Evangelicals and Catholics Together?

I would like to propose my sentiment on the recent ecumenical movement (which by "recent" I mean the last 50 years) of the desire for an increased "dialogue" between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals. This "dialogue" much like the emerging "conversation" is used in preference to ecumenism. Is this movement warranted? Should evangelicals and catholics really "dialogue" together? With names like Bill Bright, J.I. Packer, and Richard Mouw signing this document, it is worth a look to see exactly what they see as positive in this movement. Here is a quotation from "Evangelicals & Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium".

We together, Evangelicals and Catholics, confess our sins against the unity that Christ intends for all his disciples. The one Christ and one mission includes many other Christians, notably the Eastern Orthodox and those Protestants not commonly identified as Evangelical. All Christians are encompassed in the prayer, "May they all be one." Our present statement attends to the specific problems and opportunities in the relationship between Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants. As we near the Third Millennium, there are approximately 1.7 billion Christians in the world. About a billion of these are Catholics and more than 300 million are Evangelical Protestants. The century now drawing to a close has been the greatest century of missionary expansion in Christian history. We pray and we believe that this expansion has prepared the way for yet greater missionary endeavor in the first century of the Third Millennium.

Are we really to be one? Are we really the same? The confession lists doctrinal differences such as the Eucharist, status of the church, and sacraments as a means of grace; but they put it aside because both sides affirm the Apostle's Creed. So, is the Apostle's Creed enough for us all to join hands over?

The position I will take is a hearty 'no.' I would like at the outset to recognize something. I do have one friend: Janiece Brown who I am convinced is a regenerate believer but still attends mass. But, and this is a big "but," she affirms almost all of the crucial evangelical doctrines such as sola scriptura, justification by faith, protestant canon, and denying the infallibility of the pope. So, I would like to point out a few of the doctrinal reasons why evangelicals and catholics cannot "join together," because they are completely different religions. I will highlight the Roman Catholic dogma and contrast that to evangelical theology to illustrate the incredible differences.

Justification by faith and works. This is a cornerstone to the debate between the two sides. This issue (with imputation) were the cornerstones to the Reformation. The Roman Catholics say you must have faith, but works are necessary through particularly the seven sacraments (Eucharist, holy orders, etc.) because they are the means in which grace is infused. To understand this, we must look at this right away.

The infusion of righteousness through the sacraments. Roman Catholics believe that the atonement served to provide the Catholic church with a quantity of righteousness for them to hand out to whoever they will. This was important for the Catholic church, because they wanted to establish that they are the only means for grace and relationship to Christ (i.e. you must go through the Catholic church). On the other hand, evangelicals believe that we are "imputed" with the righteousness of Christ. This means that we are given it once and for all during justification. In other words, after we are justified, there is no needs for works to complete justification (of course, works are "fruits" of our salvation, but they do not justify us in any way). A lack of understanding of this doctrine is one of the greatest tragedies in evangelical theology. Even Campus Crusade for Christ, to which Bill Bright started says the following in their statement of faith:

The salvation of man is wholly a work of God's free grace and is not the work, in whole or in part, of human works or goodness or religious ceremony. God imputes His righteousness to those who put their faith in Christ alone for their salvation, and thereby justified them in His sight.

How could one possibly believe that and sign a document for a group that is completely antithetical to every point in those two sentences to be together?

The re-sacrifice of Christ (Eucharist). This is by far one of the most repugnant of doctrines from the Catholic church. It is the believe that Christ is "re-sacrificed" each time that the Catholic church is to hand out the Eucharist (communion). So, the little cracker turns into the physical body of Christ and the wine turns into the physical blood of Christ while retaining it's outward properties. Evangelicalism believes that it is solely memorial. The Westminster Confession of Faith makes a strong stance against the Catholic Eucharist:

That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthrows the nature of the sacrament, and has been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yes, of gross idolatries.
The Westminster Confession of Faith: Of the Lord's Supper (VI)

Apostolic succession and the infallibility of the Pope. When Christ said "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church" (Mat 16:18) was He talking about Peter being the first Pope over His church? No. Christ is the head of the church (Eph 5:23). There was never any plan anywhere in the New Testament for there to be apostolic succession. Of course, the Catholic church reasons that the apostles were gifted of the Spirit, thereby able to write Scripture and be infallible, so if the "apostolic successor" which means the pope makes a proclamation it is infallible and on the same level of Scripture. Evangelicals proclaim that there is no apostolic succession. The apostles were gifted for a specific reason and a specific time never to be brought back.

The veneration of Mary. Mary is a highly regarded symbol in Catholicism to the point to where they want to keep Mary as a perpetual virgin. In fact, John Paul II wrote:

The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin."

This is interesting considering the abundance of Scriptures used to verify the fact that Mary was not a perpetual virgin. The texts even prove that Jesus had siblings (Mat 12:46-47, 13:54-56; Mark 3:31-32). While Catholics claim the Greek word can mean "cousin," it would be hard to look at this text in any other way besides "sibling."

Therefore His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing. "For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world." For not even His brothers were believing in Him.
John 7:3-5

Catholics also use the phrase "immaculate conception" but it doesn't refer to the virgin birth of Christ but the virgin birth of Mary. They do this to avoid the fact that Mary would have been born with original sin. Despite the fact that original sin is not passed through the mother but through the father (likening to Adam our federal representative).

Variance on other doctrines. I could go on and on about other doctrines. Big ones include the fact that Mary plays an intercessory role in our redemption, the Apocrypha, and Semi-Pelagianism (Synergistic soteriology) but I'll cease. The point I'm trying to make is that we are not the same. In fact, we are wholly different. In reality, the only "dialogue" we should have with Roman Catholics is sharing the Biblical Gospel with them.

Activity

13 total comments, leave your comment.
  1. Chris,

    Pulling out the big guns huh? I must say, though, that I agree. To me it is clear that the differences between the two churches are great enough that regular communion between the two would dampen the true biblical message and lead to confusion as to what doctrines are great enough that we say, "no, I will not waiver on this issue".

    None the less, there are Catholics who are sold out for Christ as there are evangelicals who are luke-warm pseudo Christians. As Pastor Paul puts it, "Catholics are saved in spite of what they are taught". Therefore, if we are going seek to fulfill the great commission then we must not bind ourselves so closely to others who will distrot and confuse the fulness of the gospel and biblical truth.

    P.S.: Janiece is my example of a Catholic who is sold out for Christ. Perry

  2. Well.. I guess my question is this: what does "communion" mean here .. or what does it mean to be "in dialogue with" one another or "unified" in some way? Let's get specific .. only then could I offer my opinion as to whether or not it is something we ought to do. As it stands now, I don't have a clear idea of exactly what connection we're talking about.

    Obviously, as you point out, there are crucial doctrinal differences between the two religions. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't dialogue with Catholics or eat dinner at one another's house or serve side by side in soup lines or join together in say, political matters, since we share a ton of the same values, etc. etc.

  3. Well, when I say "dialogue," it is meant in the context of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together statement. The whole point of it is to "come together" for the common ban of missions, but here in where the question lies. I'm so glad to see a higher recognition of the need for a re-thinking of our present mission's structure, but they (the signing group) want to let aside the differences for missions.

    The question is not a new one. Where do we draw the line in doctrinal distinctives? Can I call my fellow Arminian, Premillenial, or Dispensationalist a Christian? Sure, but that is because they hold to the basic tenants of the Christian faith to which I stated was more than the Apostle's Creed (such as Just. by faith).

    The doctrinal differences between the two are so profound that I cannot say (1) that we are the same faith, and (2) we not be ecumenical in how we intepret crucial doctrinal matters while spreading Christianity to the nations. While I, like Paul, rejoice whether the Gospel is shared "in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice" (Phi 1:18); but I cannot say that we proclaim the same true, saving Gospel. Is the good news of Christ that you can come to mass and receive the blood and body of Him only through the authority of the clergy, and if you stop you'll fall away?

    Justification = Gospel of Christ (cf. Romans)

  4. True that.

  5. thanks for your comment. call me today if i don't call you first.

  6. This topic has always troubled me. My initial reaction is to think "we are not saved by doctrine, but by the grace of God." To a certain extent, every Christian is bound to believe something false, unbiblical. I don't think it is possible to have "perfect" doctrine.

    Nonetheless, I do agree that if doctrine actually obscures the basic Gospel message (that all and any may be saved by grace through faith in Christ), we should contend with it.

    Yeah...it had been a while on my blog. Thanks for not giving up on me. :)

  7. Chris, thanks for the plug. I don't really know what to think of it all, but I'm glad you included the definition of the Immaculate Conception. Most Protestants don't know about that.

    As for the Eucharist, you know I'm still shaky on what I believe there. It's something that you can all pray about for me. :) I can see both ways and I'm not educated enough to give up something that's been instilled in me for so many years. As for the Westminster Confession of Faith, since when has Christianity been about "common sense and reason"? The Bible is loaded with occurences that defy common sense and reason! Am I misunderstanding what they are getting at there?

    And what about Semi-Pelagianism (Synergistic soteriology)? What is that?!

    Peace out for now!

  8. Janiece, my heart is extended to you as you continue to search. Christianity is about reason; it is very reasonable and rationale. In fact, not being a Christian is, I believe, irrational.

    Semi-Pelagianism/Synergism = Arminianism

  9. so...you are taking the stance that we should not converse with those who believe differently than we do? what should we emphasize the differences in our belief systems instead of the things we have in common?

    ....shouldn't we let God sort the differences out? and in the mean time, the prayer Jesus prayed in John 17 was for unity. i think we should pray without ceasing that God will unify His Church and build His Kingdom... and i think that it might very well surprise all of us (myself included) who ends up being a part of His Kingdom and who doesn't... i don't think its as easy to tell as a lot of us think. if God looks at the heart..well..then i am not sure we can say who is 'regenerate' and who is not just by talking doctrine with them., you know?

    God alone is the judge of the heart and while we are here on earth, i can think of a lot of better things we could all be doing with the precious vapor we have been given than deciding who doesn't believe 'correctly' enough to be allowed into the conversation.

    sorry if this seems harsh, i don't mean it to. i think you have a great mind and heart, chris.

    (ps...you commented on my blog that you like frou frou...are you digging her new project, imogen heap?)

  10. i don't care what your brother says. i like the new site look. so you can just tell him he'll have to deal with me. and that goes double with your texas dad! =)

  11. Kate, I am digging the Imogen Heap quite a bit. Did you read the full extent of my post? My point was not that we shouldn't converse with those who believe differently then we do. In fact, why would be bother with evangelizing if that were so? The point of it was that we cannot be ecumenical in how we approach critical Christian doctrines today. My point was that Catholics and Evangelicals differ so much that we cannot come under the same cloak of "Christianity." The biggest reason for this is the doctrine of justification.

    I was never deciding who should and should not be a part of a "conversation" by any means. The point was, again, how ecumenical are we to be in our faith?

    Of all the chapters to use for "unity" John 17 is probably the greatest against ecumenism. Jesus prays for unity but to His disciples. In fact, the chapter deals with election which is completely antithetical to an ecumenist thought.

    "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours; and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.
    John 17:9-10

    PS. Thanks Jen! And you know again that I'm a Texan?

  12. Kate McDonald
    Nov 17th 2005

    the question for me boils down to this: if Christian means follower of Christ/little Christ..than why can't some catholics fall under that 'title'? i think some of them do, whether or not we want to admit that. i also think some of those who consider themselves protestant christians, may very well be a protestant christian without truly being a litttle Christ... we can't draw the line on who's in and who's out based on anything other than a relationship with Christ...i am not even sure we should be tryig to figure out who's in and who's out... but i was going to do that, i would simply look at who's Following Him! that's who the Word denotes believers...

  13. Kate,

    As you will read, in my original post, I even go on at length with an example of a friend of mine who attends mass but I believe is regenerate. And yes, sure there are evangelical carnal Christians. There are more carnal than truly believing.

    Again, the issue is one of drawing the line of crucial doctrines to Christianity. Justification by faith alone, through Christ alone, by grace alone is the Gospel. So please, see that my line was concerning how ecumenical we can be in crucial doctrines. Just. by faith is what separates Christianity (it its pure sense) from all the other religions of the world.

Leave a Reply