Should We Go Home to Rome or the Orthodox Church? A Response to Father Gregory Ned Blevins, Part II
Posted by deangonzales on August 15, 2008
8 Comments
Father Gregory Ned Blevins and I have been engaged in a friendly exchange. Father Gregory, a priest in an Independent Orthodox-Catholic Church, thinks that converting from Protestant/Evangelical communions to Roman Catholic/Orthodox communions is a good thing. I, being a former Roman Catholic and now an evangelical Protestant, think such conversions are bad. Our initial exchanges took place on Todd Wood’s blog, Heart Issues for LDS, under a post entitled, “Did God create the U.S. to bring about the LDS gospel?” I decided to shift the debate to my blog (RBS Tabletalk) since the subject matter only remotely relates to the subject of Todd’s blog on Mormonism. The reader should peruse the post below (i.e., Part I), then read the following exchange. His response to my first post does not appear in the form of carefully structured argument, so I wasn’t sure how I should structure my own rebuttal. I finally decided to cite some of the relevant paragraphs in his post and follow with my replies.
Dear Father Gregory,
I want to begin by expressing my appreciation for the irenic spirit you’ve demonstrated thus far in our interchange. I hope you sense the same disposition in my replies to you. In response to our initial exchange posted below, you begin by recounting your personal experience:
Growing up in NE Montana as an Evangelical Christian (Christian and Missionary Alliance, Church of the Nazarene, and Assemblies of God, with a bit of exposure to Baptist fundamentalism a’la Bob Jones and John R. Rice – long story), where such Christians are in a distinct minority (or at least were: thanks to charismatic renewal and other factors, that is the less the case now), I always assumed that there was no such thing as a nominal Evangelical/Baptist/Fundamentalist. Boy, was I shocked when I came South! As you know, the region is crawling with cultural Baptists and other nominal “Evangelicals”. Apparently there has been a widespread failure to “produce people who are passionate for God and for holiness.”
I agree that nominalism may be present in any denomination or local congregation—even among churches that may otherwise preach true doctrine and call for heart religion (note that Christ and the apostles had to address this problem). This only reinforces what I said earlier, namely, “determining the veracity of one’s position on the basis of a religious “experience” is subject to varying interpretations.” So your observation of “nominalism” among professing evangelicals will probably not convince me of the falsehood of evangelical faith anymore than my observations of nominalism among Catholics and Orthodox adherents will convince you of the falsehood of those religions. I think you basically concur. In fact, you write,
I agree that conversions are not, in and of themselves, sufficient to establish truth claims; that was not my point. However, contrast most Roman Catholics who become Evangelical with Evangelicals who become RC or Orthodox: in the former case, the RC’s who convert were largely nominal (the same has been noted with RC’s who become LDS). In the latter case, however, the opposite is often true, and it is certainly true of the people I mentioned; they were serious, committed, devout, thoughtful, well-educated in their faith. Further, none of these people arrived at their present positions without a long struggle with their previous understanding of Scripture, largely coming out of the Reformation. This was especially true of Fr. Gillquist and company and the others who had not been Anglicans. As I said, this is not proof of any truth claims, but it does point in a certain direction.
Your argument seems to run as follows:
Major premise: RC or Orthodox adherents that convert to evangelical communions were, in most cases, merely nominal in their commitment.
Minor premise: Evangelicals who convert to RC or Orthodox communions were devout, well-educated, and thoughtful.
Conclusion: Conversions from RC or Orthodox communions to evangelical communions are less likely to reflect carefully thought out decisions and may reveal that they really didn’t understand the religion from which they converted. On the other hand, conversions from evangelical communions to RC or Orthodoxy are more likely the result of carefully thought out decisions made by truly devout (as opposed to nominal) persons. Therefore, conversions from evangelical communions to RC or Orthodox communions are more likely to be genuine conversions, whereas conversions from RC or Orthodox communions to evangelical communions probably reflect a degree of naiveté, a lack of religious commitment to God, and therefore, are suspect.
I might counter with the following observations: first, converting from a condition of nominalism to a state of devotion may be a good indication of a true conversion (Isaiah 29:13; Jeremiah 4:4; Matthew 5:20; 7:21-27; John 3:3-5; 2 Timothy 3:5). Hence, the fact that the converts to Protestant/Evangelical communions were previously nominal adherents to their RC/Orthodox communions does not discount the genuineness of their conversion but may instead support it. Second, even if one grants that converts from evangelical communions to RC or Orthodox communions were better educated than their counterparts, it does not follow that their “conversions” are more likely to be genuine or more virtuous. According to Scripture, the true gospel often does not appeal to the well educated. Hence, God does not call many wise, but he calls the foolish and the babes (Matthew 11:26; 18:3; Luke 10:21; 1 Corinthians 1:26-27). Third, the very premise that converts from evangelicalism to RC/Orthodox communions are usually more educated, thoughtful, and devout is questionable. Many well-educated and seemingly devout priests and nuns have converted to evangelicalism. Indeed, polemical literature against the RC and Orthodox communions often comes from former priests. I’d be glad to provide you with some names if you’d like. In conclusion, I fail to see how your observations (which themselves are questionable) “point in a certain direction.”
You go on to write,
Having said that, I think it is important to acknowledge that I completely agree with Fr. Peter Gillquist’s statement: “All of Orthodoxy is found in the Bible, but much of it in passages we didn’t underline when we were Evangelicals.”
Okay, I will acknowledge that you affirm Father Gillquist’s statement. But this, I’m sure you agree, doesn’t count as an argument—its just his and your opinion. I might say something similar in reverse: “All of the evangelical faith is found in the Bible, but much of it in passages that we didn’t underline [or hear proclaimed from our priests] when we were Roman Catholic or Orthodox adherents.” Once again, we need to avoid using experiences or statements of opinion in assessing the veracity of our truth claims. God’s word must be the ultimate arbiter.
You do begin to address one of my doctrinal positions when you object to my view of the self-authentication and ultimate authority of Scripture. In your mind,
There is a problem here. At every Mass, every Divine Liturgy, every Qurbana, there are at least two readings of Scripture, including one from the Gospels, yet you say that you (or those about whom you speak) never heard the Scriptures “faithfully TAUGHT” and the “gospel clearly proclaimed” outside of Protestant Evangelicalism. (Of course, as an aside, this begs the question as to whether the gospel of the NT is the same as the gospel of Evangelical Protestantism: is the gospel first and foremost about acquittal or about regeneration?) So even in your current context, the Bible does not simply speak for itself: “some teaching required”. Of course, Scripture itself affirms this. As the Ethiopian eunuch said, “How can I [understand what I am reading] unless some one guides me?” since “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation”.
Yes, this does “beg the question.” And it is precisely this question we need to reckon with. According to Scripture (and my confession) the gospel is multifaceted and may be viewed more narrowly (i.e., in terms of justification or acquittal) or more broadly (election, regeneration, conversion, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification). I’m willing to discuss and debate any one of these topics as presented in my confession of faith and, more importantly, as presented in Scripture. Moreover, you do not appear to understand the meaning of “self-authentication.” This nomenclature, when applied to Holy Scripture, refers to an inherent quality and capacity of divine revelation to validate itself to the conscience of beings created in his image. God has so constituted human beings, as the imago Dei, that when He speaks, whether through general revelation or special revelation, we recognize His voice. Hence, God can hold men accountable for their failure to respond appropriately to general revelation (Romans 1:18ff.) and special revelation (Matthew 10:5-15; 11:20-24; Luke 16:19-21). In other words, the authenticity of divine revelation is self-validating, and, therefore, the authority of Scripture is intrinsic to its very nature as divine revelation. This has nothing to do with the question of whether the church has the right and responsibility to explain and apply the Scriptures. We, along with RC and Orthodox communions, acknowledge that Christ has given gifts to the church who are to function in the capacity of pastor-teachers (Eph. 4:11). But the authority of their teaching is derivative from Scripture and only extends as far as it stands in accordance with the prophetic and apostolic word (Ephesians 2:20; 2 Peter 3:2).
Then you appear to offer an indirect argument against my Protestant/Evangelical faith:
But there is another problem: why THIS teaching (in your case, that of Reformed Baptists) over that of, say, Pentecostals or Holiness people, or even that of confessional Presbyterians, or confessional Lutherans, or confessional Anglicans, or of the myriads of others who claim to derive their faith solely from the words of Scripture? Before the Reformation, divisions in the Church were largely based upon one or two disputed points and largely happened along political and geographical fracture lines; this is not the case afterward; all these different groups, on the basis of “sola Scriptura”, took their Bibles in hand and went off in a different direction, in many cases anathematizing all the others.
On the surface, this appears to be a question, viz, why should I view the doctrinal standards of my Reformed Baptist communion as superior or more faithful to Scripture than other Protestant and evangelical traditions? I suspect, however, that this is actually a rhetorical question used as an argument—ad hominem at that! That is, the fact that there are so many factions within the Protestant/Evangelical faith disqualifies it as the true expression of the apostolic faith set forth in Scripture. My responses are as follows: first, even if I believed that the Reformed Baptist branch of the Protestant/Evangelical tradition alone (as opposed to all others) preserved the true teaching of Scripture, that fact would not itself be an argument against my position. You would need to show what parts of my tradition are inconsistent with Scripture.
Second, in reality, I don’t believe that my denomination or communion holds a corner on the truth. I enjoy communion with Protestant and Evangelical churches outside my own Reformed Baptist tradition. Moreover, I seek to learn from them as eagerly as I might desire them to learn from me. Only when such communions adhere to and promote error of such a nature that it undermines the heart of the gospel do I separate myself from such teachers or congregations in keeping with the apostolic injunctions to separate from false teachers and reject false teaching (Romans 16:17-18; 2 Corinthians 6:14-17; 1 Timothy 6:3-5; Titus 3:10).
Third, it seems to me that you intend the statement, “all these different groups [i.e., Protestant/Evangelical], on the basis of ‘sola Scriptura,’ took their Bibles in hand and went off in a different direction, in many cases anathematizing all the others,” as an example of something bad and negative. Or course, we both know that the RC and Orthodox communions have issued plenty of their own anathemas. According to Scripture, curses and imprecations are not intrinsically wrong (Matthew 23; Galatians 1:8-9; 1 Corinthians 16:22). They are wrong, however, when directed towards those who do not merit such. Have Protestant churches ever been guilty of pronouncing anathemas upon individuals or communions when such anathemas were unwarranted? Neither my ecclesiology nor my understanding of Scripture constrains me to answer negatively. There are no pure Christians or churches this side of glory. Would you be willing to admit that? Would you concede that Roman pontiffs or bishops have ever been guilty of wrongly separating from and falsely anathematizing individuals or communions without biblical warrant? (See Benzion Netanyahu’s The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain [New York: Random House, 1995]) What about Orthodox priests? If so, then this entire ad hominem argument becomes invalid. As I’ve tried to say already, we won’t get very far in our discussion if we simply resort to using such argumentation to validate our truth claims.
Fourth, the same kind of theological diversity and fragmentation can be found in the very denominations or communions that you claim to be authentic. My Roman Catholic priest, for example, denied the inspiration of Holy Scripture. He believed that the Bible consisted of human writings that are fallible (a position analogous to that of liberal Protestantism). I’m certain that there are many Roman Catholic priests who would disagree with him and who still hold to the inspiration of Scripture. But that fact just serves to prove my point. There is not complete homogeneity in the Roman Catholic Church. I also found it interesting to read an article about the denomination of which you are part. Apparently, the Antiochian Catholic Church in America is considered to be a faction by other Catholic and Orthodox leaders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochian_Catholic_Church_in_America). Once again, we won’t get very far in the debate using ad hominem arguments.
I was glad when you went on to concede, “I am willing to discuss our differences on the basis of the text of Scripture by itself.” But what you give with the right hand you appear to take back with the left hand when you continue,
I reject “sola Scriptura”, the first and foremost reason being that Scripture’s own words point beyond themselves to a) the Church, which, according to the Bible, is the “pillar and ground of the truth” and “the fullness of [Christ] who fills all-in-all” and b) within the Church, to the authority of the Apostles (“whatever you bind and loose,” “whoever hears you, hears me”, authority which is seen in action in Acts 15) and, by extension, to their successors as well as to “the traditions which you were taught by [Paul, his companions, andor the other apostles], either by word of mouth or by letter”. Therefore, one cannot, as you do, draw an absolute line between the contents of Scripture and the traditionsoral teachings out of which they emerged, not only in terms of the earliest Church, but also, with regard to those who followed the Apostles (or who, in some cases, such as Clement of Rome and the author of the Didache, wrote prior to the death of the last Apostle). Therefore, while, as you point out, the Book of Revelation indicates the possibility that a local Church might become apostate (but not become a “synagogue of Satan”: the text does not connect these two concepts, even if the RB confession you pointed me to does), Christ’s words in Scripture rule out the possibility that the Church, visible and historical, will ever completely disappear from the face of the earth. Therefore, while Rome may have become apostate (I don’t think it has, but there are Orthodox who do), there must be a visible, historical Church on earth today which is organizationally continuous with the Church of the Apostles and, in fact, is itself the Church of the Apostles. (Part of the problem here is the redefinition of terms: the concept of an invisible “ekklesia” or “assembly” is an oxymoron. This is true a priori and is abundantly verified by the early fathers of the Church.) A group of Baptists realized this, and tried to trace the historical continuity of their church back through a succession of heretical and schismatic communities allegedly going back to the Apostles. Unfortunately for them, history does not support their assertions. There is no connection, historical or theological, between, for example, the Donatists of Augustine’s time and the Albigensians of a later period, and besides, none of these groups bear any real resemblance to post-Reformation Baptists. But I digress, and I’m sure you don’t buy into that anyway, Bob. My point is that even certain Baptists have come to realize that the “Church” in the NT is a visible, historical entity.
You’ve said a lot in this paragraph. I’ll try to address the main points. First, I agree that the Bible derives its authority from Christ, the great and final Prophet par excellence. I, as you might expect, do not agree with your interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:15. The church has been commissioned with the stewardship of faithful proclaiming and defending the truth of the gospel once delivered to the saints. In that sense, it is the “pillar and support of the truth.” But the veracity and authority of Scripture does not originate or ultimately depend upon the church’s imprimatur. As the passages I’ve already cited indicate divine revelation is self-authenticating. Therefore, the church’s role in identifying the parameters of the canon does not confer the Scripture’s divine authority but only acknowledges it. In fact, the teaching magistrate of the church has been known to err and thereby invalidate the authority of Scripture (Matthew 15:3-6; Mark 7:8-13; 1 Peter 1:18).
Second, I have not drawn a line between oral and written apostolic tradition. Paul’s oral teaching was just as authoritative as his written epistles (2 Thessalonians 2:15). And according to Peter, the apostolic teaching ranks in authority with the OT prophets (2 Peter 3:2). I do, however, draw a line between the inspired writers of Scripture and the non-inspired bishops who followed the Apostles. And I think my position is reflected in the writings of an Early Church Father (ECF) whom I greatly esteem. Augustine of Hippo affirmed of the infallibility and supreme authority of Scripture as well as his limited and fallible understanding and that of other ECF commentators:
Freely do I admit to you, my friend, that I have learned to ascribe to those Books which are of Canonical rank, and only to them, such reverence and honor, that I firmly believe that no single error due to the author is found in any one of them. And when I am confronted in these Books with anything that seems to be at variance with truth, I do not hesitate to put it down either to the use of an incorrect text, or to THE FAILURE OF A COMMENTATOR RIGHTLY TO EXPLAIN THE WORDS, or to MY OWN MISTAKEN UNDERSTANDING of the passage [emphasis added]” (Letters 82.1.3).
Accordingly, I do think we may and should draw a line between Paul and the ECFs. This does not mean that I disregard their teaching. Indeed, I believe I am affirming the same modesty they themselves would express in contrasting their teaching with that of Jesus and the apostles.
Third, I do affirm, “Christ’s words in Scripture rule out the possibility that the Church, visible and historical, will ever completely disappear from the face of the earth.” I would cite passage like Matthew 16:18 and 28:18-20. You go on to state, “Therefore, while Rome may have become apostate (I don’t think it has, but there are Orthodox who do), there must be a visible, historical Church on earth today which is organizationally continuous with the Church of the Apostles and, in fact, is itself the Church of the Apostles.” I find it interesting that you concede the possibility that the Church of Rome may have become apostate. Allowing for this possibility is precisely what I’ve argued for. That allows us to concede that a remnant of true believers and churches may have broken off from Rome to form that which is “organizationally continuous with the Church of the Apostles and, in fact, is itself the Church of the Apostles.” In my opinion, that organization/organism is evangelical Protestantism. Note, I did not say, Reformed Baptist. My ecclesiology does not demand a pure church, only a true church (Revelation 2 & 3). This addresses your following question:
So where is this Church, continuous with that of the Apostles? There are four communions (each with some off-shoots which have maintained the essential characteristics of their various traditions) which can indubitably trace their existence back to the time of the Apostles. They are the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox Communion, the Byzantine Orthodox Communion, and the Roman Catholic Church. In light of the Bible, one of these, or all of them together, must constitute the NT Church.
I am not certain why you exclude the churches of the Protestant Reformation from this equation. After all, they can trace their organizational continuity through the western Church to the early church. But let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that Protestant/Evangelical churches are precluded from the historical/organizational tree of ecclesiastical history. According to NT precedent, God may cut off natural branches (those with historical, organizational, and even ethic continuity) from the tree of His redemptive community and graft in wild branches (those without historical, organizational, and ethic continuity) (compare Romans 11:16-24). The bottom line is this: “To all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the [legal] right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). And where such disciples gather to continue “steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42), there you have a true church.
So here is one place, Bob, in this matter of ecclesiology, that you have abandoned Scripture by either ignoring, explaining away, redefining terms, or some combination of all these. And it is here that our fundamental disagreement exists. In the rest of it, concerning, for example, the role and nature of the sacraments, the extent of the canon of the OT (How DID y’all come to truncate the canon? It certainly wasn’t on the basis of anything the Bible itself says about the canon, since the Bible does not define itself, does not delineate its limits in any way), the possibility of the loss of salvation he notion that regeneration necessarily entails final salvation, etc., the same dynamic is in play. Consider the following, for example:
“Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”
“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life within you.”
“Whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven; whatsoever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.”
“Receive the Holy Spirit. If you remit the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
“Baptism now saves you…”
Once again, you’ve said a lot, and I’ll have to try to isolate the main points of your argument. First of all, you think my ecclesiology is unscriptural because there must be, in your mind, an unbroken organizational continuity between the modern church and the apostolic church. I do believe that there always have been true congregations of Christ upon the earth. Considered collectively, these local congregations may be termed the one true apostolic church. But I’ve also attempted to demonstrate from Scripture that mere historical-organizational continuity does not guarantee the preservation of God’s true church (Matthew 3:9-10; John 1:12-13; Romans 11:21). Hence, your argument is not persuasive. More persuasive is the argument that identifies a true church as an entity that’s organized in accordance with the directives of Christ and his apostles in the NT and that preaches the same gospel preached by Christ and his apostles. In the context of such ecclesiastical organizations I am ready to entrust the welfare of my soul and those of my family.
Secondly, you allude to the Protestant/Evangelical’s truncation of the OT canon. Actually, you’ll need to include Jewish tradition as embodied in the Tanakh, which also excludes the apocryphal literature. I’m inclined to reject apocryphal books for the following reasons: First, the Jews have not recognized the Apocryphal books as part of the Old Covenant canon. It is well known that the Jewish historian Josephus limits the OT canonical writings to those composed during or before the reign of Artaxerxes. This would exclude the Apocryphal books. Josephus’ testimony is confirmed by later Jewish rabbis, including Philo of Alexandria. Even the late second century B.C. apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees acknowledges the prior disappearance of prophecy among the Jews. For example, in 9:27 of that book, we read, “A terrible oppression began in Israel; there had been nothing like it since the disappearance of prophecy among them” (Jerusalem Bible). The implication of that statement is that the writer of Maccabees does not consider his own work to be prophetic. Second, it’s very significant that neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever faulted the Jews for “subtracting” books from the canon. Jesus did not like the way the Jews handled the Scriptures. He condemned them for not knowing the Scriptures (Matthew 22:29), for invalidating the Scripture with their own tradition (Matthew 15:3-6; Mark 7:6-13), and for refusing to submit to the Scripture (John 5:45-47; 8:40ff). However, Jesus never condemned the Jewish assessment of the OT canon. He never accused them of subtracting from the Scripture by failing to include the Apocrypha. Furthermore, we find Jesus and the disciples constantly citing and alluding to nearly every book of the traditional OT canon. But there is no evidence that Jesus or the Apostles ever regarded any of the apocryphal books as canonical (though Peter and Jude appear to allude to pseudepigraphal literature). Thus the lack of Jesus criticizing the Jewish canon together with the absence of His endorsement of the apocryphal books weighs against the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the canon. Third, while the Christian church as a whole has agreed upon the Jewish OT canon and the Greek NT canon, it has not unequivocally recognized the canonicity of the Apocrypha. It is true that some of the early church fathers quoted the Apocrypha in a manner similar to their quoting of Scripture. But it is not until Augustine that we find a clear statement in favor of its canonicity. Yet even Augustine’s high view of the Apocrypha is later contradicted when he accords it a kind of secondary-canonical status. The Western Catholic Church and eventually the Eastern Orthodox Church followed Augustine in according the Apocrypha a kind of “deutero-canonical” status. However, the 16th century Protestant Reformers rejected this distinction between a secondary and primary canon, and as a result, they refused to accord the Apocryphal books canonical status. Thus the testimony of the church as a whole is unanimous in favor of the Jewish canon but divided over the Apocrypha books. To use the words of one Protestant writer, “The history of the Apocrypha is the history of doubts, division and rejection.” For this reason, we do better to follow the example of the Jews, the Apostles, and Jesus Himself.
Finally, you cite several passages of Scripture that are apparently key texts for your doctrinal tradition and that are presumably ignored, sidestepped, or twisted by those in my doctrinal tradition. I don’t have time to deal extensively with all the passages. Since I think you intend them all to make one basic point, viz, Protestant/Evangelicals don’t take Scripture literally (or if we do, we’re selective), I’ll just focus on one text in my response. How about Peter’s assertion, “Baptism now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21)? What does a Protestant/Evangelical who rejects the notion of baptismal regeneration do with a text like that? Seems like you’ve trapped us on the horns of a dilemma.
Maybe not. To begin with, I think you and I are educated enough to know that the reader of Scripture cannot simply apply the interpretive canon of “literal” or “prima facie” meaning to every text of Scripture. Meaning is always determined by context—immediate and canonical. For example, when Paul asserts that women “will be saved through childbearing” (1 Timothy 2:16), I hope you don’t conclude that the bearing of children is an absolute precondition for regeneration or the necessary instrument of justification. A superficial reading of the text might lead to such a conclusion. But I suspect that both you and I would give that text a more nuanced interpretation.
I approach 1 Peter 3:21 in the same way—interpreting it in such a way so as to arrive at a conclusion harmonious with the rest of Scripture. First, there are examples of individuals who were converted and assured of eternal life apart from baptism. The believing thief on the cross was promised Paradise (Luke 23:43) though he had no opportunity to receive the sacrament of baptism. (I hope you don’t adopt the silly notion that he was baptized with the water that spurted from Jesus’ side.) The publican confessed his sin, looked to God for mercy, and went home justified without the sacrament of baptism (Luke 18:9-14). Second, there are far more passages that connect a heart response of faith and repentance to conversion (and its attendant blessings) than those that include baptism (Matthew 9:23-24; Mark 1:15; Luke 8:12; John 1:12; 3:16; 6:29; 20:31; Acts 13:38-39; 20:21; pet Romans 1:17; 3:22; 4:11, 24; 10:9-10, 13; Galatians 3:22; 1 Timothy 1:16; 4:10; Hebrews 11:6; 1 Peter 2:7; 1 John 3:23; 5:13). The overall impression from the teaching of Jesus and the apostles is that turning from sin (repentance) and turning to God (faith) are the essential marks of a regenerate heart. Baptism, on the other hand, like circumcision, is a sign or sacrament whose efficacy is not intrinsic but dependent upon the reality of faith in the recipient. As the very passage you cite indicates, the efficacy of baptism is not intrinsic to the physical properties of the water itself. Nor is its efficacy linked to the agent who administers it (i.e., the bishop or ‘priest’). Instead, its efficacy is tied to “the pledge of a good conscience to God,” i.e., the recipient’s response of faith. So I agree with Edmond Hiebert when he writes,
The material waters of Christian baptism are not the outward instrument that produces an inner spiritual regeneration; baptism is an act of obedience that bears witness to the inner union by faith with Christ the Savior. Peter, like Paul, assumed that in true Christian baptism, the outward sign and inner reality are kept together; the rite without the inner reality is useless; just as the dollar sign on a check is valueless apart from the monetary reality in the bank (1 Peter [Chicago: Moody Press, 1992], 240).
Interestingly, Peter seems to draw a parallel between the waters of baptism and the waters of the flood. Technically, the waters of the flood served to judge human sin. But out of God’s death-curse arose the blessing of salvation (i.e., the preservation of Noah and family via the Ark). Similarly, like the waters of the flood, the waters of baptism point to the death and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12), that is, they symbolize the fact that salvific blessing (life) arises from judgment (death). So I interpret Peter’s statement as follows, “[The reality symbolized by] Baptism, which corresponds to [the flood waters], now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body [that would be to attach the saving efficacy to the symbol itself] but as the pledge to God of a good conscience [i.e., an outward indication of an inward heart disposition] through the resurrection of Jesus Christ [which, along with his atoning death is the ultimate ground of our hope].
Analogous to this understanding of baptism is the relationship of animal sacrifices to the grace of forgiveness. According to the author of Hebrews, these animal sacrifices were intrinsically inadequate to atone for sin (Hebrews 9:12ff.; 10:4). Nevertheless, a cursory reading of the OT passages referring to the animal sacrifices gives a prima facie impression that they were intrinsically efficacious (see Leviticus 4:1ff.). How can these seemingly contradictory strands of teaching be harmonized? The solution, I believe, is to distinguish between the sign or symbol and the reality to which it points. The animal sacrifices were but shadows that pointed to a greater reality. Likewise, water baptism is not the sine qua non of regeneration or the instrument of justification. It serves, rather, as a sign and pointer to a greater reality. The tendency to exalt the sign of baptism to the status to which it’s been accorded in the RC/Orthodox communions is analogous to the grave error made by the Jews who accorded the mere circumcision of the flesh a kind of saving efficacy that belonged rather to the circumcision of the heart (Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:16; Jeremiah 4:4; Romans 4:11; 1 Corinthians 7:19; Galatians 5:6; Philippians 3:1-3).
Finally, you write,
I could go on (and on), but the point is obvious: while claiming “sola Scriptura,” that Scripture is “self-authenticating”, etc., you simply cannot cope with these passages on their face; you must resort to redefinition or to explaining them away (and I’m pretty sure you would rather simply ignore them). So let me ask you: if Christ in John 6 wasn’t speaking of the Eucharist, why did He speak in terms that anyone impartial or objective and familiar with Christianity, then or now, would immediately understand in light of what he said and did at the Last Supper? Is he trying to fool us? I’m sure you don’t believe that, but in your haste to deny the Real Presence (because, like Calvin, you can’t cope with the worship of the consecrated bread and wine which logically follows? The mention of “idolatry” in this regard in the RB confession would seem to point in that direction.), you must resort to tactics that you would not use in interpreting other portions of Scripture, or indeed in handling any other document. Because of that, your whole approach, the whole approach of classical Protestantism in general, is self-contradictory; however, instead of admitting this, that Scripture is not entirely self-interpreting, was never meant to be, you interpret it, not in terms of the God-given Tradition in which it is rightly embedded, and from which it cannot be harmlessly separated, but through the lens of what really are “traditions of men” which are virtually always based upon turning one or two passages into the key for understanding the whole. Luther did it with “the just shall live by faith” and Calvin, with Ephesians 1:4-5. No, the key to Scripture is not a passage of Scripture. It is a person, the Lord Jesus Christ himself, and His mystical body and bride, the Church, historical, visible, and continuous, united to Him by the Holy Spirit. “You search the Scripture, because you think that in them you have eternal life: and it is they that bear witness to me.”
In response to your assertions above, I’ll concede, as I’ve done earlier, that I don’t always interpret every passage literally. If I did, I would have to admit that the Scriptures were self-contradictory. Like any other biblical theologian, I try to interpret any one verse of Scripture consist with the overall theology and teaching of the Bible (the analogy of faith). That doesn’t guarantee that every one of my interpretations is correct, any more than such an approach guarantees that every one of the interpretations of the ECF was correct. I don’t believe my tradition or your tradition is infallible. Like Augustine, I draw a line between my tradition and the teaching of the apostles.
You ask, “If Christ in John 6 wasn’t speaking of the Eucharist, why did He speak in terms that anyone impartial or objective and familiar with Christianity, then or now, would immediately understand in light of what he said and did at the Last Supper? Is he trying to fool us? I’m sure you don’t believe that, but in your haste to deny the Real Presence (because, like Calvin, you can’t cope with the worship of the consecrated bread and wine which logically follows?” First, I believe the original readers of John’s Gospel may have seen an allusion to the Lord’s Supper, but I do not see how the text constrains me to conclude that Jesus’ disciples (to whom he was speaking) would have drawn that conclusion. Jesus nowhere explicitly ties his statements to the Eucharist. Second, there are contextual clues in the passage that point in the direction of a metaphorical interpretation. For example, Jesus employs Hebrew parallelism in verse 35, equating “eating” and “drinking” with “coming” and “believing.” So I interpret the eating of Jesus’ flesh and drinking of his blood not in a literalistic fashion, but as a reference to faith in Christ. In the words of Donald Carson, “John 6 is not about the Lord’s Supper; rather, the Lord’s Supper is about what is described in John 6” (The Gospel According to John [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991], 280. By the way, Carson offers a helpful review and refutation of the sacramental interpretation of this passage [pp. 276-80]). Of course, every time we partake of the Lord’s Supper by faith we commemorate and proclaim Christ’s death (1 Cor. 11:23ff.). And since Jesus promises to manifest his special presence when two or three of his disciples are gathered together in his name (Matthew 18:20), I can affirm the “real presence” of Christ at the Table. Like the Reformers, however, I reject the notion that the bread or wine are magically or mystically transformed into the actually body and blood of the Savior. Moreover, I find no command in Scripture to worship the elements of the Lord’s Table. So I agree with my confession when it describes the veneration of the elements in the Mass as idolatrous. You can belittle my refusal to venerate the Eucharist as “failing to cope” with the plain teaching of Scripture. But I must stand before God someday in the Day of Judgment, and therefore, I will give no implicit faith to any human tradition regardless of its antiquity (that includes my own Reformed Baptist tradition). Like Luther, my conscience must be gripped and guided by Scripture and sound reasoning—not the dictates of Popes or dead bishops or ancient organizations.
Finally, I can agree, “The key to Scripture is not a passage of Scripture.” Actually, I’m not sure that any Protestant would make that claim. Most of us would assert that the key to any one text or passage of Scripture is the whole of Scripture (i.e., the analogy of Scripture). Furthermore, I can agree that, from another perspective, Christ himself is the key that unlocks the meaning of the Scriptures (Luke 24:44-47; John 5:39). You have not convinced me, however, that Christ’s “mystical body” is equivalent to “the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox Communion, the Byzantine Orthodox Communion, and the Roman Catholic Church.” Nor have you convinced me that these communions hold the interpretive key that unlocks the meaning of Scripture.
Cordially yours,
Bob Gonzales
