on protestants to catholics
i was asked to provide an answer to the following question in my modern and contemporary Christian history class:
“one of the hallmarks of the second vatican council of the catholic church was its change in attitude towards Protestans. after the council, catholics no longer considered Protestants as heretics but rather “separated brethren.” comment on how evangelicals should respond. should evangelicals be as conciliatory towards catholics? to what extent should we be concerned and work for Christian unity?”
this was my response:
I think that the attitude of Catholics to Protestants at the Second Vatican Council is a great step. It is absolutely important that there is mutual respect between people who hold to the Christian faith. Among Protestants there is much diversity of opinion on doctrinal issues hence, a large number of different denominations. This shows that there are a variety of interpretations that can be held by people who still glorify God and will spend eternity with us enjoying Him forever. Because of this insight there are two things that must be clarified: issues that are to be held in a closed hand and issues that are to be held in an open hand.
Closed handed issues are those that are central to Christianity that there can be no compromise on. Open handed issues are those doctrinal issues that are debatable and by which we stand but are not issues to die over. Closed handed issues are things like Scripture, God (Trinity), humanity’s sinful nature, salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, and heaven and hell. On these Christianity stands. God gave His word (Scripture) and by that word we understand the nature of God, He is holy. In light of God’s holiness we see humanity’s unholiness and how we deserve punishment. In light of our sinfulness we see the grace of God in Christ who saves us not by our own merit but by His choice to eternal joy in heaven with Him. Those are to be held in a closed hand. Those I will die by.
Open handed issues divide us into denominations. The eschatological doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture is an issue to be held in an open hand. Because someone may not see this in Scripture does not mean that they should be cast out of the faith. It is not an issue of salvation. The distinctive doctrine of Initial Physical Evidence of Spirit Baptism (speaking in tongues) that defines the Assemblies of God to which I belong is an issue that I hold in an open hand. I believe it and I defend it but if someone does not I can respect them and love them as I expect I will still see them in heaven with Jesus.
How do we respond to challenges in open handed issues? With grace. I see the Catholic church to be centered on Jesus. I do not believe that it gives the best opportunity for people to come to faith in Christ, but it still tries to. There are people in the Catholic church who love Jesus and want to see him glorified in the lives of people and the church. I respect these people and trust that I will worship Jesus beside them in heaven one day.
On the other hand, there are difficult issues to reconcile because Catholics differ, to a certain degree, on what are closed handed issues. I hold to inspired Scriptures, but to that the Catholics add several passages that they call deuterocanonical (belonging to the second canon). This is a challenge to a closed handed issue. We cannot waver on our Scriptures. We can respect the writings and look to them for insight but we do not hold to them as inspired the way we hold to our Bible. The Bible is different. This is a challenge.
I think that there can be mutual respect and even cooperation between Protestants and Catholics. At the same time, there must be an effort made to hold to the things that distinguish us from them. This is different from the relationship between other Protestants as long as there is not a challenge to topics like Scripture, God, Christ and sin.
Mark Santistevan
Filed under: meaningless jabber, school | 4 Comments
It sounds like you feel free to affirm Catholics insofar as they would conform to an Evangelical model (at least what most Evangelicals would affirm as their distinctives) with the closed hand.
Of course in this analogy, instantly a serious question emerges: If it is better to have one hand open than two, why then is it not better to have BOTH hands open? I realize that we’re speaking in conventions of language and you’re not the first to use the analogy, but can you define WHY one hand must remain closed?
I would then ask why you think that Catholicism is not the best way to approach Christ? Sorry for being divisive, but given your analogy one must ask not only what you hold in your closed hand but what the Catholic Church holds in its closed hand.
The issue you point to is the inclusion of certain works (Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, etc) in the Canon. First I don’t think that this is a problem for the Congregations as a whole. Few in a given (I should qualify American, but this is probably still widely apply) church’s members read the entire Bible. Much of the Bible is barely preached from in any Church’s circles (even for churches which follow the lectionary, much is ignored in favor of the more “preachable” passages). So why is this a dogmatic issue? This isn’t asking for recognition of the Gospel of Thomas or of Judas. Personally I’m thankful that Luther didn’t have his way in chopping out the Book of James! Again personally, there is something to be gained from Sirach, Maccabees, and Tobit just as there is something to be gained from the “forgotten books” of the New and Old Testaments. Just to play devil’s advocate (b/c he needs the help!) why should these canonical differences seriously conflict? After all, they don’t preach a different God – this isn’t the Quran!
That’s enough mud in the waters – I’m sure you can handle it bro and let me last say that I like your post. Maybe you can “liber”ate just a little more
i think that to hold the issues of Scripture, God, Christ, and sin in an open hand is not Christianity. if someone puts a gun to my head for speaking in tongues i’ll tell him i’m open to other views. if someone puts a gun to my head for the Deity of Jesus, i’m taking the shot. to hold those things in an open hand (to be open to other opinions such as: Scripture as not necessarily the word of God but just moral/historical teachings, theologies contradicting the Trinity, etc.) is to dishonor God who came to earth as a man. while there is no way to prove these things, because God came here as Jesus we take a leap of faith and hope to land in his arms.
the writings, i agree, can be beneficial (which i said in the above post), but are not to be held to in the same way we hold to our Scripture. i don’t think this is that dramatic a claim.
also, the lack of adequate bible teaching in churches is not a sufficient reason to include other books. i don’t see the connection. just because some people do it wrong doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter. the question becomes how can we do it right?
thanks josiah.
mark
excellent. I think you know this, but if not I’ll clarify: I enjoyed the post, hence I felt the need to engage it.
A. I wouldn’t hold the Deity of Christ, the authority of Scripture (sorry not inerrancy), the unity and fullness of God within the Trinity, and the reality of personal evil (and personal responsibility w/ world-wide effects of) in an open hand. I can’t say I’d take a bullet for them b/c I haven’t had the opportunity. I certainly appreciate that these things in the closed hand are affirmed by faith. My point IS that the analogy might be better left in the gutter. (I know, all I do is introduce problems haha) For the analogy, an open hand is better than a closed hand and so rhetorically, two must be better than one. I do honestly believe that there are certain things you HAVE to affirm as a Christian (at least insofar as you have had the chance to encounter the knowledge of true dogmatic points).
B. The question of canon is an interesting one. I don’t affirm Tobit or Sirach to be as authoritative as the Protestant Canon, but I’m open to discussing that position. Probably a lot of that comes from watching the history of these canons follow such similar trajectories. I’m not willing to consider “broadening the canon” to the Vedas or to the Koran. Yet I am willing to dialogue with other sacred texts to find “logos spermatikos” diffused within others’ searches for truth.
So for canon, I’m still willing to dialogue with Catholics concerning canon because I see their history as part of Christendom (a term perhaps used too lightly here). Their heritage of canon is tied to my Scriptural heritage. We affirm the same Christ (questions of Mary are going to get confusing) the whole question seems to be: what is authoritative?
Therefore I’d perhaps answer the article itself with something to this tune: ‘as the Catholics affirm Protestants as “separated brethren,” so Protestants can affirm brotherhood while maintaining the understanding that separation happened for a series of reasons. While these reasons can be part of a meaningful dialogue, it is praiseworthy to affirm brotherhood over separation.’
There, now I have some minor stake in this as well. My only actual critique is that we need to affirm that things aren’t so simple: Protestantism isn’t united enough to comprehensively engage in dialogue, but perhaps there are some illusions of unity in Catholicism that are being overlooked. Similarly, not all on either side would be able to agree on what precisely to hold in the closed hand although we’re all pretty sure that Christ prayed that we (the church) may be “one as he and the Father are one.”
Great post Mark. Thought I’d say hi. I wanted to add that I have heard, never met any yet, that there are a lot of Pentecostal Catholics. A lady that attends here was saved at a Pentecostal meeting by a Catholic priest who prayed in tongues and prayed for others to recieve as well. Not that this info has anything to do with your post but to simply state the fact that in every denomination there seems to be a hidden Pentecostal perspective. Whether they will admit to it or not. Be blessed.