory. But in doing so, he ignores and defies Rome's methods and decrees.

Dr. William Witt, an Anglican who I've cited regarding Newman and Development, has not left that communion, but rather has decided to stay put where he is. And while I do not see myself becoming Anglican, he expresses some sentiments that I think we can largely agree with. Here is what he says:

So why not leave? I can only give my own reasons.

So, first. Leave for what? Rome or Orthodoxy would be the obvious choices. At least they are the ones that are usually offered. When as a young man I left the Evangelical denomination in which I was raised, I became an Anglican because I believed that the Reformation was a reforming movement in the Western Catholic Church, and I was convinced that Anglicanism had come closest to getting that job done right. For the Roman Catholics, Vatican II was successful just to the extent that it incorporated many of the changes that had taken place at some time or another in Anglican history. Liturgy in the vernacular? Check. Communion in both kinds? Check. Renewed emphasis on Scripture? Check. In good critical translations? Check. Religious liberty? Check. Focus on salvation by grace alone and reconsideration of justification by faith? Check. Married clergy? Well . . . Vatican II didn’t do everything.

[JB note: These are for the most part merely externals, which provide cosmetic changes but do not change the heart and core of Roman Catholicism. And the focus on "grace alone" is not really a focus on grace, but it is a call back to the works-oriented process described here, which really is just a sacramental treadmill.]

At the same time, one thing has not changed. As I have always understood it, one only has two choices about the Roman Catholic Church. One either must become a Roman Catholic, or one can not. There is no maybe about becoming Catholic. To become a Catholic, one is required to accept all of that Church’s claims, including its claims about itself. If one accepts those claims, then one has no choice but to convert. But if one does not, one also has no choice. In that case, one cannot become Roman Catholic. And the Roman Catholic Church itself says that one cannot.

I am unable to bring myself to believe Rome’s claims....

[JB note: This became true for me, too. The more I came to know about Rome's claims, through what I've called "having been a devout Catholic," the more strongly I heard the voice of the Spirit who made me uneasy with these claims. And one of the reasons I do not worry about those who are converting to Rome now ... if they are genuine believers, they are, or will soon be experiencing a kind of buyer's remorse.]

Well, then? What about Orthodoxy? I want to claim the Greek Fathers for my own, of course—Athanasius, Cyril, the Cappadocians. I am even excited about learning from such lesser known lights as Leontius of Byzantium and Maximus the Confessor. And I recognize that the Eastern Church never accepted the authority of the bishop of Rome in the way in which Rome came to understand it. And I think they were right in that.

However, as with Rome, there are a number of things that Orthodoxy demands that I cannot quite bring myself to accept. Some are doctrinal niceties, for example, the somewhat abstruse distinction between the divine essence and energies. Or the doctrine of the filioque. I think the Western view is correct on both points. But at bottom, as I said above, I became Anglican because I believed Anglicanism was a reforming movement in the Western Church, and I am a Western Christian.

Mine is the tradition of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, but also of Hooker, and Luther, and Barth. A Western Orthodoxy that was able to embrace and incorporate this Western tradition (including the Reformers) as well as its own would be an Orthodoxy that I would find attractive, perhaps irresistible. But, to the contrary, Orthodoxy often seems rather to be suspicious of this entire Western tradition, including Augustine, and all who followed him. And, of course, such a Western Orthodoxy would look a lot like . . . historical Anglicanism.

As for leaving Anglicanism for another Reformation Church . . . what would be the point? All of the mainline Protestant churches are struggling with the same issue as is Anglicanism. The Episcopal Church is just ahead of the parade. The non-sacramental free church Evangelicals alone have stood their ground, and I admire them tremendously. But I left that tradition for a reason.

Finally, there is another reason. And that is that I am not willing to make this decision as an individual. Many years ago, I left one denomination as an individual, and joined another. I do not regret that choice, but since making it, I am committed to those who have become my companions. I have discovered true companions along the Christian journey in the Episcopal Church, and I do not intend to desert them. You dance with the one that brought you.

...the last thing confessing Christians in all the churches need is once again to draw lines in the sand against one another, to refuse to recognize Christ’s face in those who affirm the same Scriptures and confess the same Creeds. I can only regard the voices of those who ask me to leave Anglicanism for either Rome or Orthodoxy or some other Reformation Church as asking me to deny that the face of Christ can be seen in this Church.

While I'm not totally in agreement with this vision, I like this attitude very much.

Viisaus said: I believe what we need is a combination of truly Protestant and truly Catholic feeling, in the proper sense of both of these words.

We need to be ever ready to energetically PROTEST against the evils of this world, avoiding adulterous friendship with the world (James 4:4) and its easygoing ecumenical ways. Courage to protest even against highly influential notions like the Darwinian evolution, and also protesting against the moral and doctrinal corruption of our church leadership - against both to those who add to and take away from Biblical articles of faith.

We also need a truly CATHOLIC, universal sense of solidarity with all true Bible-faithful Christians around the world - to whichever church or congregation of faithful they might belong to, excepting only those who stubbornly cling to and defend obviously rotten outfits (like the RCC). This will prevent us from becoming a small vindictive Pharisee-separatist sect.

Dr. Witt Responds on "Development"

Following up on my previous post, Newman's Doctrine of Development Rests on a Logical Fallacy, I cited Dr. William Witt's blog entry, which, I thought gave a very clear explanation of Newman's theory on the Development of Doctrine [and it is just a theory].

In the process, one commenter, Matt, wrote to clarify the type of logical fallacy that Newman's theory rested upon.

Dr. Witt has kindly responded via email, and his response is reproduced here.

Dear John Bugay,

Thanks for linking to my post on the incoherence of Newman's account of development. Readers might find it helpful to know that this is part of a lengthy discussion I have been having with Roman Catholic disciples of Newman, and one in particular.
Thank also for pointing out that "fallacy of amphiboly" is not correct, and that I was careless in the spelling. I plead that the quoted portion here is from a transcript of a letter I had written rather quickly. I did not bother to check whether or not the fallacy was named correctly, since I was giving practical advice, not writing for publication.

Amphiboly is an amibiguity of language, not terms. So, Groucho Marx's "I shot an elephant in my pajamas. What was he doing in my pajamas, you ask?"

At the same time, I am not quite happy with "equivocation." Terms like "river bank" and "First Savings Bank" are equivocal, as are the "bark of a tree" and the "bark of a dog." The fallacy here seems to deal with terms that have almost the same meaning, but are different enough as to not be univocal. Both Development 1 and Development 2 are developments, but they differ in a way that invalidates Newman's argument. If someone knows of another fallacy besides equivocation that covers this category, I would be grateful. Meanwhile, I have corrected my blog.

You might find it amusing that my primary interlocutors in this discussion have been Roman Catholic philosophers (not theologians), some of whom I find referenced on your blog, none of whom picked up on careless fallacy identification. The response has rather been to embrace Development 2 wholeheartedly--to insist that both homoousious and papal infallibility are equally developments for which only the authority of the magisterium can suffice. That is, if it had not been for Nicea, the Arian view would be equally plausible as orthodoxy.

While conceding the force of my argument, I find this a desparate concession. It necessarily would imply that the doctrine of the incarnation is just as lacking in biblical or theological warrant as are the marian dogmas or papal infallibility.

I hope I was clear about what I meant when I wrote: "She gives birth, however, to Jesus’ humanity, not his eternal person, which has always existed and is generated eternally by the Father." I addressing the fairly obvious objection that inevitably arises to the claim that Mary is the Mother of God: God is eternal; Mary is not eternal. If Mary is the Mother of God, then God came to exist in time, and Mary's existence predates God. But Mary is not eternal, ergo . . .

I would say that mothers give birth neither to persons nor to natures, but to human beings. A human being is a single substance in which one can distinguish between person and nature. The person is the subject of the predicate "who," while nature is the subject of the predicate "what." Both persons and natures are created by God.

The orthodox doctrine is that the incarnate Word is a single divine person with two natures, one human, one divine. The doctrine of anhypostasia means that Christ has no human person; the doctrine of enhypostasia means that Christ is a single divine person who is the subject of unity in the incarnation. The doctrine of communicatio idiomatum means that properties of either nature can be predicated of the single divine person, which can result in some paradoxical statements: "My God died" is true, although God is eternal and cannot die, because the incarnate Word of God (the second person of the Trinity) died in his human (not his divine) nature. Jesus' humanity comes to exist in time, both created by God, and the progeny of his mother Mary. His divine person, however, is eternally begotten of his Father, and never comes into existence.

In stating that Mary is the theotokos or Mother of God, there is an ambiguity. Mary gives birth to Jesus. Who is Jesus? Jesus is God. Mary is then the Mother of God. What is Jesus? Jesus is completely human and completely divine. Is Mary the "bearer" or Mother of Jesus' humanity? Absolutely. Although created by God, everything of Jesus that is human (body, intellect, will, soul) are received from Mary his mother. Is Mary the "bearer" or Mother of Jesus' divinity? No. Insofar as it is eternal, Jesus' divinity (his divine nature) can have no "mother."

Is Mary bearer or the mother of Jesus' divine person? A tricky question. If by "mother," one means that Mary gives birth to Jesus who is a single divine/human identity, and whose person is fully God, then the answer is "yes."

If, however, by "mother," one means that Mary is the human source of Jesus' divine personhood in the same sense that she is the source of his humanity, or the same sense that other mothers are the source of their offspring's human personhood (although also created by God), the answer must be "no" because Jesus has no human person. His divine person is eternally generated by the Father and does not come to be in time. It is "begotten, not made."

Grace and Peace,
William G. Witt
Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology
Trinity School for Ministry

Newman's Doctrine of Development Rests on a Logical Fallacy

One of the best, short, sweet, simple critiques of Newman's Development of Doctrine, was crafted by Dr. William Witt, a professor at a conservative Anglican seminary, here:

http://willgwitt.org/theology/on-the-development-of-doctrine

My own reasons for not becoming Roman Catholic have not changed. It was precisely the problem of doctrinal development that I found unsatisfactory. I believe that J. B. Mozley’s The Theory of Development provides the decisive critique of [John Henry] Newman on development of doctrine. Mozley argues that Newman commits a logical fallacy of amphiboly by not distinguishing between two different kinds of development. Newman is correct that there is genuine development in the early church....the “development” of incarnational and Trinitarian doctrine that takes place at Nicea, Chalcedon, etc., is really simply the necessary logical unfolding of what is already clearly present in the New Testament. If Jesus is fully God, then he must “of the same substance” as God. If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equally God, and yet there is only one God, then God must be three persons in one nature....

Mozley speaks of this kind of development in terms of what I will call “Development 1.” Development 1 adds nothing to the original content of faith, but rather brings out its necessary implications. Mozley says that Aquinas is doing precisely this kind of development in his discussion of the incarnation in the Summa Theologiae.

There is another kind of development, however, which I will call “Development 2.” Development 2 is genuinely new development that is not simply the necessary articulation of what is said explicitly in the Scriptures.

Classic examples of Development 2 would include the differences between the doctrine of the theotokos and the dogmas of the immaculate conception or the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the former, Marian dogma is not actually saying something about Mary, but rather something about Christ. If Jesus Christ is truly God, and Mary is his mother, then Mary is truly the Mother of God (theotokos). She gives birth, however, to Jesus’ humanity, not his eternal person, which has always existed and is generated eternally by the Father. The doctrine of the theotokos is a necessary implication of the incarnation of God in Christ, which is clearly taught in the New Testament. However, the dogmas of the immaculate conception and the assumption are not taught in Scripture, either implicitly or explicitly. They are entirely new developments.

The same would be true, of course, for the doctrine of the papacy. The New Testament says much about the role of Simon Peter as a leader of the apostles. It does not say anything explicit, however, about the bishop of Rome being the successor to Peter. The Eastern fathers, e.g., Cyprian, interpret the Petrine passages that Rome has applied to the papacy as applying to all bishops.

C.S. Lewis, also in his essay "Christian Reunion," cited this in his decision not to become a Roman Catholic: "to accept your Church means not to accept a given body of doctrine but to accept in advance any doctrine that your Church hereafter produces."

[Edited to correct the spelling of "amphiboly" and provide the link to its definition: Linguistically, an amphiboly is an ambiguity which results from ambiguous grammar, as opposed to one that results from the ambiguity of words or phrases—that is, Equivocation. The fallacy of Amphiboly occurs when a bad argument trades upon grammatical ambiguity to create an illusion of cogency. Amphibolies are often linguistic boobytraps, but less frequently do they occur in fallacious arguments.]