Visible but “distressed”
John H Sunday 25th January, AD 2009
The Augsburg Confession’s articulation of the nature of the church – “the assembly of saints in which the gospel is taught purely and the sacraments are administered rightly” – gives rise to an important question. Does this mean that only the Evangelical Lutheran Church is the “true church”, because (as Lutherans would see it) only there is the gospel “taught purely”?
The answer to this surely has to be a heartfelt “no!”. As J.R. Hermeneut points out in the comments to my previous post, the purpose of Article VII was precisely to show that the Reformers “neither intended to, nor actually did, found a new Church”. For all Rome’s errors, the church under the papacy was still the church. (See also this post quoting Luther on “the gospel under the papacy”.)
In the fourth of the series of posts back in 2004 that I mentioned in my previous post, I suggested that we should say instead that “To the extent that one finds the Word and Sacraments present, to that extent one finds the church”. Perhaps it is better to say that wherever the gospel is preached (albeit “imperfectly”) and the sacraments administered (albeit with an “imperfect” understanding of what they are or how God works through them), we can still see the visible church, even if we can see it more clearly in some places than in others.
So does that mean that our divisions and disagreements don’t matter? Far from it. It’s precisely because they are divisions within the visible church founded by Christ that they should matter so much to us. That’s why we can sing, with tears, the following words in the hymn, “The Church’s One Foundation”:
Though with a scornful wonder
men see her sore opprest,
by schisms rent asunder,
by heresies distrest,
yet saints their watch are keeping,
their cry goes up, “How long?”
and soon the night of weeping
shall be the morn of song.
It is the visible church founded by Christ – the assembly where the gospel is preached and the sacraments administered – that is rent asunder by schisms and distressed by heresies. There is not some pure, whole, unwounded church on the one hand, and those in error and division on the other.
It’s in that same spirit of crying “How long?” that our prayers at church this morning included the following:
Father of our Lord, you would gather your family as one around your holy table. Heal the sad divisions of your church, and grant the day to come when your whole church, sharing a common faith, may feast as one at the table of your Son’s body and blood.
It may be difficult to see or imagine how the church could once again reach a “common faith”, a common mind on the things that divide us. However, that should still be our prayer and our desire – and in the meantime, the divisions that exist should not stop us seeing the church of Jesus Christ wherever it is there to be found.
- Tags: augsburg confession, church unity, Ecumenism, Hymns
- Categories: Ecclesiology , Theology
- Comments(32)
John,
There is not some pure, whole, unwounded church on the one hand, and those in error and division on the other.
You apparently think that unity is *not* one of the four permanent marks of the Church. What do you think is the principled difference between a “branch within” the Church, and a “schism from” the Church? (I discussed this here.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan: I recommend you check out the series of posts linked from my previous entry, based on an essay by Hermann Sasse (even better: check out Dr Sasse’s essay).
In very brief summary: Lutherans do believe that the church is one. However, that unity is hidden under the outward divisions and dissensions of the church and is thus perceived only by faith. This is explained further (and rather better) in the quotations from Sasse in the third post in that series. However, it forms part of the general Lutheran emphasis on the theology of the cross and the hiddenness of God’s action in the world.
As a matter of organisation, we see division. As a matter of error and wrong practice, we see division. And yet – by faith – we are able to see the true unity that still exists (one Lord, one faith, one baptism).
Thanks John,
I’ll take a look at Sasse’s essay. Initially, I don’t see any substantive or practical difference between (1) denying that there is a visible catholic Church while affirming that the catholic Church is invisible, and (2) affirming that there is a visible catholic Church that is otherwise invisible but ’seen’ only by faith. The ‘by faith’-we-see-it position seems like an Emperor’s New Clothes set up, or a Kenneth Hagin way of talking about bodily healing. Only the initiated can ’see’ it. If it didn’t actually exist, who could tell the difference — apparently only those with the faith to have the secret knowledge. Who gets to determine who ‘has faith’? Again, apparently, only those ‘with faith’. And who are those? The answer always seems to reduce to: me and those who agree with me. I spent a summer talking with Mormons, and it was continually the same sort of thing. I’m sure you see the similarities to montanistic gnosticism. (You get the same effect if you spend time with forms of Pentecostalism where each person claims to have a direct pipeline to the divine. Who has the Spirit? Me and anyone who agrees with my interpretation.)
Do you know of any Church fathers who believed that the visible catholic Church could be seen only by faith? If you have to choose between the following two options: (3) The visible catholic Church split into many pieces and its visible unity is now invisible and seen only by faith, and (4) Many schisms separated from the visible catholic Church which retains its unity and visibility, how do you justify (3) over (4)? I mean, how do you rule out (4) when deciding which [(3) or (4)] is true?
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan,
Thank-you for the link to your post. I for one have indeed enjoyed reading both these posts by Confessing Evangelical and the responses, as one who is interested in discussions pertaining to “unity” in the church, what is it, how is it achieved, and all that.
Now to the point. While I do not agree with all of his assertions nor some of his a priori positions, I think some words of the Holy Father, Benedict XVI might be helpful in elucidating for you the confession on the unity of the Church as articulated in the Augsburg Confession. He begins by insisting, as does the theology articulated in the AC, that “there is only one Bride, only one body of Christ, not many brides, not many bodies. The Bride is, of course, as the fathers of the church said, drawing on Psalm 44, dressed in many-coloured robes; the body has many organs. But the superordinate principle is ultimately unity.”
Ratzinger is very quick to point out here that though this ontological precedence of the Una Sancta leads many people (and he has in mind here contemporary Roman Catholics) to “think immediately about the pope and the curia.” However, “objectively speaking” he observes “this makes no sense. The church of Rome is a local church and not the universal church.” Though it goes without saying that Ratzinger undoubtedly would maintain that the See of Peter has a unique universal responsibility within the universal church (a point on which we could perhaps quibble a bit) he in no way understands the church of Rome as generative of the Una Sancta.
What then is generative of the Una Sancta? And what (to use Lutheran parlance) are its “marks” by which it is seen and known? Razinger answers the all-important question “where can one see the universal church as such” by directing us to the sacraments, and principally the sacrament of Baptism:
“There is, first of all, baptism. It is a Trinitarian, that is, a thoroughly theological event, and means far more than being socialized into the local church…. Baptism does not arise from the individual community; rather, in baptism the door to the one church is opened to us; it is the presence of the one church, and it can come only from her — from the Jerusalem that is above, our new mother. In baptism the universal church continually precedes and creates the local church.”
Ratzinger goes on further to declare, “Anyone who speaks of baptism is automatically dealing with the Word of God, which for the entire church is only one, and which always precedes the church in all places, calls it together, and builds it up. This one Word is above the church and yet in it, entrusted to it as to a living subject.”
I hope that helps, rather than confuses, the discussion. I would but ask two questions. Why in your articulation of the unity of the church do you draw attention to various denominational tree-diagrams as illustrative of your point but make no reference to the “Word of God” (Gospel) and the “Sacraments” (of Baptism especially) as the ontological ground for the Una Sancta, as indeed Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) does, and therefore the “doorway,” if you will, into discussion of what and where on earth is this church to be found? And secondly, as an Augsburg Confessional Catholic, were to “switch allegiance” and become a communicant member of a church presently in fellowship with Rome I would not need to be baptised in order to do so. Why do you think this is the case?
[Oh, BTW quotes are from Ratzinger's reply to Cardinal Kasper "The Local Church and the Universal Church". There is better material to suit my purposes, but I didn't have it to hand.]
Hello J Random Hermeneut,
I’m glad we share some common ground, and especially what you quoted from then Cardinal Ratzinger on baptism. From a Catholic point of view, there are three individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for full membership in the Church. These are spelled out in Mystici Corporis 22. Valid baptism is one of those conditions. Profession of the true faith is another. And not having been severed from the structure of the Body by one’s own unhappy act or, for very grave crimes, by the legitimate authority. These three conditions directly correspond to the three “bonds of unity” (CCC 815). So, from a Catholic point of view, baptism places a person in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church (see here), but it does not by itself make a person a full member of the Catholic Church. Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments about baptism need to be understood within that broader theological framework.
I agree that the particular Church of Rome does not generate the one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church. But, the sacraments do not generate the Church per se, because the sacraments flow from [Christ through] the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The sacraments generate the Church per accidens, by joining additional persons to her and nourishing them in the faith and life of the Body.
Regarding your two questions, I hope my comments directly above help to answer the first one. Even heretics and schismatics can and do validly baptize. People baptized by Donatist priests, were validly (though not licitly) baptized, and these persons were rightly not rebaptized when the Donatists schism was reconciled with the Catholic Church in 411. Why do I “make no reference to the Word of God (Gospel)” as the ontological ground for the Una Sancta? A couple reasons. First, “whose gospel?” Already the cart is before the horse. Tertullian shows why sacramental authority takes precedence, for sacramental authority determines which interpretation is the gospel. Defining the Church in terms of the ‘gospel’ divides the Church into as many interpretations of the gospel as there are. That is why that third condition above (i.e. the third bond of unity) is so important. Second, in that post (“Branches or Schisms? Part II”), I wasn’t attempting to show what are the ontological grounds for the Una Sancta. I was merely analyzing the implications of a branch diagram. So there was no need for me to provide the “ontological grounds” of the Una Sancta.
… were to “switch allegiance” and become a communicant member of a church presently in fellowship with Rome I would not need to be baptised in order to do so.Why do you think this is the case?
Because the Catholic Church considers your baptism valid, so long as it was done with the right matter (i.e. water), with the right form (“I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”), and with the intention to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The offer of baptism extends universally throughout the world from the universal Church. This is why, from a Catholic point of view, even an unbeliever can administer a valid baptism (so long as the three conditions directly above are met).
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
There are two churces. The one that sits in the pews (any pews) …and the one that Christ Jesus knows.
As Lutherans we believe we know the Truth. We don’t believe that we are the only ones that know it (as some do), but we do know it.
What I like about Lutheranism is that we do believe God gives the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation in baptism(and in His Word preached and in the sacrament of the altar).
And that is enough. Christ + nothing.
So many other churches insist on Christ + something. An innerant Bible, a pope, an experience, a decision for Jesus.
We believe in Christ and Christ alone.
Is He enough?
No, Steve, there is only one church, the one that is the body of Jesus Christ. All of the true church sits in the pews. And then there’s the false church, which also sits in the pews, mostly the same pews. But it’s not the church or even a church – it’s a bunch of unbelievers who are sharing a pew with the church.
…one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered …
Although the Church properly is the congregation of saints and true believers, nevertheless, since in this life many hypocrites and evil persons are mingled therewith… (AC VII & VIII)
Simon,
Thanks for that. You are correct. There are many churches, but only one Church.
I think you know what I mean.
I wasn’t sure what you meant because there are so many people out there with a 2 churches model, including C.F.W. Walther, and the LCMS synodical explanation to the Small Catechism. I’m glad you agree, though.
Nope. I’m with you. There is only one true Church and Christ Jesus knows who they are.
Bryan,
The question becomes when there is division in the church, how do you determine which party is right? You would scorn us Lutherans for causing division. We Lutherans answer no, it was the pope who caused the division when he refused to listen to Christ in the Bible, when he taught a different gospel than the one that Paul taught the Galatians. Unity can never be at the expense of doctrine. We learn that from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. So we Lutherans try to find unity in doctrine with one another. We have no other criteria for unity.
Man made unity based on dubious claims to authority will not ever be true unity. That sort of unity is never a mark of the church.
Bror Erickson,
I don’t scorn anyone. And, the Catholic Church has acknowledged being at least partially at fault in the events precipitating the separation of Protestants and Catholics. Louis Bouyer makes this clear in his The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism. I also strongly agree that unity can never be at the expense of truth. And I also agree that man made unity is foolish and destined to fail. And I also agree that unity based on “dubious claims to authority will never be true unity”, and will never be a mark of the Church. Amen.
But having been engaged in this discussion for a few years now, I find that a common mistake in the ecumenical dialogue is simply begging the question, i.e. already assuming precisely what is in question between disagreeing parties. For example, you interpret the Scripture in a way that leads you to believe that Lutherans have the gospel right, and that the Catholic Church got it wrong. So, you come to the ecumenical table asserting that the Catholic Church abandoned the gospel. Of course, the Catholic Church could just assert that the Protestants abandoned the gospel. Then where would be, ecumenically speaking? We wouldn’t be any closer to figuring out who is right. We’d both be pounding the table and asserting the truth of our own position. And that doesn’t do any good, with regard to reaching the goal of reconciliation. We have to keep in mind that throughout the history of the Church prior to the Reformation, every heretical group thought that it was right and that the Catholic Church was wrong. And they all blamed the Catholic Church for its separation from *them*. Just read Tertullian in his full-blown Montanist stage. So to avoid begging the question, we have to back up and start with historical and theological common ground, and then try to work forward to reconciliation.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Then I think we could begin by both agreeing to make our arguments from the sole authority we both claim to believe in, the Bible. Argue for your position using only the Bible as Luther urged your theologians to do at the Diet of Worms, and we can have a conversation. If you can prove Rome’s claims for the selling of indulgences, and other forms of works righteousness I would like to hear it, as well as arguments for the primacy of the pope, and prayers to the saints.
Bror Erickson,
You are asking me to come to the ecumenical table having already granted sola scriptura. But, surely you know that sola scriptura is precisely one of the disputed points between us. Therefore, to insist that Catholics come to the ecumenical table having already granted sola scriptura is to beg the question, i.e. assume precisely what is question between us. Hence, to avoid question-begging, we have to back up an *additional* step, and start with historical and theological common ground, in order even to adjudicate the sola scriptura question. Now you see how difficult this is.
It requires a lot of patience and open-mindedness.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
“Do you know of any Church fathers who believed that the visible catholic Church could be seen only by faith? If you have to choose between the following two options: (3) The visible catholic Church split into many pieces and its visible unity is now invisible and seen only by faith, and (4) Many schisms separated from the visible catholic Church which retains its unity and visibility, how do you justify (3) over (4)? I mean, how do you rule out (4) when deciding which [(3) or (4)] is true?”
To see the visible church, you hear the Word preached and see the sacraments properly administered. This involves actual eyes and ears. But this must be seeing and hearing with understanding. The idea that we can see something invisible through understanding is expressed in Romans 1:20, albeit in another context. Though we cannot see God, we can see His eternal power in what has been made. The things that have been made are seen with our eyes. But that they are an expression of eternal power is understood with the mind. I don’t see why there would be a problem with this idea when we use it. In fact, it is even implicit in the Catholic theory. For to see the so-called visible unity, you have to know some things about whether they are in fellowship with the Pope, etc., things that cannot be “seen” in some raw sense. Your dog or cat has eyes but does not see this. It is better to term this seeing with understanding than seeing by faith.
Bryan,
No, I am asking you to prove from scripture why I should listen to the pope, or some supposed tradition. What I am saying is not that you grant sola scriptura, but that you argue for your positions from scripture. Why? Because supposedly this is common ground. Supposedly we both agree that scripture, if not the authority, is at least an authority.
If you adequately prove to me the primacy of the pope from scripture than I will grant the pope an hearing when it comes to indulgences and other heresies. Until then I will listen to Paul when he talks about angels with other gospels.
Bror Erickson,
Yes we both believe that Scripture is divinely inspired (God-breathed). We do have that in common. But, more or less implicit in your “I will not believe it unless you prove it to me from Scripture” stance are a number of assumptions, such as (1) *only* Scripture is authoritative, (2) everything that we are required to believe is present in Scripture in a perspicuous way, (3) there is no authoritative magisterium to provide both the authoritative canon of Scripture and the authoritative interpretation and/or authoritative guidelines to our interpretation, and (4) the tradition of the Church plays no role in guiding interpretation. But these are all assumptions that are contrary to the belief and teaching of the Catholic Church. So, again, we have to back up, to avoid begging the question, and to find common discursive ground for ecumenical progress. I have proposed that we do this historically, that we back up ‘temporally’, so to speak, until we find the point in the history of the Church where we are in full agreement, and then we move forward (‘temporally’, so to speak) on the timeline until we start to disagree. Then, at that point, we stop moving along the timeline, and try to figure out why we are beginning to diverge.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
And my point is Bryan,
Why don’t we start with the Apostles and their writings because that is where I think we might be able to find agreement. Let’s start there.
Bror Erickson,
Ok, if we are starting with the Apostles and their writings, then we are starting on our timeline around 98 – 100 AD, because that’s about when the Apostle John wrote Revelations and died. So, then are you and I still together at 107 AD?
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan try about 40 to fifty years earlier for a starting point because that is when Paul started writing. We don’t start where they died. We start where and when they wrote.
Bror Erickson,
I was thinking that we needed to include the whole New Testament, not just part of it. Even if we start, say, in 50-60 AD, are we still together when we get to St. Ignatius?
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
BTW,
I have read the apostolic Father’s a couple of times. And I don’t find myself in any real disagreement with them. But I find your reading of Ignatius a bit contrived. And I don’t give two hoots about ghurch governance. I am very Lutheran that way.
Bryan,
It is a very reformed thing shared with the Catholics to argue over polity and what form it should take in the church. You see the polity as a mark of the church and a source of unity. I don’t. I see the gospel as the source of unity. Doctrine not polity. So argue if you want for an episcopal hierarchy from Ignatius. By they way Just because he says Bishop doesn’t mean he defined it the way you do. Infact there is a good amount of evidence that all he meant by that was obey your pastor, or listen to him. I don’t think he was advocating blind obedience. Both Paul and Peter warn against that.
Bror Erickson,
I agree that we are not called to give “blind obedience” to the Church. Fides quarens intellectum seems to be the more appropriate stance. Here’s the difficulty, however, with the idea that the “gospel” is a mark of the Church. We know there are false gospels (2 Cor 11:4; Gal 1:6). When St. Paul wrote those letters, how did the believers in those churches distinguish the true gospel from false gospels? They didn’t do so by passing around St. Paul’s letter, and having each person come to their own interpretation of it. Rather, they recalled what the Apostle himself had taught them when he had been with them, particularly to the presbyters he had ordained, authorized and entrusted to guard and preserve the deposit of the faith. The living memory of St. Paul’s teaching guided and restrained their interpretation of St. Paul’s letters. And that serves as the continuing paradigm. The Church interprets the Scripture, and provides the authoritative determination of what is the gospel. Otherwise, any heretic could claim that his false interpretation of Scripture is the gospel, and the only way to adjudicate the claim would be to hold some kind of public debate between the heretics and the bishops, and let the people vote on who wins, or have them follow whichever side they think won. That’s precisely why Tertullian (in his orthodox state) points out that we are not to engage with heretics on the interpretation of Scripture as if there is no rightful interpretive authority in the Church. Those to whom the Scriptures were given, they are the ones having the authority to interpret them. The Scriptures were not entrusted to the heretics. To whom were the Scriptures and the deposit of faith entrusted? To those whom the Apostles ordained, men such as St. Ignatius. St. Ignatius urges the believers in all the churches to whom he writes to follow their bishop. That’s how they would know and learn and discern the true gospel from the false gospel, by following the bishop. That doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be bad bishops. There were some bad bishops. But the people could recognize a heretical bishop because he rejected both what came before, and what was taught throughout the catholic (universal) Church.
So, in order to know what the true gospel is, we have to know first where the Church is, so that we can determine what books belong to the canon, and whose interpretation is authorized. In St. Ignatius’ writings we don’t see the notion that the gospel is a mark of the Church. We see the Church picked out in reference to the bishops. The bishops aren’t picked out by whether they teach “the gospel”. It is the other way around. The deposit of faith is known to the people by finding the rightful bishops (the ones having been ordained and authorized by the Apostles), and listening to what they teach.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
“So, in order to know what the true gospel is, we have to know first where the Church is,…”
I’d say it was the other way around.
For the true Church is where the gospel is preached in it’s purity (the forgiveness of sins) and where the sacraments are given in accordance with that gospel.
In Romanism, one’s relationship to Christ depends on his relationship to the Church.
In Lutheranism (or Protestantism) it is the opposite ; one’s realtionship to the Church depends on his realtionship to Christ.
“and the only way to adjudicate the claim would be to hold some kind of public debate between the heretics and the bishops,”
What you mean like the council of Nicaea? You crack me up Bryan. As if Paul wrote so obtusely that you can’t understand what he wrote. We need the church to interpret it for us? Really? And select the canon? Have you read Eusebius? Lutherans by the way have an open canon. We recognize that if the provenance of the letter can’t establish its authority neither can a council, or a church body. Otherwise Dan Brown and the Mormons both might have a case.
As for interpreting scripture it is not so hard to do as you would make out. If what you are saying is true than John had no need to write “these things that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, and believing have life in his name.” If one can read “See Spot Run” one can read scripture and understand it.
And after reading it it becomes painfully obvious that the Roman Catholic Church has ignored it for its financial benefit far too long. I don’t necessarily have a problem with the idea of tradition. I like a liturgical service for instance. But when the tradition is so painfully obvious in its contradiction of Scripture and the teaching of the apostles and Christ, then it has to go. We obey God rather than men, even if those men wear funny hats, claim to be infallible and reinstate bishops that deny the holocaust.
Bror Erickson,
Here’s my question, which I originally posted here:
If this claim [i.e. that the nature of the gospel is self-evident to any competent reader] is false, then the person claiming to have derived it from Scripture is deeply mistaken, not only by importing a false presupposition to the interpretive process, but also in falsely deriving that false presupposition from Scripture. But the claim is not only a presupposition; it is also an empirical claim that is in principle falsifiable. So, if history has not falsified it, what would history have to look like in order to falsify it? How much more divided over the nature of the gospel would Christians have to be (and have been) before the perspicuity claim would be falsified?
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan,
Of Course one might ask how many Nazi sympathizing Bishops the Pope has to reinstate before his claim to infallibility is also falsified. I quite realize that the pope himself was part of the resistance to the Nazi’s, and would not want to be lumped in with those who deny the holocaust. For the most part I find him an honorable man. But these sorts of gafs tend to reinstate the fact that he is a man.
Is the church divided? Yes. Is that the fault of scripture? no. Scripture is clear enough. But man is sinful and has a hard heart and refuses to listen. If the clear words of scripture cannot convince, than neither will a man wearing a funny hat.
As Christ once pointed out to a rich man in a telling parable: “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets then neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.” We have that someone who came back from the dead, and now you are telling me his words are not enough, but the words of another man in Rome that contradict the man who rose from the dead are what I should be listening too?
What it comes down to is either scripture is the authority above all authorities or it is not authority at all.
Finally, if in the end scripture does not settle the controversy, the controversy will not be settled. But to ask a man to abandon the clear words of Christ, for the words of another man is quite a shameful thing to do. I also find it quite blasphemous to hold that the Holy Spirit does not speak intelligibly, and clearly enough to get his message across.
‘Jesus loves me, this I know…for the Bible tells me so.’
Too simplistic? I don’t think so?
Hard to understand? I don’t think so.
R. Catholics are hung up on this “…you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.”
You see, there it is, prrof that the Roman Catholic Church is the only church!
Where does it say that? How about doing a little theology?
We (the Protestant world) believe that it was Peter’s confession of faith that is important and that Christ Himself is the Rock upon which Christ builds his Church.
The world cannot stand Christ alone. They must always add something to Him. They just can’t leave it alone. There must always be popes, or works, or certain prayers, or certauin bibles, or …whatevers. You name it…there is always an add on in addition to the Living Word.
What a crock of horse manure.
Gentlemen,
What a crock of horse manure.
When the discussion reduces to that sort of thing, then the possibility for fruitful, open, respectful, and charitable ecumenical dialogue is lost.
But thank you for talking with me, and John, for graciously hosting this discussion. And, I hope that we continue to pray and work for the reconciliation of these divisions.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan,
I’m sorry that I offended you and sorry that I used that term. I should have said ‘baloney’.
Of course you know that I was only referring to the idea that there need be anything in addition to our Lord.
Sincerely,
Steve Martin
In his dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr argued Christ from the Old Testament, not because he did not believe that the new was authoritative, but because he knew that Christ was revealed in the Old Testament Scriptures, and that those Scriptures would be effective unto salvation (cf., Acts 28.23-24).
If Bryan were similarly convinced of that the Scriptures revealed the distinctive dogmas of the Roman Catholic church, he could concede that as well. But he knows that he cannot.
Although Lutherans could make a similar concession regarding the church fathers. The historical case for the hierarchy is much more contestable than often thought.
A second observation. Bryan writes: “the Catholic Church has acknowledged being at least partially at fault in the events precipitating the separation of Protestants and Catholics. Louis Bouyer makes this clear in his The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism.”
Of course, Bouyer does not speak officially for “the Catholic Church.” Bryan will point that out as soon as someone draws on Bouyer or another Catholic theologian ancient or modern who quotably makes an argument inconsistent with Rome’s current, official teaching. So Bryan will allow only himself to quote informal characterizations about Rome’s theology.
Finally, at the end of the day, Bryan will fall back to his generic argument about “private judgment” and the need for a single, authoritative decider of theological matters.