Catholic Apologist Carlos Antonio Palad Debunks Bereans' Claim of Protestant Unity

Pope Benedict XVI presides over the Synod of Bishops held in Vatican City. A concrete manifestation of Unity in Faith, Worship and Ecclesial Life under the leadership of the Successor of Peter. The Protestants cannot even gather as one because they are under the spell of perpetual strife and divisions. How can they be united in Christ if they are not united among themselves? As St. John asked 'how can you love God if you do no love your brother?' -- Fr. Abe, CRS

*****************************************************************************************

HERE IS THE PAPER WRITTEN BY BRO. CARLOS ANTONIO PALAD

[Catholic Apologist from Defensores Fidei Foundation]

In 2008, the Bereans published a paper entitled “Does Sola Scriptura cause division”, which, among other things, attempts to demonstrate that Protestants are in fact, more united than Catholics and cannot, therefore, be accused of disunity or division.

In this response, I will answer the last section of the paper, which attempts to prove that Protestants are, in fact, united. My response will show that the “unity” which the paper attempts to prove is a non-existent and amorphous “unity” that in fact works against the Protestant position. Rodimus’ words are in black, mine in red.

Evangelicals are united

It is but fair that we should have a defense of our unity. The Roman Catholics reasoned out that all these so-called denominations are under the authority of Rome and therefore these denominations should not be considered as divisions. On the other hand all Protestant Churches, and even Evangelical or Bible based churches as well, are united because of their relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. These churches may not be united in non-essential doctrines but they are nevertheless united in the essential doctrines in the Bible that led them to receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Down below in this paper I will deal with the assertion that “all Protestant Churches are united.” For now, I will deal with the question of whether the Born Again are united (of course, if the Born Again are not united, then that alone already proves that Protestants are not united).

Are all “Born Again” Christians indeed united in the essential doctrines that “led them to receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior”? If so, then why is there so much debate among “Born Again Christians” on the most essential and basic questions that relate to the very nature of salvation and even to the very meaning of “Born Again”? I am certain that you are aware of the intense theological debates within Born Again and Evangelical circles on the following topics:

a. Who is “Born Again” – a tricky question, often foundering on the complexities of traditional Protestant debates (Arminianism / Methodism versus Calvinism, Free Will versus Irresistible Grace, etc.)

b. The meaning of “Born Again”, with the following corollary questions (among many others):

i. How does one become “Born Again?” Some Born Again Christians still insist on full water baptism, while others think that a conversion experience suffices. Some Born Again Christians differ on how to properly discern a conversion experience, with some insisting on the manifestation of extraordinary charismata. Some Born Again Christians insist on the two basic sacraments and a strong tradition of corporate and liturgical worship, others minimalize even these.

ii. What are the marks of being Born Again? Some actually follow Methodist soteriology, others favor Calvinist views.. In the Southern Baptist Convention, things have come to the point that one can speak of “Calvinist” and “Anti-Calvinist” factions. Which is which? Related to this is the question of:

iii. The altar call -- is it necessary? Many Evangelicals and Born Again Christians say yes, some Calvinist-influence d Evangelicals and Born Again Christians say no. Indeed, some of the latter consider “conversion experiences” that were occasioned by altar calls to be highly suspect and untrustworthy.

iv. How do grace and free will cooperate? Some Methodist and Arminian-influenced Born Again Christians argue for man’s free will, while some who hold to Calvinist and paleo-Lutheran views deny free will and vouch for double predestination.

v. The debate between “Free Grace” and “Perseverance of the Saints”, the two conflicting forms of the doctrine of “eternal security.” Some Born Again Christians favor the former, others the latter. Which is which?

vi. Is atonement limited or not? Did Christ atone for all, or only for the elect?

vii. Can Catholics be “Born Again” and still remain Catholic? I know that some of the more irenic Born Again Christians enumerated the late John Paul II and Mother Teresa as being “born-again” because of their devotion and love, while other Born Again Christians denied that they could ever be considered as such.

I have not even touched on questions such as the nature of the Trinity and of the Person of Christ, the Rapture, the Dispensationalist view of history (and its many different variants), the bewildering variety of Milleniarist theories, the debate on the relationship of Born Again Christians to Fundementalism and Evangelicalism (and the various types of each of these two groups) all of which have Born Again Christians manning the various sides of the debate.

The fact is that there is no such thing as a basic unity among Born Again Christians, when even Born Again Christians debate what “Born Again” means and even when it comes to the most crucial doctrines that touch upon the very nature of our salvation, not to speak of the very identity of the Christ. In fact, there are Born Again Christians who deny that other Born Again Christians are really Born Again! What kind of unity is this?

They may not be united organizationally, but they are united in spirit being Born Again Christians.

Roman Catholics dismiss the religions who are not under Rome's authority as heretics. But even if a Protestant denomination do not submit themselves to the authority of another Protestant denomination, they accept each other as brethren having the same relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Our focal point of unity is the Lord Jesus Christ.

But how do you know that Christ is still your focal point of unity? How can you say that this or that group is, indeed, “Christ-centered” ? How do you even know that you Born Again Christians – fragmented as you are into theologically opposed factions – are still united in spirit? This, for us, is precisely the problem at the heart of Protestantism, including Born-Again Christianity. You claim that you are Christ-centered – as do all Christians, Catholics and Orthodox included. But for us Catholics, there is need for an OBJECTIVE STANDARD by which we can say that, yes, a certain Church is indeed Christ-centered. For this, an EXTERNAL MEASURE is needed, for we cannot trust in mere human subjectivity.

This is precisely what you cannot grasp. For us, it is not a question of “either Christ or the Pope” (itself a variant of the liberal Protestant position of “Christ, yes, Church, no”), but of “Christ AND the Pope”. We follow the Pope precisely because he is Vicar of CHRIST, and ONLY BECAUSE HE IS VICAR OF CHRIST. We follow the Pope precisely because he is the VISIBLE POINTER to Christ. We follow the Pope because ONLY by FOLLOWING THE POPE CAN WE BE CERTAIN THAT WE ARE FOLLOWING CHRIST! Rome is the center of our Church for Christ is the center of our lives, and Christ clearly left provisions for the Church to be headed by a chief pastor – the one who will receive the keys entrusted to Peter, the steward of the House of God and the Rock of the Church.

As for you? How do you know that you are following Christ? Because you say so? But you could be misled or deceived either by yourself or by others. Because your pastor says so? But there are thousands of pastors who disagree on who is Born Again and who is not. Above and beyond your little denomination, you have no other external measure by which you can say “I am Born Again, and not lost”.

Roman Catholics may say, “Well, all those who reject the infallible interpretation of the church are not counted as Catholics. But you Protestants have different biblical interpretations yet you still consider each other as Protestants. How could you say you have unity?”. In the last few paragraphs of second email above, the respondent replied with a question, “Can a Methodist say that Baptist are NOT Protestant? No...”. Believe it or not, the mere fact that a Methodist considers a Baptist as a Protestant is a sign of acceptance.

Unfortunately for you, not all Protestants accept each other as true Protestants. Many strict Low-Church Anglicans, and the more paleoconservative Calvinists and Lutherans, for example, deny that most Evangelicals and Pentecostalists, and even their fellow (but more liberal or more “High Church”) Anglicans, Calvinists and Lutherans are true Christians, much less “Protestants”. For that matter, some Protestants reject the very name “Protestant” and claim to be reformed Catholics (e.g. some Anglicans and Lutherans). For that matter, the fact that some Protestants do indeed accept each other as Protestants only implies that they recognize each other as belonging to the same broad classification of Christians who trace their immediate theological roots to the Reformation; it says nothing by way of being united in the same church, for most Protestants are not “in communion” with each other.

Doesn't unity require acceptance of people in spite of their differences? Paul wrote:

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. Romans 14:1-8 NIV

Even during Paul's time there are groups of Christians having different beliefs. These beliefs, however, are non-essential or has nothing to do with one's salvation like beliefs about food and holidays as mentioned in Paul's letter. How could these Christians have unity in their different beliefs? Paul commanded: Accept them, because all Christians belong to the Lord. Even the Lord Jesus Christ gave this teaching:

“Master,” said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us." "Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you." Luke 9:49-50 NIV

John and the other apostles tried to stopped a man from driving out demons because the man does not belong to their group. But the Lord Jesus Christ told them that the same man is their ally for doing the same thing the apostles are doing. Evangelicals and Protestants preach the same gospel of salvation. They are united in promoting the Lord Jesus Christ.

As I already pointed out in some of my initial comments, the divisions among Protestants are not only about “non-essentials” that have nothing to do with salvation. Indeed, if it is to be claimed that it is necessary to be Born Again to enter the Kingdom, then the mere fact that Born Again Christians often debate on who is Born Again and what it takes to be truly Born Again – is that not already disagreement on the most essential thing? It is futile to deny the obvious, the very real division among Protestants on even the most basic doctrines, including the ones that have to do with the means of salvation.

This now leads me to your strange assertion that “all Protestant Churches are united”, a theme to which you return in the above paragraphs.

I already pointed out that you Protestants (even the Born Again Christians) are not united on all essentials. The problem is that not even agreement on some doctrines is enough for ecclesial communion or unity. There has to be agreement on ALL essentials, ALL the doctrines as well as upon all the essential outlines for worship and hierarchy. To adopt a classical Protestant phrase, ecclesial communion or unity between churches is possible only on the basis of complete agreement upon the essential points of “Faith and Order”.

This is not a merely Catholic “invention”, as you like to label doctrines and practices that have been received by the Church from the apostles themselves, but is a principle that was accepted even by the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century. That is why Luther, Calvin and Cranmer – despite their agreements on many (if not most) “essential doctrines”, did not establish communion among themselves and the ecclesial communities that had formed around them, precisely because they continued to differ on some essential points (the nature of the Eucharist, for instance). Even today, many of the mainline Protestant Churches continue to hew to this understanding of ecclesial communion as being based upon agreement in matters of doctrine (see, for instance, the continuing difficulties on the road to Anglican-Lutheran- Methodist reunion, precisely due to disagreements on the nature and necessity of the episcopal office; see also the insistence of some Lutheran, Anglican and Reformed churches on the stringent conditions necessary for “altar and pulpit” -- and even table -- fellowship.) . The modern “confessional” movement in Protestantism (represented by the abovementioned conservative Lutherans, Anglicans and Reformed Christians) arose precisely to challenge the “non-denominationali sm” and doctrinal relativism increasingly common in some liberal Protestant groups and among Evangelicals, and to insist on the necessity of agreement on doctrinal matters even at the price of perpetuating current Protestant divisions.

Much less is mere acceptance of persons “despite differences” a basis for communion in the faith! Don’t forget that the writers of the Epistles – especially Paul, John and Jude-- were strict in condemning and excluding heretics.

The fact is that a lot of Protestants do NOT see themselves as forming one church. You claim that the Protestant world – despite its innumerable divisions – is in fact a united Church. However, is it not a strange unity, where those who you say are united are themselves the first to reject the existence of such a unity? It is a unity that the united ones are not even aware of! How strange! It is a meaningless unity on that score alone, and could not be the unity for which Our Lord prayed.

Those Protestants who DO see themselves as forming but one church, do so on the basis of an amorphous and highly ambiguous concept of the invisible Church that is frequently construed so as to include even sincere and devout Catholics and Orthodox. As you yourself put it in your Conclusions, “Evangelical and Protestant denominations practicing Sola Scriptura are more united. Not because of Sola Scriptura, but because of their belief in the gospel of salvation, their love for God, and their love to each other as children of God…”., Your very position, in short, is anchored upon this premise: that it is possible to speak of one “Church” despite this “Church” being divided along doctrinal and disciplinary lines and denominations, since by “Church” what we really mean is the union of sincere and believing Christian souls – those who “believe in the gospel of salvation, love God, and love each other as children of God”. This is nothing more than a variant of “invisible Church” thinking – which posits that the one Church is made up of all believing souls that love God, over and above denominational divisions.

And yet, if the Church is truly invisible, if the Church is truly made up of sincere and devout Christians who have a living relationship with Jesus – and only by these – then one cannot use visibly existing boundaries (e.g. the visible boundaries that distinguish the Protestants from Catholics and Orthodox) to establish the boundaries of such a Church, unless one wishes to judge that ALL Protestants are in fact sincere and devout, and all who are not Protestants are not sincere and devout. Surely, you are aware of the Lord’s utterance on not judging people?

In short, an invisible Church is by definition not visible. And yet, what your position implies is that the invisible Church (the theory upon which your position is based) is somehow “visible” e.g. the fellowship of Protestant Churches. A strange thing indeed: being visible and invisible at the same time! You may protest that you did not say this, but it is the inescapable implication of your thoughts.

The communion of local Catholic Churches – which together form the universal Catholic Church, organized into 23 sui juris Catholic Churches spread all over the world (with some 1.5% of Catholics visibly belonging to and divided among 22 “Eastern-Rite Catholic Churches” while 98.5 % of all Catholics de jure or de facto belong to the largest sui juris Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church or the “Latin Rite”) – has the Papacy, the Bishopric of Rome, as the focal point of its unity. It is not enough that a “sui juris” Catholic Church has the same faith as the other sui juris Catholic Churches; it should also be in communion with Rome. In the end it is this communion with Rome – not just the sharing in faith and liturgical rite – which establishes a Church as part of the Catholic communion. A Church cannot be part of the universal Church if it is not under the universal pastor, the Pope.

Precisely because of the size of the Roman Catholic Church, it is divided into thousands of dioceses and hundreds of archdioceses organized into hundreds of metropolitan provinces and dozens of bishops’ conferences. Each of the dioceses / archdioceses may, with propriety, be called a “church” (thus, the Archdiocese of Manila may be called the “Church of Manila”), and the dioceses in any given country may also be referred to collectively as a local Church (thus, the “Church of the Philippines”) . All these terms, however, are relative. These smaller local divisions are given the name “Church” precisely because of their membership in the ONE and UNITED Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church! They are not separate denominations, but are merely local manifestations of the ONE CHURCH.

In contrast, the united Protestant “Church” that, you claim, exists, has no fixed and visible focal point of unity, but merely a sharing in some doctrines and practices. If such a “Protestant” Church exists, its existence is untenable for the simple reason that even Protestant disagree on who is a Protestant (e.g. some Lutherans claim that they aren’t Protestants, but are “reformed” or “Augsburgian” Catholics) Indeed, the picture you paint is very strange: you say that they are spiritually united despite their outward division. But how can this be possible? Is not outward unity the true sign of spiritual unity? How can division be the mark of a united Church? And it is not even historically honest, for Protestants do in fact acknowledge that they are divided, albeit sharing some basic principles and sharing in their opposition to Rome. And many Protestants will neither recognize other Protestants as Christian, nor even condescend to pray with them. A fine form of unity indeed! In fact, you have only ONE FORM of “UNITY” – you are UNITED IN REJECTING ROME! A fine form of unity – a unity that is defined by disunity and which is defined as mere opposition! Did Christ die on the cross to establish a “Church” that is primarily defined by what it is NOT?

We're not done yet

We have to answer the main question: Does Sola Scriptura cause divisions? Evangelicals and Protestants interpret the Bible individually. Sometimes these interpretations are in conflict with one another. Is Sola Scriptura to blame?

The Roman Catholics claim unity because they have a final arbiter, the Church through her Magisterium, who “infallibly” interprets the Bible and settle any disputes. But has it occur to them that anyone can oppose to their interpretation if they wanted to? Even if a person interprets the Bible correctly, other people can oppose if they don't believe that person.

And how does this refute our teaching on the Magisterium? So what if people oppose the Magisterium? Even Christ encountered a lot of opposition. Was He therefore wrong or, at least, not infallible? Your argument proves nothing. It only proves that you don’t grasp the Catholic understanding of right and wrong.

In a transcript of a news interview reported in the World Today last April 20, 2005, there are conflicting viewpoints within the Roman Catholic Church on celibacy of priests and ordination of women2. Do we blame their Magisterium as the cause of this conflicting viewpoints? Some Roman Catholics may say “Well, they are still under the authority of the pope and so we remain as one church,” but this is hypocrisy.

And why is that hypocrisy? It was not the Magisterium that is to blame for their conflicting viewpoints, but the OPPOSITION of these Catholic dissidents to the Magisterium, for if they were to follow the Magisterium then, logically, they wouldn’t be opposed to it. Obvious ba? And no, manifest heretics and dissidents are not necessarily part of the Catholic Church, because obstinate heretics are excommunicated by their very act of disputing Church teaching (what we call “latae sententiae” excommunication) .

You know what’s funny? Most Catholic dissidents may object to this or that teaching, but they will NEVER deny the authority itself of the papacy, and not even of the Magisterium itself. They accept the necessity of an OBJECTIVE measure of Catholicity. So, their dissent is different from the situation where Protestants dispute on the most basic teachings. Protestants may differ on the most basic truths but no one can say that they are not “Protestant” anymore, simply on the basis of “Sola Scriptura”. However, even dissident Catholics admit that they are rebelling or dissenting from the papacy. In dissenting, they know that they do not stand with the official Church. They know that they are going against an objective standard. No one can do the same in Protestantism.

The cause of any division is not the system of rule of faith that a church adapts, but rather it all depends on each person who has the decision to accept or reject, agree or disagree to the interpretations of other people.

It is good that you admit that your faith position upholds the classic teaching of pluralism and relativism – that each person can decide for himself what the truth is. In that case, you should get out of the Church business, because by your own admission you have no real authority to teach that your position is true or correct: it is just what you say, it is just your opinion. If in the final analysis it is each person who must judge for himself, then we can no longer speak of one truth, and we can no longer speak of truth itself, for it is a fact that each person judges the truth differently. Truth is ONE and must be asserted above and beyond each person’s judgment: hence the Magisterium!

This is precisely why we reject Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura, by definition, leaves the acceptance of the truth to the decision of each individual. Look where it just led you. In contrast, the Magisterium preserves the OBJECTIVE MEANING of Scripture by taking it away from the judgement of the individual.

Disunity does not happen to religion alone. Take for instance the system of government practiced by countries, some use the Presidential system while others are Parliamentary. In the Philippines, Filipinos debate whether which one is the best system of government that will promote peace, progress, and unity. What some do not realize is any country with the Presidential or Parliamentary system of government still has activists, rebels, and other vigilant groups complaining the decisions made by government officials. They still have a politician opposing another politician. Why? It's not the system of government but it's the people themselves.

Likewise, Sola Scriptura cannot be blamed for any disunity. Evangelicals and Protestants can arrive at the correct interpretation of the Bible, but there is no unity if one group decides to reject the interpretation of the other group. Divisions are caused by imperfect people.

Precisely. People are imperfect, which is why they should not be entrusted with deciding the truth for themselves.

Conclusion

Evangelical and Protestant denominations practicing Sola Scriptura are more united. Not because of Sola Scriptura, but because of their belief in the gospel of salvation, their love for God, and their love to each other as children of God. Even if they are composed of a million denominations, they are still united because of their relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.