Question: "Catholic vs. Protestant why is there so much animosity?

"

Answer: This is a simple question with a complicated answer, because there are varying
degrees of, and reasons for, animosity between any two religious groups. This particular
battle is rooted in history. Degrees of reaction have ranged from friendly disagreement (as
reflected in the numerous ecumenical dialogues produced between the two groups), to
outright persecution and murder of Protestants at the hands of Rome. Reformation
teachings that identify the Pope as the Beast of Revelation and / or Roman Catholicism as
Mystery Babylon are still common among Protestants. Clearly, anyone with this view is not
going to warm up to Rome any time soon.

For the most part, today at least, the animosity comes from basic human nature when
dealing with fundamental disagreement over eternal truths. Passions are sure to ignite in
the more weighty matters of life, and one's faith is (or at least should be) at the top of the
heap. Many Protestants think Roman Catholics teach a works-gospel that cannot save, while
Roman Catholics think Protestants teach easy-believism that requires nothing more than an
emotional outburst brought on by manipulative preaching. Protestants blame Catholics for
worshipping Mary, and Catholics think Protestants are apparently too dull to understand the
distinctions Rome has made in this regard. These caricatures are often difficult to overcome.

Behind the particular disagreements over the role of faith and works, the sacraments, the
canon of Scripture, the role of the priesthood, prayers to saints, and all the issues
surrounding Mary and the Pope, etc., lies the biggest rift between Roman Catholicism and
Protestantism: the issue of authority. How one answers the authority question will generally
inform all the other issues. When it comes down to deciding a theological issue about
defined Catholic dogma, there isnt really much to discuss on the Catholic's side because
once Rome speaks, it is settled. This is a problem when trying to debate a Roman Catholic
reason and Scripture are not the Catholics final authority; they can always retreat into the
safe zone of Roman Catholic authority.

Thus, many of the arguments between a Protestant and a Catholic will revolve around one's
private interpretation of Scripture as against the "official teachings of the Roman Catholic
Church." Catholics claim to successfully avoid the legitimate problems of private
interpretation by their reliance on their tradition. But this merely pushes the question back a
step. The truth is that both Roman Catholics and Protestants must, in the end, rely upon
their reasoning abilities (to choose their authority) and their interpretive skills (to
understand what that authority teaches) in order to determine what they will believe.
Protestants are simply more willing to admit that this is the case.

Both sides can also be fiercely loyal to their family's faith or the church they grew up in
without much thought to doctrinal arguments. Obviously, there are a lot of possible reasons
for the division between Catholicism and Protestantism, and while we should not divide over
secondary issues, both sides agree that we must divide when it comes to primary issues.
Beyond that, we can agree to disagree and worship where we find ourselves most in
agreement. When it comes to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, the differences are just
too great to ignore. However, that does not give license for caricatures or ignorant
judgments both sides need to be honest in their assessments and try not to go beyond
what God has revealed.
Question: "What are the differences between Catholics and Protestants?"

Answer: There are several important differences between Catholics and Protestants.
While there have been many attempts in recent years to find common ground between
the two groups, the fact is that the differences remain, and they are just as important
today as they were at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. The following is brief
summary of some of the more important differences:

One of the first major differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is the issue of
the sufficiency and authority of Scripture. Protestants believe that the Bible alone is the
source of Gods special revelation to mankind and teaches us all that is necessary for our
salvation from sin. Protestants view the Bible as the standard by which all Christian
behavior must be measured. This belief is commonly referred to as sola scriptura and is
one of the five solas (sola is Latin for alone) that came out of the Protestant
Reformation as summaries of some of the differences between Catholics and Protestants.

While there are many verses in the Bible that establish its authority and its sufficiency for
all matters of faith and practice, one of the clearest is 2 Timothy 3:16, where we see that
all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for
training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every
good work. Catholics reject the doctrine of sola scriptura and do not believe that the
Bible alone is sufficient. They believe that both the Bible and sacred Roman Catholic
tradition are equally binding upon the Christian. Many Roman Catholics doctrines, such
as purgatory, praying to the saints, worship or veneration of Mary, etc., have little or no
basis in Scripture but are based solely on Roman Catholic traditions. Essentially, the
Roman Catholic Churchs denial of sola scriptura and its insistence that both the Bible
and tradition are equal in authority undermine the sufficiency, authority, and
completeness of the Bible. The view of Scripture is at the root of many, if not all, of the
differences between Catholics and Protestants.

Another disagreement between Catholicism and Protestantism is over the office and
authority of the Pope. According to Catholicism the Pope is the Vicar of Christ (a vicar is
a substitute) and takes the place of Jesus as the visible head of the Church. As such, the
Pope has the ability to speak ex cathedra (with authority on matters of faith and practice),
making his teachings infallible and binding upon all Christians. On the other hand,
Protestants believe that no human being is infallible and that Christ alone is the Head of
the Church. Catholics rely on apostolic succession as a way of trying to establish the
Popes authority. Protestants believe that the churchs authority comes not from apostolic
succession but from the Word of God. Spiritual power and authority do not rest in the
hands of a mere man but in the very Word of God. While Catholicism teaches that only
the Catholic Church can properly interpret the Bible, Protestants believe that the Bible
teaches God sent the Holy Spirit to indwell all born-again believers, enabling all believers
to understand the message of the Bible.

Protestants point to passages such as John 14:1617: I will ask the Father, and He will
give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom
the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him
because He abides with you and will be in you. (See also John 14:26and 1 John 2:27.)

A third major difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is how one is saved.
Another of the five solas of the Reformation is sola fide (faith alone), which affirms the
biblical doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone
(Ephesians 2:810). However, Catholics teach that the Christian must rely on faith plus
meritorious works in order to be saved. Essential to the Roman Catholic doctrine of
salvation are the Seven Sacraments, which are baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist,
penance, anointing of the sick, holy orders, and matrimony. Protestants believe that, on
the basis of faith in Christ alone, believers are justified by God, as all their sins are paid
for by Christ on the cross and His righteousness is imputed to them. Catholics, on the
other hand, believe that Christs righteousness is imparted to the believer by grace
through faith, but in itself is not sufficient to justify the believer. The believer must
supplement the righteousness of Christ imparted to him with meritorious works.

Catholics and Protestants also disagree on what it means to be justified before God. To
the Catholic, justification involves being made righteous and holy. He believes that faith
in Christ is only the beginning of salvation and that the individual must build upon that
with good works because Gods grace of eternal salvation must be merited. This view of
justification contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture in passages such as Romans 4:1
12, Titus 3:37, and many others. Protestants distinguish between the one-time act of
justification (when we are declared righteous by God based on our faith in Christs
atonement on the cross) and the process of sanctification (the development of
righteousness that continues throughout our lives on earth). While Protestants recognize
that works are important, they believe they are the result or fruit of salvation but never the
means to it. Catholics blend justification and sanctification together into one ongoing
process, which leads to confusion about how one is saved.

A fourth major difference between Catholics and Protestants has to do with what
happens after death. Both believe that unbelievers will spend eternity in hell, but there
are significant differences about what happens to believers. From their church traditions
and their reliance on non-canonical books, the Catholics have developed the doctrine
of purgatory. Purgatory, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, is a place or condition
of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in Gods grace, are not entirely
free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.
On the other hand, Protestants believe that because we are justified by faith in Christ
alone and that Christs righteousness is imputed to uswhen we die, we will go straight
to heaven to be in the presence of the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:610 and Philippians 1:23).

One disturbing aspect about the Catholic doctrine of purgatory is the belief that man can
and must pay for his own sins. This results in a low view of the sufficiency and efficiency
of Christs atonement on the cross. Simply put, the Roman Catholic view of salvation
implies that Christs atonement on the cross was insufficient payment for the sins of
those who believe in Him and that even a believer must pay for his own sins, either
through acts of penance or time in purgatory. Yet the Bible teaches that it is Christs
death alone that can satisfy or propitiate Gods wrath against sinners (Romans
3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10). Our works of righteousness cannot add to
what Christ has already accomplished.

The differences between Catholicism and evangelical Protestants are important and
significant. Paul wrote Galatians to combat the Judaizers (Jews who said that Gentile
Christians had to obey the Old Testament Law to be saved). Like the Judaizers,
Catholics make human works necessary for one to be justified by God, and they end up
with a completely different gospel.

It is our prayer that God will open the eyes of those who are putting their faith in the
teachings of the Catholic Church. It is our hope that everyone will understand that his
works of righteousness cannot justify him or sanctify him (Isaiah 64:6). We pray that all
will instead put their faith solely in the fact that we are justified freely by his grace
through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of
atonement, through the shedding of his bloodto be received by faith (Romans 3:24
25). God saves us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his
mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom
he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been
justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:57).
Question: "Are Catholic beliefs and practices biblical?"

Answer: The issue concerning any church and its practices should be Is this biblical? If
a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be
rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His
Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus apostles. Jesus was
very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark
7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalidthere are some good and valuable traditions.
Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then
does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God?

Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal

regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin
is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are
saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good
works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2
Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15).

Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be
guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the
purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation.

Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by
meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good
works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that
Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5;Ephesians
2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24).

Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in
Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1
Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal
regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of
infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole
household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context
nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all
of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This
passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants.

Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also
to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in
Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7).

Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the
clergy and the lay people, whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all
believers (1 Peter 2:9).

Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace
upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture.

Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the
only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to
this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9).

Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen
of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In
Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the
mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church
have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another
mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture),
but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only
redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and
men.

Many other examples could be given. These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic
Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices
that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of
Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same
cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: What does Scripture say?
(Romans 4:3;Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, All Scripture is
God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in
righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Question: "What does the Bible say about the pope / papacy?"

Answer: The Roman Catholic Churchs teaching about the pope (pope means father)
is built upon and involves the following Roman Catholic teachings:

1) Christ made Peter the leader of the apostles and of the church (Matthew 16:18-19). In
giving Peter the keys of the kingdom, Christ not only made him leader, but also made
him infallible when he acted or spoke as Christs representative on earth (speaking from
the seat of authority, or ex cathedra). This ability to act on behalf of the church in an
infallible way when speaking ex cathedra was passed on to Peters successors, thus
giving the church an infallible guide on earth. The purpose of the papacy is to lead the
church unerringly.

2) Peter later became the first bishop of Rome. As bishop of Rome, he exercised
authority over all other bishops and church leaders. The teaching that the bishop of
Rome is above all other bishops in authority is referred to as the primacy of the Roman
bishop.

3) Peter passed on his apostolic authority to the next bishop of Rome, along with the
other apostles who passed on their apostolic authority to the bishops that they ordained.
These new bishops, in turn, passed on that apostolic authority to those bishops that they
later ordained, and so on. This passing on of apostolic authority is referred to as
apostolic succession.

4) Based upon the claim of an unbroken chain of Roman bishops, Roman Catholics
teach that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church, and that all churches that do
not accept the primacy of the pope have broken away from them, the original and one
true church.

Having briefly reviewed some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church concerning
the papacy, the question is whether those teachings are in agreement with Scripture. The
Roman Catholic Church sees the papacy and the infallible teaching authority of Mother
Church as being necessary to guide the church, and uses that as logical reasoning for
Gods provision of it. But in examining Scripture, we find the following:

1) While Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning
behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares
that he was in authority over the other apostles or over the church (see Acts 15:1-
23; Galatians 2:1-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Nor is it ever taught that the bishop of Rome was to
have primacy over the church. Rather, there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter
writing from Babylon, a name sometimes applied to Rome, found in 1 Peter 5:13.
Primarily from this, and the historical rise of the influence of the bishop of Rome (due to
the support of Constantine and the Roman emperors who followed him), come the
Roman Catholic Churchs teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However,
Scripture shows that Peters authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-
20) and that the loosing and binding authority attributed to him was likewise shared by
the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians
5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

2) Nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority
of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic
succession). Apostolic succession is read into those verses that the Roman Catholic
Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1;2:15; 1 Timothy
5:19-22). What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from
among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later
church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited in the Bible as infallible. The Bible
does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and
incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of
Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. Paul does NOT commend them to the
apostles and those who would carry on their authority, but rather to God and to the
word of His grace (Acts 20:28-32).

Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to
determine truth from error. InGalatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but
WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. While the Roman
Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell, or anathema, upon those who
would reject the authority of the pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would
teach a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).

3) While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession as logically necessary in
order for God to unerringly guide the church, Scripture states that God has provided for
His church through the following:

(a) Infallible Scripture, (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts
17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20;40:8; etc.) Note: Peter speaks of Pauls writings in the same
category as other Scripture (2 Peter 3:16),

(b) Christs unending high-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22-28),

(c) The provision of the Holy Spirit who guided the apostles into truth after Christs death
(John 16:12-14), who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching
(Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16), and who uses the written Word as His chief tool
(Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).

While there have seemingly been good (humanly speaking) and moral men who have
served as pope of the Roman Catholic Churchsome point to Pope John Paul II, Pope
Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis I as examplesthe Roman Catholic teaching about the
office of the pope should be rejected because it is not in continuity with the teachings of
the New Testament. This comparison of any churchs teaching is essential, lest we miss
the New Testaments teaching concerning the gospel and not only miss eternal life in
heaven ourselves but unwittingly lead others down the wrong path (Galatians 1:8-9).

Question: "What does the Bible say about Purgatory?"

Answer: According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Purgatory is a place or condition of

temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are not entirely
free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.
To summarize, in Catholic theology Purgatory is a place that a Christians soul goes to
after death to be cleansed of the sins that had not been fully satisfied during life. Is this
doctrine of Purgatory in agreement with the Bible? Absolutely not!

Jesus died to pay the penalty for all of our sins (Romans 5:8). Isaiah 53:5 declares, But
He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment
that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed. Jesus suffered
for our sins so that we could be delivered from suffering. To say that we must also suffer
for our sins is to say that Jesus suffering was insufficient. To say that we must atone for
our sins by cleansing in Purgatory is to deny the sufficiency of the atoning sacrifice of
Jesus (1 John 2:2). The idea that we have to suffer for our sins after death is contrary to
everything the Bible says about salvation.

The primary Scriptural passage Catholics point to for evidence of Purgatory is 1

Corinthians 3:15, which says, If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be
saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. The passage (1 Corinthians 3:12-
15) is using an illustration of things going through fire as a description of believers works
being judged. If our works are of good quality gold, sliver, costly stones, they will pass
through the fire unharmed, and we will be rewarded for them. If our works are of poor
quality wood, hay, and straw, they will be consumed by the fire, and there will be no
reward. The passage does not say that believers pass through the fire, but rather that a
believers works pass through the fire. 1 Corinthians 3:15 refers to the believer escaping
through the flames, not being cleansed by the flames.

Purgatory, like many other Catholic dogmas, is based on a misunderstanding of the

nature of Christs sacrifice. Catholics view the Mass / Eucharist as a re-presentation of
Christs sacrifice because they fail to understand that Jesus once-for-all sacrifice was
absolutely and perfectly sufficient (Hebrews 7:27). Catholics view meritorious works as
contributing to salvation due to a failure to recognize that Jesus sacrificial payment has
no need of additional contribution (Ephesians 2:8-9). Similarly, Purgatory is understood
by Catholics as a place of cleansing in preparation for heaven because they do not
recognize that because of Jesus sacrifice, we are already cleansed, declared righteous,
forgiven, redeemed, reconciled, and sanctified.

The very idea of Purgatory and the doctrines that are often attached to it (prayer for the
dead, indulgences, meritorious works on behalf of the dead, etc.) all fail to recognize that
Jesus death was sufficient to pay the penalty for ALL of our sins. Jesus, who was God
incarnate (John 1:1,14), paid an infinite price for our sin. Jesus died for our sins (1
Corinthians 15:3). Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for our sins (1 John 2:2). To limit Jesus
sacrifice to atoning for original sin, or sins committed before salvation, is an attack on the
Person and Work of Jesus Christ. If we must in any sense pay for, atone for, or suffer
because of our sins that indicates Jesus death was not a perfect, complete, and
sufficient sacrifice.

For believers, after death is to be "away from the body and at home with the Lord" (2
Corinthians 5:6-8;Philippians 1:23). Notice that this does not say "away from the body, in
Purgatory with the cleansing fire." No, because of the perfection, completion, and
sufficiency of Jesus' sacrifice, we are immediately in the Lord's presence after death, fully
cleansed, free from sin, glorified, perfected, and ultimately sanctified.

Question: "Is worship of saints / Mary biblical?"

Answer: The Bible is absolutely clear that we are to worship God alone. The only
instances of anyone other than God receiving worship in the Bible are false gods, which
are Satan and his demons. All followers of the Lord God refuse worship. Peter and the
apostles refused to be worshipped (Acts 10:2526; 14:1314). The holy angels refuse to
be worshipped (Revelation 19:10; 22:9). The response is always the same, Worship
God!
Roman Catholics attempt to bypass these clear Scriptural principles by claiming they do
not worship Mary or saints, but rather that they only venerate Mary and the saints.
Using a different word does not change the essence of what is being done. A definition of
venerate is to regard with respect or reverence. Nowhere in the Bible are we told to
revere anyone but God alone. There is nothing wrong with respecting those faithful
Christians who have gone before us (see Hebrews chapter 11). There is nothing wrong
with honoring Mary as the earthly mother of Jesus. The Bible describes Mary as highly
favored by God (Luke 1:28). At the same time, there is no instruction in the Bible to
revere those who have gone to heaven. We are to follow their example, yes, but worship,
revere, or venerate, no!

When forced to admit that they do, in fact, worship Mary, Catholics will claim that they
worship God through her, by praising the wonderful creation that God has made. Mary, in
their minds, is the most beautiful and wonderful creation of God, and by praising her, they
are praising her Creator. For Catholics, this is analogous to directing praise to an artist by
praising his sculpture or painting. The problem with this is that God explicitly commands
against worshipping Him through created things. We are not to bow down and worship
the form of anything in heaven above or earth below (Exodus 20:45). Romans
1:25 could not be more clear: They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped
and served created things rather than the Creatorwho is forever praised. Amen. Yes,
God has created wonderful and amazing things. Yes, Mary was a godly woman who is
worthy of our respect. No, we absolutely are not to worship God vicariously by praising
things (or people) He has created. Doing so is blatant idolatry.

The major way Catholics venerate Mary and the saints is by praying to them. But prayer
to anyone other than God alone is anti-biblical. Whether Mary and/or the saints are
prayed to, or whether they are petitioned for their prayersneither practice is biblical.
Prayer is an act of worship. When we pray to God, we are admitting that we need His
help. Directing our prayers to anyone other than God is robbing God of the glory that is
His alone.

Another way Catholics venerate Mary and the saints is by creating statues and images
of them. Many Catholics use images of Mary and/or the saints as good luck charms.
Any cursory reading of the Bible will reveal this practice as blatant idolatry (Exodus 20:4
6; 1 Corinthians 12:12; 1 John 5:21). Rubbing rosary beads is idolatry. Lighting candles
before a statue or portrayal of a saint is idolatry. Burying a Joseph statue in hopes of
selling your home (and countless other Catholic practices) is idolatry.

The terminology is not the issue. Whether the practice is described as worship or
veneration or any other term, the problem is the same. Any time we ascribe something
that belongs to God to someone else, it is idolatry. The Bible nowhere instructs us to
revere, pray to, rely on, or idolize anyone other than God. We are to worship God alone.
Glory, praise, and honor belong to God alone. Only God is worthy to receive glory and
honor and power (Revelation 4:11). God alone is worthy to receive our worship,
adoration, and praise (Nehemiah 9:6; Revelation 15:4).

Question: "Is prayer to saints / Mary biblical?"

Answer: The issue of Catholics praying to saints is one that is full of confusion. It is the
official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Catholics do not pray TO saints or
Mary, but rather that Catholics can ask saints or Mary to pray FOR them. The official
position of the Roman Catholic Church is that asking saints for their prayers is no
different than asking someone here on earth to pray for us. However, the practice of
many Catholics diverges from official Roman Catholic teaching. Many Catholics do in fact
pray directly to saints and/or Mary, asking them for help instead of asking the saints
and/or Mary to intercede with God for help. Whatever the case, whether a saint or Mary
is being prayed to, or asked to pray, neither practice has any biblical basis.
The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God. The
Bible nowhere encourages, or even mentions, believers asking individuals in heaven for
their prayers. Why, then, do many Catholics pray to Mary and/or the saints, or request
their prayers? Catholics view Mary and the saints as "intercessors" before God. They
believe that a saint, who is glorified in Heaven, has more "direct access" to God than we
do. Therefore, if a saint delivers a prayer to God, it is more effective than us praying to
God directly. This concept is blatantly unbiblical. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that we, believers
here on earth, can "approach the throne of grace with confidence."

First Timothy 2:5 declares, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus." There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If
Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and the saints cannot be mediators.
They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus
Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father: "Therefore He is able to save
completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede
for them" (Hebrews 7:25). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need
Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Whom would God listen to more closely than His
Son? Romans 8:26-27 describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. With the 2nd and 3rd
members of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father in heaven, what
possible need could there be to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?

Catholics argue that praying to Mary and the saints is no different than asking someone
here on earth to pray for us. Let us examine that claim. (1) The Apostle Paul asks other
Christians to pray for him in Ephesians 6:19. Many Scriptures describe believers praying
for one another (2 Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 1:16; Philippians 1:19; 2 Timothy 1:3).
The Bible nowhere mentions anyone asking for someone in heaven to pray for him. The
Bible nowhere describes anyone in heaven praying for anyone on earth. (2) The Bible
gives absolutely no indication that Mary or the saints can hear our prayers. Mary and the
saints are not omniscient. Even glorified in heaven, they are still finite beings with
limitations. How could they possibly hear the prayers of millions of people? Whenever the
Bible mentions praying to or speaking with the dead, it is in the context of sorcery,
witchcraft, necromancy, and divinationactivities the Bible strongly condemns (Leviticus
20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-13). In the one instance when a "saint" is spoken to, Samuel
in 1 Samuel 28:7-19, Samuel is not exactly happy to be disturbed. It is clear that praying
to Mary or the saints is completely different from asking someone here on earth to pray
for us. One has a strong biblical basis; the other has no biblical basis whatsoever.

God does not answer prayers based on who is praying. God answers prayers based on
whether they are asked according to His will (1 John 5:14-15). There is absolutely no
basis or need to pray to anyone other than God alone. There is no basis for asking those
who are in heaven to pray for us. Only God can hear our prayers. Only God can answer
our prayers. No one in heaven has any greater access to God's throne than we do
through prayer (Hebrews 4:16).

ECT by JI Packer

The recent statement 'Evangelicals and Catholics Together' recognizes an important truth:
Those who love the Lord must stand together.

"Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium" (ECT) is
the title of a programmatic statement composed by eight Protestants (leader, Charles
Colson) and seven Roman Catholics (leader, Richard John Neuhaus) and endorsed by 12
more Protestants and 13 more Roman Catholics. It appeared in the journal "First Things" in
May of this year and, shortened, in the Spring edition of "Touchstone."
The statement is not, of course, official, nor has it any more authority than the personal
credit of those who have put their names to it. It does not commit the churches, institutions,
and organizations to which they belong: each subscriber speaks simply for himself. The
hope, however, clearly is that the document will make waves and change established
behavior patterns. In this way its strategic importance could be far-reaching, for the lead it
gives has not been given before.

The plot-line of its 8,000 words is simply summarized. After stating that its concern is with
"the relationship between evangelicals and Catholics, who constitute the growing edge of
missionary expansion at present and, most likely, in the century ahead," it announces its
composers' agreement on the Apostles' Creed and on the proposition that "we are justified
by grace through faith because of Christ"; it affirms a commitment to seek more love, less
misrepresentation and misunderstanding, and more clarity about continuing doctrinal
differences between the two constituencies; then it declares war on anti-Christian statism
and specifies social values that must be fought for; and it sketches out a purpose of
nonproselytizing joint action for the conversion and nurture of outsiders. Grassroots "co-
belligerence," to borrow Francis Schaeffer's word, is its theme. It identifies common
enemies (unbelief, sin, cultural apostasy) and pleads that the counterattack be cooperative
up to the limit of what conscience allows.

Hitherto, isolationism everywhere in everything has been the preferred policy of both
Catholics and evangelicals, and a good deal of duplication and rivalry, fed by mutual
suspicion and inflammatory talk, has resulted. This is particularly so in Latin America, where
the Roman Catholic Church sometimes walks hand in hand with landowners and power
brokers, and evangelicals multiply by the million, mostly through bringing true life in Christ
to lapsed Catholics. But Latin America is not the only part of the world where isolationist
animosities are strong. To transcend these tensions by undercutting isolationism itself is part
of ECT's aim. So inevitably, ECT has run into trouble. Many isolationists are unwilling either
to rethink or, under any circumstances, to change.

I was surprised at the violence of initial negative Protestant reaction, but I should not have
been. Years ago, I came to realize that fear plays a larger part in North American motivation
than is ever acknowledged. The sitting-on-a-volcano feeling is very American and is easily
exploited. But fear clouds the mind and generates defensive responses that drive wisdom
out of the window.

So I ought to have anticipated that some Protestants would say bleak, skewed, fearful, and
fear-driven things about this document - for instance, that it betrays the Reformation; that it
barters the gospel for a social agenda; that it forfeits the right to share Christ with nominal
Roman Catholics; that by saying "we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ" it
abandons justification by faith alone; and that its backers should be dropped from
evangelical fellowship. All these untrue things have been said - and it is time, I think, to set
the record straight.

What I write has inevitably a personal angle, for though I was not a drafter of the document,
I endorsed it. Why? Because it affirms positions and expresses attitudes that have been
mine for half a lifetime, and that I think myself called to commend to others every way I can.
Granted, for the same half lifetime I have publicly advocated the Reformed theology that
was first shaped (by Calvin) in opposition to Roman teaching about salvation and the church
and that stands opposed to it still - which, I suppose, is why some people have concluded I
have gone theologically soft, and others think I must be ignorant of Roman Catholic beliefs,
and others guess that I signed ECT without reading it. But in fact, while maintaining what
Reformed theology has always said about the official tradition of the Church of Rome, I have
long thought that informal grassroots collaboration with Roman Catholics in ministry is the
most fruitful sort of ecumenism that one can practice nowadays. And it is that, neither more
nor less, that ECT recommends.

Perhaps I should say this more bluntly. I could not become a Roman Catholic because of
certain basic tenets to which the Roman system, as such, is committed. Rome's claim to be
the only institution that can without qualification be called the church of Christ is
theologically flawed, for it misconceives the nature of the church as the New Testament
explains it. The claim is historically flawed, too, for the papacy, which is supposed to be of
the church's essence, was a relatively late development; if pipeline continuity of priestly
orders and a sacramentalist soteriology are of that essence, then Eastern Orthodoxy's claim
to be Christ's one church is stronger.

Also, developed Roman teaching on the Mass and on merit cuts across Paul's doctrine of
justification in and through Christ by faith. And all forms of the Mary cult, the invoking of
saints, the belief in purgatory, and the disbursing of indulgences (which still goes on) damp
down the full assurance to which, according to Scripture, justification should lead through
the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Finally, the infallibility claimed for all conciliar and some papal pronouncements, and the
insistence that the faithful should take their beliefs from the church as such rather than from
the Bible as such, make self-correction, as ordinarily understood, impossible. The
assumption that the church is never wrong on basics is very cramping.

So I find the Roman communion, as it stands, unacceptable, just as more than four-and-a-
half centuries of Protestants did before me.

Why, then, should any Protestant, such as myself, want to maximize mission activity in
partnership with Roman Catholics? Traditionally, Protestants and Catholics have kept their
distance, treating each other as inferiors; each community has seen the other as out to deny
precious elements in its own faith and practice, and so has given the other a wide berth.
There are sound reasons why this historic stance should be adjusted.

First: Do we recognize that good evangelical Protestants and good Roman Catholics - good, I
mean, in terms of their own church's stated ideal of spiritual life - are Christians together?
We ought to recognize this, for it is true.

I am a Protestant who thanks God for the wisdom, backbone, maturity of mind and
conscience, and above all, love for my Lord Jesus Christ that I often see among Catholics,
and who sometimes has the joy of hearing Catholics say they see comparable fruits of grace
in Protestants. But I am not the only one who is thus made aware that evangelicals and
Catholics who actively believe are Christians together. The drafters of ECT declare that they
accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, affirm the Apostles' Creed, "are justified by grace
through faith because of Christ," understand the Christian life from first to last as personal
conversion to Jesus Christ and communion with him, know that they must "teach and live in
obedience to the divinely inspired Scriptures, which are the infallible Word of God," and on
this basis are "brothers and sisters in Christ." Though Protestant and Catholic church
systems stand opposed, and bad - that is, unconverted - Catholics and Protestants are
problems on both sides of the Reformation divide, good Protestants and Catholics are, and
know themselves to be, united in the one body of Christ, joint-heirs not only with him but
with each other.

Now, this mutual acknowledgment brings obligations, and one of these is observance of the
so-called Lund principle, formulated decades ago in light of Jesus' high-priestly prayer for the
unity of all his disciples. This prayer clearly entails the thought that God's family here on
earth should seek to look like one family by acting as one family; and the Lund principle is
that ecclesiastically divided Christians should not settle for doing separately anything that
their consciences allow them to do together. The implication is that otherwise we thwart
and grieve the Lord. Where there is fellowship in faith, fellowship in service should follow,
and the cherishing of standoffishness and isolationism becomes sin. So togetherness in
mission is appropriate.

Second: do we recognize that the present needs of both church and community in North
America (not to look further for the moment) cry out for an alliance of good evangelical
Protestants with good Roman Catholics (and good Eastern Orthodox, too)? We ought to
recognize this, for it, too, is true.

Vital for the church's welfare today and tomorrow in the United States and Canada is the
building of the strongest possible transdenominational coalition of Bible-believing, Christ-
honoring, Spirit-empowered Christians who will together resist the many forms of
disintegrative theology - relativist, monist, pluralist, liberationist, feminist, or whatever - that
plague both Protestantism and Catholicism at the present time. Such a coalition already
exists among evangelicals, sustained by parachurch organizations, seminaries, media,
mission programs and agencies, and literature of various kinds. It would be stronger in its
stand for truth if it were in closer step with the parallel Catholic coalition that has recently
begun to grow.

Time was when Western Christendom's deepest division was between relatively
homogeneous Protestant churches and a relatively homogeneous Church of Rome. Today,
however, the deepest and most hurtful division is between theological conservatives (or
"conservationists," as I prefer to call them), who honor the Christ of the Bible and of the
historic creeds and confessions, and theological liberals and radicals who for whatever
reason do not; and this division splits the older Protestant bodies and the Roman
communion internally. Convictional renewal within the churches can only come, under God,
through sustained exposition, affirmation, and debate, and since it is substantially the same
battle that has to be fought across the board, a coalition of evangelical and Catholic
resources for the purpose would surely make sense.

It is similarly vital for the health of society in the United States and Canada that adherents to
the key truths of classical Christianity - a self-defining triune God who is both Creator and
Redeemer; this God's regenerating and sanctifying grace; the sanctity of life here, the
certainty of personal judgment hereafter, and the return of Jesus Christ to end history -
should link up for the vast and pressing task of re-educating our secularized communities on
these matters. North American culture generally has lost its former knowledge of what it
means to revere God, and hence it has lost its values and standards, its shared purposes, its
focused hopes, and, in a word, its knowledge of what makes human life human, so that now
it drifts blindly along materialistic, hedonistic, and nihilistic channels. Again, it is the
theological conservationists, and they alone - mainly, Roman Catholics and the more
established evangelicals - who have resources for the rebuilding of these ruins, and their
domestic differences about salvation and the church should not hinder them from joint
action in seeking to re-Christianize the North American milieu.

In its section titled "We Contend Together," ECT spells out a resolve to uphold religious
freedom, sanctity of life, family values, parental choice in education, moral standards in
society, and democratic institutions worldwide. This should be as much an agenda for all
evangelicals as it is for any Catholic, and these contendings are crucial at present; but they
will only gain credibility if the view of reality in which they are rooted takes hold of people's
minds. Propagating the basic faith, then, remains the crucial task, and it is natural to think it
will best be done as a combined operation. So togetherness in witness is timely.

Third: do we recognize that in our time mission ventures that involve evangelicals and
Catholics side by side, not only in social witness but in evangelism and nurture as well, have
already emerged? We ought to recognize this, for it is a fact.

From the many available examples, I take three. Among them, they illustrate the point
sufficiently. The late Francis Schaeffer focused the concept of co-belligerence, that is, joint
action for agreed objectives by people who disagree on other things, and then implemented
it by leading evangelicals into battle alongside Roman Catholics on the abortion front, where
- thank God! - they remain. Billy Graham's cooperative evangelism, in which all the churches
in an area, of whatever stripe, are invited to share, is well established on today's Christian
scene. And so are charismatic get-togethers, some of them one-off, some of them regular,
and some of them huge, where the distinction between Protestant and Catholic vanishes in
a Christ-centered unity of experience. So the togetherness that ECT pleads for has already
begun.

ECT, then, must be viewed as fuel for a fire that is already alight. The grassroots coalition at
which the document aims is already growing. It can be argued that, so far from running
ahead of God, as some fear, ECT is playing catch-up to the Holy Spirit, formulating at the
level of principle a commitment into which many have already entered at the level of
practice; and certainly, the burden of proof must rest on any who wish to deny that this is
so.

I conclude, then, on grounds of biblical principle, reinforced by current pressures and

precedents, that ECT's modeling of an evangelical-Roman Catholic commitment to
partnership in mission within set limits and without convictional compromise is essentially
right, and I remain glad to endorse it. In the days when Rome seemed to aim at political
control of all Christendom and the death of Protestant churches, such partnership was not
possible. But those days are past and after Vatican II can hardly return. Whatever God's
future may be for the official Roman Catholic system, present evangelical partnership with
spiritually alive Roman Catholics in communicating Christ to unbelievers and upholding
Christian order in a post-Christian world needs to grow everywhere, as ECT maintains. This
should be beyond question.

Concerning ECT itself, however, questions remain, and it is time to turn to them. Whether it
was wisest to write this document in a flowing, rhetorical, open-textured way, so that it
reads like a political speech; whether it would have helped to have professional evangelical
theologians involved in the drafting process (there were none); and whether any particular
rearrangements, additions, and tightenings up would make ECT more persuasive to its
suspicious critics - all are questions we may leave on one side. ECT's tone and thrust are
right, and anyone who has learned not to rip phrases out of their context will see well
enough what is intended.

Some, however, denounce ECT as a sellout of evangelical Protestantism and conclude that
the evangelical team was incompetent, irresponsible, and outmaneuvered. The difficulties
these critics feel raise issues of importance.

First: Does it not always put you in a false position to work with people with whom you do
not totally agree? Not if you agree on the specific truths and goals the proposed
collaboration involves, and if the points of nonagreement and therefore the limits of
togetherness in action are well understood. Here, I judge, ECT, fairly read, passes muster.

Second: May ECT realistically claim, as in effect it does, that its evangelical and Catholic
drafters agree on the gospel of salvation? Yes and no. If you mean, could they all be relied
on to attach the same small print to their statement, "we are justified by grace through faith
because of Christ," no. (The Tridentine assertion of merit and the Reformational assertion of
imputed righteousness can hardly be harmonized.) If you mean, do all present-day Catholics
focus on the living Christ, Lord, Savior, and coming King as the direct object of the sinner's
faith and hope in the way ECT does, doubtless no again. (I imagine some traditional Catholics
have problems with ECT at this point, though today's Catholic theologians observably do
not.) But if you mean, does ECT's insistence that the Christ of Scripture, creeds, and
confessions is faith's proper focus, and that "Christian witness is of necessity aimed at
conversion," not only as an initial step but as a personal life-process, and that this
constitutes a sufficient account of the gospel of salvation for shared evangelistic ministry,
then surely yes. What brings salvation, after all, is not any theory about faith in Christ,
justification, and the church, but faith itself in Christ himself. Here also ECT, fairly read,
seems to me to pass muster, though the historic disagreements at theory level urgently now
need review.

Third: Does not ECT treat baptismal regeneration, which Catholics affirm and evangelicals
deny, as acceptable doctrine? No. Its logic (smudged somewhat by loose drafting, but clear
enough to fair readers) is that agreement on the necessity of personal conversion makes
evangelistic cooperation viable, in principle and in practice, despite this continuing
disagreement. ECT clearly envisages an evangelism that, by requiring transactional trust in
the living Christ, rules out all thought of baptism without faith saving anyone.

Fourth: Does not ECT imply that Protestants should stop trying to evangelize Roman
Catholics, or make Protestants out of them? No. ECT walks a tightrope here, as follows: "We
condemn the practice of recruiting people from another community for purposes of
denominational or institutional aggrandizement. It is neither theologically legitimate nor a
prudent use of resources for one Christian community to proselytize among active
adherents of another Christian community. Those converted must be given full freedom
and respect as they discern and decide the community in which they will live their new life in
Christ."

It is clear that sharing Christ with inactive, nominal, lifeless-looking adherents of any
communion is permitted by this wording; so is explaining the pros and cons of choosing a
church, and the importance, for growth, of being under faithful ministry of the word. What
is ruled out is associating salvation or spiritual health with churchly identity, as if a Roman
Catholic cannot be saved without becoming a Protestant or vice versa, and on this basis
putting people under pressure to change churches.
The flow of thought in the above extract shows that "theologically legitimate" means
"theologically appropriate." This is not the only example of loose phrasing in ECT. But all
comes clear if one follows the flow of ideas.

So I find that ECT is not at all a sellout of Protestantism, but is in fact a well-judged, timely
call to a mode of grassroots action that is significant for furthering the kingdom of God.

To be sure, ECT is only a beginning. Those for whom anti-Romanism or anti-Protestantism is

part of their identity and ministry will need more than ECT to alter their mindset, as will
those Protestants who deny that Roman Catholics can be Christians without leaving Rome.
There needs now to be a rigorous review of how the theological questions that have thus far
divided the Catholic and Protestant churches look in light of the new ECT commitment. Well
does ECT say, "The differences and disagreements must be addressed more fully and
candidly in order to strengthen between us a relation of trust in obedience to truth."
Without this ECT will get nowhere, nor will it deserve to.

To help shape this proposed study of the historic disagreements, Michael Horton and I put
together some agenda suggestions that are printed in Modern Reformation (July-August
1994). What is important, however, is not that the work be done our way, but that the work
be done as distinct from not done; for such study is the necessary next step.

But ECT is a good beginning, and for it I continue to thank God.

On July 29, 1928, a young evangelical pastor began his sermon on Paul's teaching on the
body of Christ in 1 Corinthians with these words: "There is a word that, when a Catholic
hears it, kindles all his feeling of love and bliss; that stirs all the depths of his religious
sensibility, from dread and awe of the Last Judgment to the sweetness of God's presence;
and that certainly awakens in him the feeling of home; the feeling that only a child has in
relation to its mother, made up of gratitude, reverence, and devoted love .

"And there is a word that to Protestants has the sound of something infinitely
commonplace, more or less indifferent and superfluous, that does not make their heart beat
faster; something with which a sense of boredom is so often associated. And yet our fate
is sealed, if we are unable again to attach a new, or perhaps a very old, meaning to it. Woe
to us if that word does not become important to us soon again. Yes, the word to which I
am referring is Church."

So spoke Dietrich Bonhoeffer to a small German congregation in Barcelona. These words

present both a diagnosis and a challenge for evangelicals today who are called to set forth a
clear, compelling doctrine of the church in their new conversations with their Roman
Catholic brothers and sisters, and who need it to help them sort out their loyalties in a
bewildering bazaar of denominations, parachurch ministries, and independent
congregations.

As a global, transdenominational fellowship of one-half billion believers, evangelicalism is an

amazing ecumenical fact. As a theological movement, however, evangelicalism has been
slow to develop a distinctive understanding of the church. There are several reasons for this:
First, evangelical scholars have been preoccupied with other theological themes such as
biblical revelation, religious epistemology, and apologetics. For example, Carl F. H. Henry's
six-volume magnum opus, God, Revelation and Authority, extends to more than 3,000 pages
with little ink spent on the doctrine of the church.

Second, as an activist movement committed to evangelism and missions, evangelicalism has

not made reflective ecclesiology a high priority. As some might say, "We are too busy
winning people to Christ to engage in navel gazing." This objection should not be quickly
dismissed, for as missiologist J. C. Hoekendijk observed, "In history a keen ecclesiological
interest has, almost without exception, been a sign of spiritual decadence."

Third, evangelicalism is a splintering movement representing a bewildering diversity of

congregations, denominations, and parachurch movements. Their shared identity is not tied
to a particular view of church polity or ministerial orders.

Amidst such variety, is it even possible to describe one single, or even central, evangelical
ecclesiology? The evangelical witness emerged not only as a protestagainst abuses in the
church but also as a testimony for the truth of the gospel (we are protestants). How
evangelicalism maintains the centrality of gospel truth within ostensibly weak structures of
church authority is perhaps its greatest challenge today. However, within the evangelical
traditionin its confessions and hymns no less than its formal theological reflectionsthere
exists a rich reservoir for articulating a strong doctrine of the church. One resource we share
with the broader Christian tradition is the Nicene Creed. I would like to explore here what
evangelicals mean when we affirm our belief in the church as "one, holy, catholic, and
apostolic."

The church is one

In his letter to the Ephesians, the Magna Carta of the church, Paul urges, "Make every effort
to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one spirit
just as you were called to one hope when you were calledone Lord, one faith, one
baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all" (4:3-6; all
references taken from the NIV). Thus the unity of the church is based on the fact that we
worship one God.

Neither Luther nor Calvin intended to start a new church, but to reform the church. As Calvin
put it, "To leave the church is nothing less than a denial of God and Christ." By contrast,
Continental Anabaptists, English Separatists, and biblical restorationists sought not so much
to purify the church as to restore it to its original New Testament condition. Thus by
gathering new congregations of "visible saints," these radical reformers believed they could
restore, as one of them put it, "the old glorious face of primitive Christianity."

The result was the proliferation of numerous denominations and sects, "separated
brethren," who were often more separated than brotherly in their relations! This little ditty
from the early nineteenth century describes the resulting confusion:

Ten thousand reformers like so many moles,

Have plowed all the Bible and cut it in holes;
And each has his church at the end of his trace,
Built up as he thinks of the subjects of grace.
At the same time, we must realize that the restorationist impulse was itself motivated by a
concern for Christian unity. In the early nineteenth century, Alexander Campbell wanted his
followers to be called simply "Christians" or "disciples of Christ" as a way of overcoming
denominational disharmony, even if in the end his movement too added still another
competing note to the Protestant chorus.

Evangelicals today are heirs of both reformational and restorational models of ecclesiology.
Their approach to church order, ministry, and ecumenism often depends on which of these
two paradigms they more identify with.

The fact that most evangelicals are less than enthusiastic about the modern ecumenical
movement in its liberal Protestant modality does not mean that they have no concern for
the unity of the church. It does mean, however, that the question of the church's unity
cannot be divorced from the question of the church's integrity. The call to be one in Christ
rings hollow when it comes from church leaders who either themselves deny, or wink at
others who do, the most basic Christological affirmations of the faith, including the virgin
birth, bodily resurrection, and actual return of Christ himself.

Thomas Oden speaks for many evangelicals when he declares: "Too many pretentious
pseudoecumenical efforts have been themselves divisive, intolerant, ultrapolitical,
misconceived, utopian, abusive, nationalistic, and culturally imperialistic. Hence modern
ecumenical movements are themselves called to repentance on behalf of the unity of the
Church."

But evangelicals too are called to repentance. We too have sinned against the body of Christ
by confusing loyalty to the truth with party spirit, and kingdom advancement with self-
aggrandizement. We need the wisdom of the Holy Spirit to know when, like the Confessing
Church in Nazi Germany, it is necessary to stand against schemes of false church unity and
compromised theology to declare, "Jesus Christ, as he is testified to us in the Holy Scripture,
is the one Word of God, whom we are to hear, whom we are to trust and obey in life and in
death."

The church is holy

Of the four classic attributes of the church, holiness is the one best attested in the most
primitive versions of the baptismal creed: "I believe in the holy church."

The church on earth is holy not because it is set apart in its external organization, as though
it were a sanitarium in the midst of contagion. It is holy only because it is animated by the
Holy Spirit and joined with its heavenly Head, Jesus Christ.

Evangelicals insist, however, that the holiness of God be clearly distinguished from the
holiness of the church. The holiness of the church on Earth is entirely derived, emergent,
and incomplete. God's is eternal and unbroken by imperfection and finitude. Thus we take
exception to the statement of Yves Congar that "there is no more sin in the church than in
Christ, of whom she is the body; and she is his mystical personality."

Luther, though insisting that the one crucial mark of the church was and remained the
gospel, also said much about good works and growth in holiness as the fruit of having been
declared righteous by God through faith alone. Later Reformers placed more emphasis on
the "marks of the true church" (Word and sacrament for Luther and Calvin, discipline as well
for later Reformed confessions, English Separatists, and Anabaptists). Calvin, in particular, is
clear about the function of the marks: "For, in order that the title 'church' may not deceive
us, every congregation that claims the name 'church' must be tested by this standard as by a
touchstone."

The evangelical marksproclamation, worship, and disciplineare thus distinguished from

the Nicene attributes because they are not merely descriptive, but dynamic: they call into
question the unity, catholicity, apostolicity, and holiness of every congregation that claims to
be a church. In this way, as Calvin says, "the face of the church" emerges into visibility
before our eyes.

By elevating discipline as a distinguishing mark of the church, Puritans, Pietists, and the early
Methodists defined the true visible church as a covenanted company of gathered saints. It is
separated from the world in its organization and through its congregational discipline of
erring members.

Such disciplinary measures weren't meant as punitive. They were intended to underscore
the imperatives of life and growth within the church. The church, in turn, was understood as
an intentional community of mutual service and mutual obligation by which "the whole
body, bonded and knit together by every constituent joint grows through the due activity
of each part, and builds itself up" (Eph. 4:16). The strenuous use of church discipline
sometimes degenerated into petty legalism. But at its best, it provided a context for
Christian catechesis, nurture, and outreach that stands in marked contrast to the kind of
casual Christianity so prevalent in our own day.

The church is catholic

Most evangelicals are happy to confess that the church is one, holy, and apostolic. These
are, after all, not only biblical concepts but also New Testament terms. But in what sense
can evangelicals affirm "We believe in the catholic church"? Many contemporary evangelical
churches have long abandoned the word catholic. Some have gone so far as to alter the
traditional wording of the creeds to avoid even pronouncing the word! But none of this
changes the fact that evangelicals are catholics. They believe that in its essence the Christian
community is in all places and in all ages the one, holy, universal church.

The Reformers of the sixteenth century and the Puritans of the seventeenth, not excluding
Baptists, were happy for their churches to be called catholic. Indeed, they opposed the
Church of Rome not because it was too catholic, but because it was not catholic enough.
They spoke of the evidence for catholicity in three ways: in its geographical extent (the
church is spread over the whole world); in its inclusive membership (the church is gathered
from all ranks of society); and in its indefectibility (the church is built on the promise of the
risen Christ: "I will be with you always, to the very end of the age" ).

Evangelical expositors, however, were careful to point out that historical continuity,
numerical quantity, and cultural variety do not themselves constitute true catholicity. The
true church may be quite small: Where two or three of you are gathered together in my
name, Jesus said, there I am in your midst. This "I" is the only basis of true catholicity. As
Barth wrote, "The Real Church is the assembly which is called, united, held together and
governed by the Word of her Lord, or she is not the Real Church."

Perhaps evangelical catholicity today is best seen in its worldwide missionary vision. Indeed,
what ecumenism is to post-Vatican II Catholicism, world evangelization is for evangelicalism:
not an added appendix, but an organic part of its life and work. The effort to share the
gospel with those who have never heard was at the heart of William Carey's mission to India
in 1793, an event that launched what Kenneth Scott Latourette called "the great century" of
Protestant missions. This witness continues today through the mission boards of evangelical
denominations and a vast network of international parachurch ministries such as the Billy
Graham Evangelistic Association, Campus Crusade for Christ, World Vision, and Prison
Fellowship.

The church is apostolic

Because the church is one, holy, and catholic, it is also apostolic. This word was added to the
Nicene description of the church in 381, but it was clearly expressed already in Paul's
metaphor of the church as God's house, "built on the foundation of the apostles and the
prophets" (Eph. 2:20). That church is apostolic which stands under the authority of the
apostles, whom Jesus chose and sent forth in his name.

Evangelicals, no less than Roman Catholics, claim to be apostolic in this sense. But the two
traditions differ sharply in understanding the transmission of the apostolic witness from the
first century until now. Catholics believe that the church continues to be "taught, sanctified,
and guided by the apostles through their successors in pastoral office: the college of
bishops, assisted by priests, in union with the successor of Peter, the church's supreme
pastor." As heirs of the Reformation, evangelicals do not define apostolicity in terms of a
literal, linear succession of duly ordained bishops. They point instead to the primordial
character of the gospel, the inscripturated witness of the apostles, and the succession of
apostolic proclamation.

Perhaps evangelical catholicity

today is best seen in its
worldwide missionary vision.

While the church is indeed built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, there is
something even more basic: the message they proclaimedJesus Christ and him crucified.
This is a constant note throughout the ministry of Paul, who wrote to the Corinthians, "For
we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for
Jesus' sake" (2 Cor. 4:5).

As the authorized representatives of Jesus Christ, the apostles have faithfully and accurately
transmitted their authoritative witness to their Lord in the divinely inspired writings of Holy
Scripture. The teaching authority of the apostles, evangelicals believe, thus resides in the Old
and New Testaments, the self-authenticating Word of God.

Evangelicals and Catholics differ about which books are included in the canon of Scripture
and also about the role of the early church in its formation: Was the canon the creation of
the church, or was the church the place of reception for the canon? Both, nonetheless, share
a common commitment to the Scriptures as the divinely inspired Word of God. (Indeed,
documents in both traditions appeal to the Bible as "inerrant.")

For evangelicals, the principle of sola Scriptura means that all the teachings, interpretations,
and traditions of the church must be subjected to the divine touchstone of Holy Scripture
itself. But sola Scriptura is not nuda Scriptura. While evangelicals cannot accept the idea of
tradition as a coequal or supplementary source of revelation, neither can we ignore the rich
exegetical tradition of the early Christian writers whose wisdom is vastly superior to the
latest word from today's guilded scholars. The consensus of thoughtful Christian
interpretation of the Word through the agesand on central issues of faith there is such a
thingis not likely to be wrong. Evangelicals have much to learn from the way the Bible was
read in ages past.

For evangelicals, public preaching of the Word of God is a sign of apostolicity. Through the
words of the preacher, the living voice of the gospel is heard. The church, Luther said, is not
a "pen house" but a "mouth house." The Second Helvetic Confession (1566) goes so far as to
say that "the preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God." But evangelicals should not
let the almost sacramental quality of preaching in our tradition obscure the importance of
the "visible words" of God in baptism and the Lord's Supper. Evangelicals, no less than
Catholics, should strive for a proper balance among these constituent acts of worship. In
doing so, of course, evangelicals must not compromise the priority of proclamation, for as in
the time of the apostles, "God was pleased through the foolishness of what is preached to
save those who believe" (1 Cor. 1:21).

A worthy maid
"I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church," Archbishop William Temple once
remarked, "but regret that it doesn't exist." To which the evangelical responds: If by exist we
mean perfect, complete, unbroken, infallibly secure, verifiably visible in its external
structures, then it is clear that such a church does not exist in this world. In this world the
true church is always in a state of becoming. It is buffeted by struggles and beset by the
eschatological "groanings" that mark those "on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come"
(Rom. 8:18-25; 1 Cor. 10:11).

In 1525, Luther wrote a lyrical hymn praising the church:

To me she's dear, the worthy maid,

and I cannot forget her;
Praise, honor, virtue of her are said;
then all I love her better.

On earth, all mad with murder,

the mother now alone is she,
But God will watchful guard her,
and the right Father be.

To the eyes of faith, the church is a "worthy maid," the Bride of Christ. But by the standards
of the world, she is a poor Cinderella surrounded by many foes. Wrote Luther: "If, then, a
person desires to draw the church as he sees her, he will picture her as a deformed and poor
girl sitting in an unsafe forest in the midst of hungry lions in the midst of infuriated men
who set sword, fire, and water in motion in order to kill her and wipe her from the face of
the earth." In God's sight, the church is pure, holy, unspotted, the Bridegroom, Christ:
"hacked to pieces, marked with scratches, despised, crucified, mocked."

As evangelicals and Catholics pursue theological dialogue, moved by our love for the truth
and for one another, we must not forget this ecclesiology by opting for an easy armchair
ecumenism, heady and aloof. All our plans will ring hollow unless we stand in solidarity with
our brothers and sisters in Christ, who live under the shadow of the cross and whose faithful
witness is leading many of them to the shedding of their blood for the gospel.
Several months ago on a visit to Germany, I was taken to what remains of the concentration
camp at Buchenwald near Weimar. Here more than 65,000 people were put to death by a
totalitarian regime which saw in the Christian faith, in both its Catholic and Protestant
expressions, a threat to the ideology of death. At Buchenwald there was one block of cells
reserved for especially "dangerous" prisoners.

In cell 27 they placed Paul Schneider, a Lutheran pastor, who came to be called "the
Preacher of Buchenwald." From the small window in his cell he loudly proclaimed Jesus
Christ in defiance of the orders of the Gestapo guards. In cell 23 they placed Otto Neururer,
a Catholic priest, whose work on behalf of the Jews and other so-called undesirables had
made him a threat to the Nazi war lords. He too ministered to the prisoners in Jesus' name.

Together, a son of Rome and a son of the Reformation, separated no longer by four
centuries but only by four cells, walked the way of the cross and together bore witness to
their Lord. Their common witness does not remove all the differences between their
respective communities of faith. But we remember them and thank God for them as well as
for the countless others who have and will share a fellowship in the sufferings of Jesus. For
today, as in ages past, the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the churchthe one, holy,
catholic, and apostolic church.

An InterVarsity Christian Fellowship chapter can look very different in the fall than it did the
previous spring. But the chapter at George Washington University (GWU) in the nation's
capital is dealing with change of a more uncomfortable kind than absent graduates and
incoming freshmen.

Shortly before students left for summer vacation, the D.C. chapter split when all ten student
leaders resigned to form a new campus ministry called University Christian Fellowship. More
than half of the chapter's roughly 100 students joined them. At issue was student leaders'
worry that the national ministry confuses the gospel by cooperating with Roman Catholics,
and has a mission statement that Catholics could sign without violating church teaching on
the doctrine of justificationhow sinners are declared righteous before God.

Over the past decade, justification has become one of the most hotly debated doctrines at
conservative Protestant theology conferences and in the catalogs of highbrow Christian
publishers. But it has almost entirely stayed in the academy and a handful of churches and
denominations. The GWU clash suggests the debate may divide parachurch ministries and
reshape evangelicals' relationship with the Roman Catholic Church.

Jolt of Intensity

The long debate over how Protestants should view the Roman Catholic Church has received
several jolts of intensity in the past 15 years. The group Evangelicals and Catholics Together
(ECT) touted a 1994 statement, "The Gift of Salvation," in which several prominent Roman
Catholics affirmed "justification by faith alone." The unofficial statement predated an official
agreement between the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation in 1999, called "The
Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification." The church allowed that anathemas the
Council of Trent delivered in the mid-1500s do not apply to Protestants who agree with the
joint declaration.

But Protestants' internal disagreement over justification has complicated matters. A

Presbyterian Church in America committee reported in 2007 that reformulations of
justification (especially two views known as the Federal Vision and the New Perspective on
Paul) fall outside the bounds of historic Presbyterian confessions.

The committee's study of the New Perspective focused largely on N.T. Wright, the Anglican
bishop of Durham and a prolific biblical scholar. This year Wright published Justification:
God's Plan and Paul's Vision. The book counters his critics, especially John Piper, who
published The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright in 2007. (See "The
Justification Debate: A Primer," CT, June 2009.)

Another bombshell hit in May 2007, when Francis Beckwith, then president of the
Evangelical Theological Society, reverted to Catholicism. The Baylor University philosopher
has since published an account of his journey, titledReturn to Rome.

"I have no doubt that the New Perspective and Federal Vision have had an effect on the
Protestant-Catholic debate," Beckwith told Christianity Today. "I have met several former
evangelical Protestants who have told me that Wright's work in particular helped them to
better appreciate the Catholic view of grace."

Taylor Marshall went even further. Now a Ph.D. philosophy student at the University of
Dallas, he started reading Wright while attending Westminster Theological Seminary in
Philadelphia. He said Wright's work shifted his assumptions so he could understand the
Council of Trent's position. Marshall does not believe Wright holds to the full Catholic view.
But he said Wright's critique led him to conclude that the Reformers departed from
Scripture by teaching "forensic justification through the imputed alien righteousness of
Christ."

Marshall briefly served as an Anglican priest before converting to Catholicism in 2006 and
becoming assistant director of the Catholic Information Center in Washington, D.C. Marshall
said he speaks with new Catholic converts every month, about half of whom have been
"deeply influenced" by Wright.

"If you buy into Wright's approach to covenantal theology, then you've already taken three
steps toward the Catholic Church. Keep following the trail and you'll be Catholic," said
Marshall, who blogs at PaulIsCatholic.com. "Salvation is sacramental, transformational,
communal, and eschatological. Sound good? You've just assented to the Catholic Council of
Trent."

Wright himself finds strange the notion that he's leading people to Rome. "I am sorry to
think that there are people out there whose Protestantism has been so barren that they
never found out about sacraments, transformation, community, or eschatology. Clearly this
person needed a change. But to jump to Rome for that reason is very odd," he said. The best
Reformed, charismatic, Anglican, and even some emerging churches have these emphases,
he said.

Wright, the Anglican observer at the Vatican's Synod of Bishops last October, said he was
struck by the bishops' emphasis that every Catholic read the Bible in his or her own
language. "Let's engage cheerfully in as much discussion with our Roman friends as we can,"
Wright said. "They are among my best ecumenical conversation partners, and some of them
are among my dear friends. But let's not imagine that a renewed biblical theology will mean
we find ourselves saying, 'you guys were right after all,' just at the point where, not explicitly
but actually, they are saying that to us."
Chris Castaldo studied under Wright for a semester at Harvard Divinity School. He identifies
several reasons why Wright's Pauline theology might lead Protestants to consider the merits
of Catholic teaching. Like Catholics, Wright emphasizes the positive contribution of "works"
in salvation, worships in a liturgical church, and places the church's call to social justice in
the foreground. But Castaldo, author of Holy Ground: Walking with Jesus as a Former
Catholic, also sees a growing movement of Catholics more willing to confront Protestant
belief as the reason for so many conversionsand for renewed Protestant-Catholic
tensions.

"In keeping with the spirit of Vatican II, the 'new evangelization' of Pope John Paul II sought
to deepen personal faith and stimulate innovative forms of outreach," Castaldo said. "Not
unlike renewal movements surrounding the Council of Trent, an element of this recent
Catholic fervor has morphed into strident opposition [to] Protestantism. Listen to the
Catholic apologists on Relevant Radio or ewtn. Faced with millions who have left Rome for
evangelical Protestant pastures, it's not too surprising that Catholic polemics would take
such a turn."

Long History, Little Agreement

Beeson Divinity School founding dean Timothy George signed the 1994 ECT statement,
which he said was a "circumscribed step forward" in Protestant-Catholic dialogue. Among
ECT participants, George said, there is strong agreement with the Augustinian emphasis on
the gratuity of grace, that we do not earn salvation by good works or merits. He
acknowledges Protestants' and Catholics' lingering disagreement over how justification
relates to sanctification and Luther's famous phrase simul iustus et peccator ("at the same
time righteous and a sinner"). But he does not see justification as the focal point of
Protestant-Catholic disagreement.

"The gaping divide between evangelicals and Catholics is ecclesiology and authority, not
justification and salvation, as important as that debate remains," George said. "There is
enough commonality that evangelicals and Catholics with a living faith can recognize one
another as brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ with a common Lord and common grace that
brought them together. The hard issues are questions related to the church, such as the
Petrine office [the papacy] and the Eucharist. Those discussions will occupy us for the next
100 years."

They have already occupied us for several hundred years. During the English Reformation,
the Puritans were united in their disagreement with Roman Catholic teaching. Yet some
viewed Rome as a true church in error, while others treated it as a false church. John Owen
took fellow Puritan leader Richard Baxter to task over a view of justification that resembles
Wright's. During the 1800s, American Presbyterians disagreed over whether to recognize
Roman Catholic baptisms as valid. More recently, conflict over ECT has strained some long-
term friendships between prominent theologians with opposing views on how to regard
Catholics.

And even ECT is changing. Its October statement on Mary was the first to include, after an
initial statement on areas of agreement, sections where each side attempted to correct the
other's views.

Basis of Doctrine
Until recent years, debates over justification were handled mainly by theologians and select
pastors. But the release of Wright's and Piper's books have led more church leaders to
choose sides and act on their convictions. Several of the GWU students who left InterVarsity
are members of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, whose associate pastor, Michael Lawrence,
formerly served on InterVarsity staff. "Whether or not you agree with the students, they are
not impulsive firebrands," Lawrence said.

Concern among GWU student leaders began when they noticed promotional material on
InterVarsity's website and during the organization's Urbana conference that conveyed a
willingness to cooperate with Catholics. Then, during a spring mission trip, InterVarsity staff
took students to a Mass. Finally, local staff pushed back when the student-led executive
team unanimously declined to select a student for a leadership position because she was a
Catholic.

The GWU executive team then examined the InterVarsity Doctrinal Basis, adopted in 2000,
and concluded that Catholics could sign the InterVarsity statement because it does not
specify that grace comes through "faith alone" in Jesus Christ.

"We believe that the Roman Catholic Church does not agree with the gospel that we
emphasize, meaning that it would not be good to hold up someone as a leader who has
associated with them," said Tristan Stiles, a 2009 GWU graduate and former member of the
executive team.

InterVarsity president Alec Hill responded in a letter, telling the students, "I can
unequivocally assure you that InterVarsity holds to the position of justification by faith
alone." Hill observed that InterVarsity is corporately federated under the International
Fellowship of Evangelical Students (IFES), whose statement of faith lists "the justification of
the sinner by the grace of God through faith alone" as a central Christian truth. All
InterVarsity staff must reaffirm their commitment to the Doctrinal Basis and the IFES
statement each year.

Hill also allowed that the GWU executive team could require leaders to affirm "justification
by faith alone" in the student application process.

InterVarsity's Bear Trap Statement, adopted in 1960 at the national staff conference,
specified that sinners are justified "by the Lord Jesus Christ through faith alone." By contrast,
the Doctrinal Basis of 2000 said that InterVarsity believes in "justification by God's grace to
all who repent and put their faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation."

The word alone's shift in placement is significant, said Doug Sweeney, professor of history of
Christian thought at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

"Tridentine Roman Catholics could not sign the Bear Trap Statement, for justification by faith
alone was anathematized at the Council of Trent," said Sweeney. "Such Roman Catholics
could sign the 2000 statement, however, for Catholics have always taught that salvation is
found in Christ alone. Further, the 2000 statement allows for a Tridentine commitment to
the necessity of faith being formed or perfected by love before one is finally justified. This is
the doctrine that the 16th-century Reformers opposed most strenuously."

Hill said some critics are thinking "with their church history primer rather than their biblical
text."
"What evangelical Protestant could possibly object to that language [in the 2000 doctrinal
basis]?" he said. "It is biblically centered. It is biblically correct. Faith isin Christ Jesus alone
. This was run by many Reformed theologians inside and outside the fellowship when it
was adopted. No one objected. As a matter of fact, they felt it strengthened the prior
statement by specifically stating in whom we put our faith. To suggest that Inter-Varsity has
somehow watered down its statement of justification by faith is erroneous, to be honest."

So far, the GWU debate shows no sign of spreading to other InterVarsity chapters. But given
the importance of justification to Protestants' understanding of the gospel, said Lawrence,
more ministries can expect more conflict over it.

"This debate has a long pedigree," he said. "Again and again, it has caused division among
Protestants."