Michael R. Burgos
"It is easily seen what sort of
Christians we were under the Papacy, namely, that we went from mere compulsion
and fear of human commandments, without inclination and love, and never
regarded the commandment of Christ." ~Martin Luther
I’m an evangelical. By
that I mean I identify with the movement heralded by men like Martin Luther,
John Calvin, and John Knox, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, George Whitefield,
Carl F. H. Henry, and Billy Graham. These men held the gospel of Jesus Christ
(i.e., the euangelion) to be paramount in the Christian life. Inherent
within evangelicalism are several commitments, namely, a belief in the primacy,
sufficiency, and inerrancy of Scripture, an identification with the theology of
the Protestant Reformation including an affirmation of the five solas
and the tenets of credal orthodoxy, and a recognition of the importance of the
local church. To these commitments, I eagerly subscribe as a minister of a
church within the Southern Baptist Convention.
One
question every evangelical must ask is “How are we to understand and relate to
the Roman Catholic communion?” An imagined survey of results might boil down to
this: “The Roman Catholic Church is an idiosyncratic and pagan expression of
apostate Christianity,” Indeed, I’ve heard some
iteration of that statement more times than I can count. For many years I too
adopted that rather bleak viewpoint. After all, as an evangelical, I believe
the Bible to be perspicuous about what Christians are to believe and, by
implication, what we are to reject. I recognize the warnings given by the
apostles of those who would seek to pervert the faith once delivered (e.g., 2
Pet. 2). I know about the Mass, Marian dogmas, purgatory, and about the
magisterium. However, over time I have found my understanding of the RCC
refined and shaped by a number of influences.
In
2009, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, a personal hero of mine and president of the
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, signed the Manhattan Declaration;
a statement made by both Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians in
favor of life, marriage, and religious liberty. This document spoke of the common
Christian duty to “proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in
its fullness.” Mohler’s contribution to the defense and proclamation of
orthodox Protestantism is unquestionable. His loyalty to the evangelical faith
is inscrutable. I wondered, how then could he sign this document? Don’t we have
a different gospel than the RCC or Orthodoxy? I wondered how a man with such
sterling evangelical credentials could make such a statement.
In
2015, my wife Marion, and I lead a group of teenage youth from my fellowship to
a Christian music festival in another state. The attendees were mainly
evangelicals but there was a significant Catholic presence. I had learned that
one of the headliners of the festival, Matt Maher, was a Roman Catholic. When
Maher took to the stage I began to leave. My wife pleaded with me to stay. At
the time, my refusal to participate was an expression of my loyalty to Christ and
his gospel of grace and I walked away. I wondered, “How could we worship with
Catholics?” From afar I listened to the voices of evangelicals and Catholics
signing praise to the Triune God. That day, I realized that we do, in a certain
sense, share a common faith—a catholic faith.
Sapere Aude: How Should Evangelical Protestants View Rome?
The
RCC affirms as de fide dogma a litany of grossly unbiblical
teachings. The papacy, ever-virginity of Mary, her immaculate conception and
bodily assumption, and the sacramental system including the Mass are merely a
few. Admittedly, the notion that we might “merit for ourselves and for others
the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and
charity, and for the attainment of eternal life” is so completely contrary
to the New Testament one wonders how anyone might come to that conclusion after
having read it. From a Protestant perspective, many of the teachings of the
Roman communion are severely out of step with that of sacred Scripture.
However, there is also a catalog of dogmas within the church that reflect a
sound understanding of the Word. Chief among these is the Church’s resolute
trinitarianism. The RCC affirms the great creeds and views the work of Christ
as the only hope for fallen humanity. The Church clings to his cross and
resurrection.
How
then should we view Rome? For many of my Protestant brethren, relegating the
Church to apostasy is the clear choice. However, there is a more evenhanded
route that recognizes the considerable theological good within the Church while
not overlooking the error.
One of
my very favorite works of literature is The Pilgrim’s Progress by John
Bunyan. Not only have I read it half a dozen times, but I’ve also seen all of
the various cinematic efforts to portray Bunyan’s epic allegory. Even after nearly three
hundred years, no one has been able to portray the Christian life in such
masterful fiction. Bunyan covered the gamut of Christian experience, even
detailing the pernicious threat of projecting an outward faith without true
devotion to Christ.
I
mention The Pilgrim’s Progress because there is a particular scene
wherein Christian, the main character, walks the treacherous path through the
Valley of the Shadow of Death. Seeing the various dangers by means of the light
given to him by God, Christian spotted the dwelling of two figures amidst the tortured
remains of many pilgrims. One figure lay dead, a giant named “Pagan” who
deceived the hearts of many. Undoubtedly, Pagan had been slain by the Lord of
lords long ago. Bunyan described another giant who had previously had much
power to destroy pilgrims—there he sat gritting his teeth and coveting the
lives of pilgrims. This giant, named “Pope,” had been incapacitated and could
no longer pose a significant threat to passersby.
This
vignette in Bunyan’s allegory divulges several aspects of his view of the RCC.
First, Bunyan viewed the papacy as the spiritual equivalent of a deadly monster.
Second, Bunyan viewed the leadership of the RCC as a threat to the spiritual
wellbeing of God’s people. Third, Bunyan believed that the teaching of the RCC
was a lethal distraction to those on the road to the celestial city. Fourth,
Bunyan made a tacit distinction between those pilgrims who had either been
threatened or killed by Pope, and thus Bunyan recognized a difference between
the papacy and those under its authority.
In
Bunyan’s account, I see a distinction made by the apostle Paul in the Epistle
to the Galatians. However, we’ll need to do a little work to see it. In that
letter, Paul wrote to those churches he had planted in the region of Galatia.
In his absence, this church entertained the teaching of a group of “agitators” who were shilling a
distorted gospel (1:6), even “another gospel.” To this threat, Paul
didn’t mince words: “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a
gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (v. 8). For Paul, there is only
one gospel and no one, not even an apostle, can alter it.
What
kind of alteration to the gospel did these “agitators” propose? Given Paul’s
response, one might imagine that they promoted a form of cross-less
Christianity, or perhaps they denied the virgin birth or the deity of Christ.
Instead, these false teachers sought to persuade the Galatians to circumcise
themselves in keeping with the Mosaic law code. Even then, only half of the
congregation would have to participate. Admittedly, Paul’s remark in 4:10
(i.e., “You observe days and months and seasons and years”) implies that the
Galatian Christians were also keeping certain Jewish feast days. However, we’re
not told that these feast days were also considered a legalistic requirement
for peace with God. It is noteworthy then, that even one alteration to the
gospel whereby sinners must complete a single work of obedience confounds the
gospel even rendering it “another gospel.”
Note
Paul’s phrase in v.8: “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach…” Paul
leveled the anathema upon anyone who preached or taught an unbiblical
gospel. He did not issue the anathema to the Galatians themselves, but
instead called them “brothers” in v. 11. For Paul, these were Christians who
were deceived by false teachers. It was those who set themselves up as teachers
of the church to whom he leveled the anathema.
This
distinction is the same one made by Bunyan in The Pilgrim’s Progress. Teachers
and church officers are held to a different standard than pilgrims (Jas. 3:1)
and thus whereas we might, as Protestants, be tempted to abominate the entire
RCC as apostate, we must instead, as Bunyan and Paul, discriminate between
those that teach false and partially false doctrine and those that are under
the authority of those teachers. Hence, we must recognize
that the RCC is a church, albeit a heterodox church comprised of many
Christians.
In necessariis unitas: Recognizing the Roman Catholic
Church as Catholic
Over
the course of years, I’ve come to embrace the doctrine of catholicity, or what
the Apostle’s Creed calls “the holy catholic church.” The shape of this
catholicity takes into account the classical distinctions implied by Hebrews
12:18-29. In that passage, the author of Hebrews compared the Mosaic Covenant
to the New Covenant in Christ while describing the church upon the earth as
“the church of the firstborn registered in heaven” (i.e., the church militant)
and the church in the presence of God as “the spirits of the righteous made
perfect” (i.e., the church triumphant). This church is comprised of every
believer who has ever lived and is the holy catholic church.
Intrinsic
to the concept of the “catholic (Grk. katholikos as in “universal” or
“general”) faith” is the notion that the church is diverse in geography,
ethnicity, tradition, and even theology. The church has historically
distinguished catholic orthodoxy in terms of primary or essential Christian
doctrine (hence the adage “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and
in all things charity”). That is, whereas Christians may differ on secondary or
tertiary theological matters, there is a boundary line that defines the
essential teachings of the faith. The question, then, is what are the
essentials?
By
God’s sovereign providence, the ancient church dealt with this question in
detail as they faced various heretical movements. Their findings are well
summarized in the last of the great ecumenical creeds, namely, the Athanasian
Creed. The Athanasian Creed, or what is sometimes called Quicunque Vult
(i.e., “Whosoever will” as in the first two words of the creed), combines the
teaching of the three most important and vital creeds of the Christian faith,
namely the Nicene, Chalcedonian, and Apostle’s creeds. For this reason, the
Athanasian Creed is a powerful teaching tool for Christian discipleship. It is also
a helpful means of distinguishing essential biblical teaching from the
pretenders. Martin Luther, the great magisterial reformer, called the
Athanasian Creed, “The most important and glorious composition since the days
of the apostles.” In the Gallic Confession, Calvin described the creed as “In
accordance with the Word of God.”
The
Athanasian Creed defines catholic orthodoxy as trinitarianism:
Whoever will be saved: above all, it is necessary that
he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone shall keep whole and
without violation: without doubt, he shall eternally perish. And the catholic
faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity.
As the Creed continues
it includes the incarnation of the Son of God, his authentic humanity, true
deity, and consubstantiality with the Father, and concludes with the broad
strokes of the gospel. Thus, if we were to define the catholic orthodoxy
according to the Athanasian Creed, we would recognize the essentials of the
faith as trinitarianism and trinitarian Christology, the life, death, burial,
resurrection, and second coming of Christ, body-soul dualism, and his return in
judgment according to works, resulting in either eternal life or eternal fire. Of
course, inherent in the Creed is the recognition that there is a catholic faith
and, therefore, the recognition of the catholic faith is included in this list
of essentials. Out of necessity, we might also add the recognition that the
Bible (i.e., the sixty-six books of the authentic canon) as the inspired Word
of God is assumed in this Creed.
As a summary statement of essential teachings, the
Athanasian Creed barely gives the gist and is by no means comprehensive. Ironically,
one area wherein the Athanasian Creed falls short is in its failure to reflect
how one is saved. As Mohler noted, “Central to the Christian message is the kerygma—the
most basic declaration of how sinners are saved by the atonement achieved by
Christ and applied to the believer through faith.” Surely, one cannot reject
the doctrines contained within the Creed and be a Christian. But one can
heartily affirm these doctrines and be a heretic. For example, one could affirm
the Athanasian Creed while simultaneously affirming that circumcision is a
requirement for salvation. If Paul’s letter to the Galatians tells us anything,
it is that faith in the work of Christ alone merits Christians peace with God,
the forgiveness of sins, and the righteousness of Christ. This too must be in
our list of essential doctrines of the Christian faith. And, it is this last
doctrine that serves as one of the primary means of division between
Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.
In light of the above, whereas the RCC has evidently
erred in its theology of salvation, it does recognize the necessity of grace.
Whereas the RCC has effectively mangled the atonement by means of its
sacramentalism, it does believe that the forgiveness of sins is found in Christ
and him alone. Add into the mix the reality of the theological diversity within
the RCC. Such diversity is writ large in the two living popes, Francis and
Benedict. Could they be any different? Moreover, there are Catholics who, like Gustavo
Gutiérrez, feel more comfortable with Marx than they do with Paul. There are
Catholics who, like Peter D. Williams, communicate their faith with biblical
and historical rigor and who are willing to be critical about the ungodly
ideologies within their church. Hence, evangelicals are faced with the
intractable task of recognizing that there is a way to communicate the Roman
Catholic faith that is plausibly Christian and thus catholic. Even so, we must
also recognize the distinction between those who teach falsely and those who
have a simple and sincere faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.