Recently, some friends of mine and I debated
the question, "Is the Roman Catholic Church a true church?"
Most answered or leaned in the direction of the negative, though the conversation was decidedly absent of any references to antichrist. Funny, that. . .
Anyway, with this in mind, I thought it might be fun to present you with the results of my own neuron duel (you see, I get by with two). I'll be interested to hear your thoughts as well, so feel free toeither enter those in the comments below or corner me in a dark alley.
Alright, so lemme just dive right in by saying that I believe the RCC is truly a part of the catholic Church—it is a branch legitimately connected to the Vine, to borrow an analogy I read some place—so in that way—in an organic covenantal way—it is a true church of Christ. As exhibit A, I present to you that the RCC is genuinely trinitarian, and as exhibit B, I present to you that it holds to the ancient Christian creeds. Basic orthodoxy, baby.
That said, I now wish to say what I am not saying. What I am not saying is that the veneration of departed saints or meritorious acts of super-irrigation or sacerdotalism or purgatory or whatnot are meh, because they really must be dealt with. What I am saying, however, is that, though the RCC is sick, it isn't dead. So while it's not the most seemly branch, it is still a branch; and though some may argue that it hasn't looked much like True Israel in some time, it is still, at the very least, Israel.
In other words, while the RCC is, as a corporate entity, dangerously close to becoming Billy the Apostate, the Session has yet to finish the proceedings on his excommunication. These things take time, you know. For, the Roman lampstand still remains in place—it's not hard to see that—and its body is composed of members actually baptized in the triune Name, not just a formulation of the Name. These people are actually given the Name of God—in other words, they are Christians. At the same time, the RCC is, on the whole, in a bad way. So while the church continues to post Dawkins quotes on Facebook, figuratively speaking, it is nevertheless still a part of the Body.
Now, I think we all would admit that on the living Vine there can be dead branches—branches that don't produce fruit. I am simply arguing here that the RCC is, as a corporate entity, one of the sickly branches—one struck with a bad case of the theological Apple Canker. But taking the analogy further, because I believe the world is what Lewis described rather than what Wells described, I believe it is possible for God to grow life-filled shoots from an infected branch; that it is indeed possible for God to make wheat out of tares, little boys out of dragons, and sheep out of goats (or pigs—take your pick), and that He can do it anywhere. And I believe this, not on the authority of Clive Staples Lewis, but because the Word tells me that the true God is a God of resurrection and all of His raw material is already dead. Notice that this means the shoots are alive in spite of not only their canker-ridden branch, but also in spite of themselves; the wheat is not wheat because the tare made it so, just as the wheat is not wheat because it made itself so. A dragon can't undragon itself, and a pig doesn't become a sheep just because we hose it off.
That said, like bad company, bad doctrine corrupts good morals, so then it seems best to me that the living shoots on the decaying branch should be removed and grafted into a healthier branch. If a shoot is to yield healthy fruit, then the viability of its source of nutrients matters greatly—particularly in the long run. Since dead branches are eventually snipped of and cast into the fire (and it seems that sickly branches are in the awful habit of dying), to remain in a branch experiencing such radical decline is, well, folly.
As for all you healthier-branchers out there, I'll offer both an exhortation and a warning. First, the exhortation. If you know some RCCers—or better, any sicklier-branchers—do this: embrace them as brothers and encourage them to leave, for Dodge is what they need to get the heck out of.
Second, don't put on 1st-Century Roman airs in regards to 21st-Century Romans. Put another way, don't be arrogant about the fact that your branch is healthier than that other guy's branch. After all, how do you think his branch got that way?
Anyway, with this in mind, I thought it might be fun to present you with the results of my own neuron duel (you see, I get by with two). I'll be interested to hear your thoughts as well, so feel free to
Alright, so lemme just dive right in by saying that I believe the RCC is truly a part of the catholic Church—it is a branch legitimately connected to the Vine, to borrow an analogy I read some place—so in that way—in an organic covenantal way—it is a true church of Christ. As exhibit A, I present to you that the RCC is genuinely trinitarian, and as exhibit B, I present to you that it holds to the ancient Christian creeds. Basic orthodoxy, baby.
That said, I now wish to say what I am not saying. What I am not saying is that the veneration of departed saints or meritorious acts of super-irrigation or sacerdotalism or purgatory or whatnot are meh, because they really must be dealt with. What I am saying, however, is that, though the RCC is sick, it isn't dead. So while it's not the most seemly branch, it is still a branch; and though some may argue that it hasn't looked much like True Israel in some time, it is still, at the very least, Israel.
In other words, while the RCC is, as a corporate entity, dangerously close to becoming Billy the Apostate, the Session has yet to finish the proceedings on his excommunication. These things take time, you know. For, the Roman lampstand still remains in place—it's not hard to see that—and its body is composed of members actually baptized in the triune Name, not just a formulation of the Name. These people are actually given the Name of God—in other words, they are Christians. At the same time, the RCC is, on the whole, in a bad way. So while the church continues to post Dawkins quotes on Facebook, figuratively speaking, it is nevertheless still a part of the Body.
Now, I think we all would admit that on the living Vine there can be dead branches—branches that don't produce fruit. I am simply arguing here that the RCC is, as a corporate entity, one of the sickly branches—one struck with a bad case of the theological Apple Canker. But taking the analogy further, because I believe the world is what Lewis described rather than what Wells described, I believe it is possible for God to grow life-filled shoots from an infected branch; that it is indeed possible for God to make wheat out of tares, little boys out of dragons, and sheep out of goats (or pigs—take your pick), and that He can do it anywhere. And I believe this, not on the authority of Clive Staples Lewis, but because the Word tells me that the true God is a God of resurrection and all of His raw material is already dead. Notice that this means the shoots are alive in spite of not only their canker-ridden branch, but also in spite of themselves; the wheat is not wheat because the tare made it so, just as the wheat is not wheat because it made itself so. A dragon can't undragon itself, and a pig doesn't become a sheep just because we hose it off.
That said, like bad company, bad doctrine corrupts good morals, so then it seems best to me that the living shoots on the decaying branch should be removed and grafted into a healthier branch. If a shoot is to yield healthy fruit, then the viability of its source of nutrients matters greatly—particularly in the long run. Since dead branches are eventually snipped of and cast into the fire (and it seems that sickly branches are in the awful habit of dying), to remain in a branch experiencing such radical decline is, well, folly.
As for all you healthier-branchers out there, I'll offer both an exhortation and a warning. First, the exhortation. If you know some RCCers—or better, any sicklier-branchers—do this: embrace them as brothers and encourage them to leave, for Dodge is what they need to get the heck out of.
Second, don't put on 1st-Century Roman airs in regards to 21st-Century Romans. Put another way, don't be arrogant about the fact that your branch is healthier than that other guy's branch. After all, how do you think his branch got that way?
Good post!
ReplyDeleteYou mention their Trinitarian doctrine and (ostensible) agreement with the ancient creeds, which I would agree are critical elements of ingraftedness, to coin a phrase. You also argue that they worship the same God.
What do you think, though, of their belief about sin and redemption? Primarily that sin has not been finally dealt with and redemption requires my contribution.
I agree that the flotsam and jetsam they have so liberally acquired over the last 1500 years or so, do not necessarily make them apostate, for I don't believe the PCA has the Fullness of Truth any more than the RCC does.
That being said, there is a line.
How do you see their view of sin and redemption as being either sufficiently similar to orthodoxy (i.e. orthodoxy as God's actual truth, not orthodoxy as man's attempt to codify truth), or being sufficiently non-essential?
Well, firstly, I'll simply point out that Gilbert Keith Chesterton—a papist—wrote the book on orthodoxy. Was he orthodox? To ask the question is to answer it. . .
ReplyDeleteIn all seriousness, though, I see the RCCers as falling in essentially the same ring of orthodoxy as semi-pelagians: deeply mistaken, soteriologically speaking, but still orthodox Christians.
So far as the line separating orthodoxy from unorthodoxy, I'd functionally place it between trinitarian/non-trinitarian and agreement with the meaning (i.e., not necessarily the wording) of the Apostle's Creed/disagreement with it on any point.
Now, here I would like to clarify that I don't place the line of salvation/damnation on every point of orthodoxy. The line of salvific antithesis is placed between having faith in Jesus/not having faith in Jesus. So one can be unorthodox on a certain point—say, disagreement that Jesus descended into Hades—and still be saved, just as one can be perfectly orthodox on all points and headed for Hades himself.
Of note on that last bit, I mean in regards to his claims or his professed position.
ReplyDelete