A Reply to James White on Rick Warren (Part II)

This is the second part of my response to Protestant apologist, James White's video in which he accuses Pastor Rick Warren of compromising the gospel with his comments on the Catholic Church. Pastor White's video can be found here and part one of my response can be found here.

On the subject of Mary and the Saints, Pastor White is of the view that, whatever we officially may say, Roman Catholicism implies the worship of Mary. At about the 9:45, he rhetorically asks Pastor Warren if he is aware: "..[T]hat Calvin specifically dealt with the fraudulent, ridiculous kind of differentiation between lateria and dulia, within Roman Catholcism."

I don't know whether Pastor Warren has read Calvin on the subject, but I have. In Bk. I Chap. XII, section II of The Institutes of the Christian religion, he writes:

"The distinction of what is called dulia and latria was invented for the very purpose of permitting divine honours to be paid to angels and dead men with apparent impunity. For it is plain that the worship which Papists pay to saints differs in no respect from the worship of God: for this worship is paid without distinction; only when they are pressed they have recourse to the evasion, that what belongs to God is kept unimpaired, because they leave him latria."

First, for the benefit of those unfamiliar, Catholics use the term "latria" for that worship due to God alone, we use the term "dulia" to refer to the honour given to the angels and "hyper-dulia" for that unique honour given to Mary because of her unique position as the mother of God incarnate.

So, according to Calvin, this is a distinction without any real difference. But the difference is massive. Let's examine the most famous of Marian prayers, the "Hail Mary".

The prayer says "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and in the hour of our death, amen."

Perhaps the first key phrase is "full of grace". The point of this phrase is the Our Lady is the greatest recipient of God's grace. This alone ought to demonstrate the real difference between latria and hyperdulia; God is worshipped as the source of grace and salvation, Mary is honoured as the greatest recipient of that grace.

A second point should be noted in the way that the prayer repeatedly stresses Mary's relationship with God and Jesus. We honour her because "the Lord is with [here]" and because she is "mother of God".
That is the second great difference, God is worshipped for who He is, Mary is honoured because of her relationship to Him.

Finally, the prayer ends with the request that Mary "pray for us sinners". In other words, when we pray to God we petition Him, knowing that He has the power to directly grant what we ask of Him, our prayers, to Mary are radically different, addressing her as a fellow creature and asking her to pray for us.

There you have it, in that short prayer, three fundamental differences between the honour Catholics give to God and that we give to Mary: He is honoured for who He is, she is honoured for her relationship to Him, He is honoured as the source of all Grace, she is honoured for being the foremost recipient of his grace, He is petitioned because he can grant prayers, she is petitioned because, as a fellow creature, she can pray for us.

To these three, let me add a fourth distinction, Catholics believe that the mass is the highest form of prayer and we offer the mass to the Holy Trinity alone. Calvin may claim that the distinction between latria and hyperdulia is a distinction without a difference. In fact, the difference is as radical as that between creature and creator.

Response to Pastor James White on Rick Warren (Part I)

As most will have heard, Pastor Rick Warren, of the famous Saddleback Church in California, recently made comments about the importance of Catholics and Protestants working together. He also, while noting the many differences which exist between Catholics and Protestants, argues that the great truths we believe in: the Trinity, the incarnation, salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ are far greater than what divides us.

Not everyone agrees. One noteworthy critique comes from Pastor James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries. In a video found here, White accuses Warren of "capitulating" on fundamental issues of the Gospel.

At approximately the 3:35 mark of his video, Pastor White declares:

"There is a reason why, at the reformation, the solas were promoted... it is Christ ALONE, it is by the Grace of God ALONE, it is by faith ALONE; those solas have a reason." (emphasis Pastor White's).

This is a constant theme in Dr. White's criticism of Roman Catholicism. I've heard him say many times, for example, that the issue of the Reformation was the sufficiency of grace, that both sides agreed that grace is necessary to salvation but that the reformers believed grace alone saves while Rome held that salvation is by grace plus something else.

This is completely wrong. Both sides of the Catholic/Protestant debate have always affirmed that salvation is by grace alone through Christ alone. The contrary heresy, that humans, unaided by grace, can do anything towards our own salvation, is called Semipelagianism (as opposed to Pelagiansim which affirms that we can be saved without grace.) Semipelagianism was solemnly condemned at the Council of Orange in 529. A reaffirmation of this condemnation is implicit in chapters 5, 6, 8 and 13 of the Council of Trent's Decree on justification.

Pastor White goes on to argue that, even where we agree, the agreement is superficial because of our reasons for agreeing. At approximately the 4:15 mark, he says.:

"Why does a Roman Catholic believe in the Trinity? Because the Church tells him so. Why do I believe in the Trinity? Because God has revealed it to be true in His Word. Why do I believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Scriptural authority. Why does the Roman Catholic believe? Church Authority."

To say the least, it's quite a bit more complicated than that. While I'm certainly glad to have the many magisterial declarations on the Trinity, I affirm that the truth of the Trinity can be amply defended on the basis of the Bible alone and I'd be very happy to prove this in debate with any Jehovah's Witness, Mormon or 'Biblical Unitarian'. In fact, I've pretty much done it already, in my debate with Muslim apologist Abdullah Kunde, and I can recall Pastor White having some reasonably complimentary things to say about my performance.

As for the resurrection, no, my reason for believing in the resurrection is not Church authority, actually it's the other way around. I was first convinced of the historical fact of the resurrection, convinced from the this fact that Christ was who He claimed to be. I was then persuaded that Christ established the Catholic Church to teach in His name. So, far from me believing in the resurrection because of Church authority, it would be closer to the truth to say I believe in Church authority because of the resurrection.

I will, Deo volente, continue my response to Pastor White in the coming days.

Of Binding and Loosing

Does Matthew 18:18 contradict the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19? That may be an obscure question, so let me explain. Anyone at all familiar with Catholic belief or interdenominational apologetics knows that Matthew 16:18-19 describes Christ making some specific promises to St. Peter. Of special relevance is Christ's promise that "I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (16:19 ESV). Catholics see this gift as giving special power to St. Peter for the governance of the Church.

One response from our separated brethren is to point to Matthew 18:18. Here, Christ is talking to a large group of His disciples and says "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This, it is argued, proves that St. Peter was nothing special, all believers receive the same powers to bind and loose that he received.

To answer the objection, and to understand what exactly these powers of binding and loosing are, we need to look at context. The immediate context of Matthew 18:18 is a discussion, by Christ, of how to deal with unrepentant sinners within the body of believers. The final remedy is that the sins of the unrepentant person be told to the church "And if he refuses to listen to the Church, let him be as a gentile or tax collector."

Two brief asides: first, I've heard a lot of people insist that because Jesus was so loving, He's never support anything like excommunication. Yes He would, and did; right here. Second, given that both of my parents were career employees of the Australian Taxation Office, the New Testament usage of "tax collectors" as a synonym for "worst sinners ever" always makes me smile.

 To return to my main point, however. First, it should be obvious from this context that the power to bind and loose refers to the power to discipline errant members of the church. I've heard protestants cite these verses as evidence that every believer has the power to 'bind' evil spirits. The truth, I'm afraid, is that it refers to a rather more prosaic matter, the power of the church to discipline its members. Second, given that verse 17 is talks about the authority of the church it makes no sense for the 'you' in verse 18 to be interpreted as "you - every individual" rather it should be seen as "you - the collective body of the church."

We are left then with Christ promising to His church collectively what He had previously promised individually to St. Peter. Does this contradict Catholic teaching? Not in the slightest. The Church does not see the Pope as some spiritual lone ranger exercising his powers out of the context of the wider body. Indeed, the fact that the same power should be given corporately to the church and individually to the church's head beautifully underlies what Vatican II called the collegiality of the Church. The fact still remains, that the power which Jesus collectively granted the Church He gave individually to St. Peter. That is the Petrine Primacy.

 

Of Infalability and Green Cheese

Brendan Burnett, a friend of mine, an Evangelical Protestant and a fellow blogger, has an argument which, he believes, disproves the authority claims of both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. The argument can be found here.

Brendan attempts to refute the claims of those Churches which claim infallible authority to interpret the Scriptures with a Reductio ad Absurdum. For those unfamiliar, this is a form of logical argument, sometimes called a "proof by contradiction". The essence of the argument consists in assuming, for argument's sake, that a given proposition is true, demonstrating that said assumption leads to a contradiction and, thereby showing that the initial assumption was false.

Brendan does a small thought experiment and asks us to imagine a possible scenario:

Imagine, then, that the Church says that John 3:16 means: “The moon is made of green cheese.” Imagine that all the respected, godly, knowledgeable church fathers and leaders forever since the first, second and third etc. centuries AD have always believed and interpreted John 3:16 as meaning “The moon is made of green cheese.” Church today holds it. Holy Tradition has always held it.

In such a circumstance, Brendan, argues, either Roman Catholic or Orthodox claims about the authority of the Church to interpret Scripture would lead to the conclusion that John 3:16 does teach that the moon is made out of green cheese. However, as Brendan quite correctly argues, John 3:16 is very clearly not saying anything about the composition of the moon but is, rather, a statement about God's love for humanity and His salvific purpose. From this, Brendan draws the conclusion that, Catholic and Orthodox beliefs about the infallibility of the Church logically lead to absurdity and are, therefore, proven false.

To clarify what he is and isn't arguing, Brendan writes:

Now for this argument to work, I don’t have to show that there is some real instance of it in the world. All I need to illustrate is that there exists some possible, logically consistent situation, which implies some absurd counterfactual (counter-to-fact proposition) from the premise, “Whatever the Church teaches about Scripture is true.” This proposition would be true if the facts turned out a certain way, This turns out quite easy to do.

The reason this argument may seem logical is because of an ambiguity in the term "possible" in the second sentence. Possible can mean a few different things in different contexts.

Some metaphysicians and logicians use possible simply to mean that given proposition has nothing that makes it logically absurd, it is true in some possible worlds. In this sense, it is possible that Julius Caesar died of old age and Brutus remained his faithful friend until death, since there is nothing about the essential nature of Caesar that logically required him to die of assassination at his former friend's hand.

On the other hand, the word "possible" may refer to real, concrete possibilities in the actual existing world. In this sense it is not possible that Julius Caesar died by any means other than assassination since, all the evidence clearly shows that that's the way he died.

Now, if, in the argument above, Brendan means "possible" in the first sense, true in some possible world, then I'll grant that his fathers and councils teaching John:316 is about moon cheese scenario is possible. I deny, however, that this proves what he thinks it does. To the best of my knowledge, no Catholic or Orthodox theologian has ever claimed that an infallible Church must exist in all possible worlds, as if God was somehow logically bound to operate in this way. If somebody ever did make such a claim, Brendan's argument might (I say might, I'd still have some issues) help to refute them. This, however, tells us nothing about what is and isn't the case in the world as it actually is.

On the other hand, if by, "possible" Brendan is talking about concrete possibilities in the actual world, then I'll agree, if you could prove the possibility of the Church teaching that John 3:16 is about moon cheese, then you would have disproven the Church's claims to authority. The problem here is that, a thought experiment is not, by any stretch of the imagination, enough to demonstrate such a real possibility.

Brendan then attempts to write his argument out formally. For those of you not familiar with philosophy and/or formal logic, what follows may be a little technical and difficult to follow. I'll simply say that I've already made clear my principle objections to his argument, what follows need only interest those concerned with the technicalities.

He writes:

P: Whatever the Church says about Scripture is true.
Q: The Church says that John 3:16 means ‘The moon is made of green cheese.’
R: John 3:16 means ‘The moon is made of green cheese.’

(1) If whatever the Church teaches about Scripture is true, then if the Church were to say that John 3:16 means ‘The moon is made of green cheese’, then John 3:16 really would mean ‘The moon is made of green cheese.’
(2) But the text of John 3:16 cannot possibly mean ‘The moon is made of green cheese.’
(3) Therefore, John 3:16 would not mean ‘The moon is made of green cheese’ even if the Church said that it did.
(4) Therefore, the proposition ‘Whatever the Church teaches about Scripture is true’ is false.

I assume (1) and (2) are premises, and I accept them both. (3) follows necessarily from (2). (4) However, does not directly follow from any combination of (1) (2) and/or (3). The only way it would do so is with the mediation of some premise along the lines of "There exists a real possibility that the Church would say the John 3:16 is about green moon cheese"

Finally, Brendan tries to write it out symbolically.

(1) If P, then if Q then R.
(2) Not-R.
(3) Therefore, not-Q. (Therefore not-’if Q then R’)
(4) Therefore, not-P.
QED. Modus tollens.

And at this point he's pretty much lost me. (1) and (2) obviously correspond to their counterparts in his non-symbolic argument. However, at (3) he gives two statements "Therefore, not-Q" and then, in brackets, "Therefore not -'If Q thenR'". These statements are not equivalent to one another, neither is equivalent to (3) in his non-symbolic argument and I don't see how either is derived from his premises. (4) Does follow as a Modus Tollens from (1) and from the brackets part of (3), but that only helps him if he can explain how he derives (3) from his premises.

In short, this argument will not work.

P.S. I don't believe it's possible to derive the conclusion "Not P" from Brendan's premises. It is, however, quite easily to derive the conclusion "If Q then not P". Absent, however, some proof of at least the real possibility of Q this doesn't help his case.

For anyone who cares, the relevant proof is as follows:

1. P > (Q > R)       (Premise)
2.  - R                    (Premise)
3.  Q                      (Assumption)
4.  P                       (Assumption)
5.  Q > R                (> E; 1,4)
6.  -Q                      (M.T.; 2,5)
7. Q & -Q               (&I; 3,6)
8. - P                       (-I; 4- 7)
9. Q > -P                 (> I; 3-8) Q.E.D.