Poison 2: They poison us by perverting our understanding of what the Christian walk looks like. How many people follow a religion that follows the same bible that we do, yet interprets it completely different? Mormons (golden tablets), Jehovah’s Witnesses (small alterations in The New World Translation), Catholicism (tradition & creeds). Now I’m not saying that there aren’t Catholics that aren’t Christians. But how easy is it to follow God when the truth is misinterpreted or blatantly perverted?
I have a huge problem lumping Catholicism in with Mormonism and the Witnesses. I want to lay out that problem and hopefully correct some inaccurate thinking.
Let’s begin with tradition (the first of the two things you label perversions). Most Christians not in the Catholic Faith misunderstand what Tradition is. Tradition is not “the way we’ve always done it” or “What we’ve always believed.” Instead, Tradition is “What the Church teaches.” It encompasses both historic and modern teaching. And the Catholic Church says Tradition is co-equal with Scripture in authority.
That’s where many people get caught up. SOLA SCRIPTURA!!, as Luther proclaimed. Protestants rejected Tradition as Authority for the first time about 500 years ago. For the 1500 years before Luther, no one had any trouble with Tradition being co-equal in authority with Scripture. And there are good reasons why.
First, Tradition established Scripture. Yes, Scripture is all inspired by God, but it was the church who decided what letters and writings were in fact God-inspired. In the early years of the church over 15 different Gospels of Christ were circulating. The Church eventually decided on 4 and included them in the Canon. The church also decided which letters were God-inspired and voted to include them. So it was Church Tradition that established Scripture.
Second, you actually support Tradition… in part. You accept the canon of your Bible and call it complete and authoritative. Why do you say that? Basically, you say it because Martin Luther said it. You may point to 2 Timothy 3:16 [show]2 Timothy 3:16
[16]All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (ESV)
(All scripture is God breathed…) or Revelation 22:18-19 [show]Revelation 22:18-19
[18]I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, [19]and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (ESV)
(Do not take away or add), but there are problems with these verses. When Paul wrote Timothy, Scripture was… the Old Testament. Remember, Paul was SuperJew before he converted. When he references Scripture, he is referencing the OT only. The New Testament didn’t exist yet. So Paul was only saying that the OT is useful for teaching and whatnot. And that oft-quoted passage in Revelation refers only to the book of Revelation. Because again, remember, the Canon was still open when that book was written (besides which the text specifically refers that passage only to itself). So why do you accept the book of Galatians as Scripture? Because Christians before you said it was God-inspired. And THAT is tradition. Special Note: Martin Luther wanted to remove Jude, Revelation, Hebrews, and James from the Canon.
Third, Christ supported Tradition. Remember when Christ said “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’, but I tell you…” Do you know Christ was quoting Scripture? Leviticus 24:19-21 [show]Leviticus 24:19-21
[19]If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, [20]fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. [21]Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. (ESV)
. So he quoted Scripture and then pretty clearly went against it. He was teaching via Tradition. He was identifying what Scripture says and then telling us the correct way to interact with that scripture or interpret it. That is precisely Tradition. And that Jesus had to interact with Scripture this way demonstrates the necessity of Tradition. Another example of this is our Communion. Basically our entire service is new. It is a reinterpretation of the Passover Meal. It’s Tradition.
Finally, Tradition keeps Scripture relevant. It is the church who applies scripture to modern problems. We take the ideas and teachings of Scripture and provide specific applications. This is Tradition.
So you and I use tradition every day when we read our Bibles. But how do we use tradition? On this side of the Protestant reformation, Tradition has become personal. We make it up as we go. We interpret everything for ourselves and simply justify it by saying “The Holy Spirit told me”. Well, ok. Maybe the Holy Spirit did. Maybe you have the gifts of Prophesy, Discernment, and Wisdom. But if that is the case, then you should be in agreement with everyone else who is accurately interpreting Scripture. But we don’t have a means for comparing our interpretations against others. The Catholic Church did and does.
The Catholic church (and the Orthodox) establishes Tradition by means of Ecumenical Council. That means “the whole Church”. The Cardinals all get together, the bishops all gather, the Pope oversees, they pray, and together they discuss what the Spirit is teaching about the correct interpretation of Scripture. And their consensus becomes Tradition and authority. To me, that’s a much better way then all of us flying solo. MUCH less room for error.
Now the next argument I would expect is that Tradition has clearly failed because the Catholic church is teaching things contrary to the bible. To that I say… I think you’re wrong. We who are not Catholic misunderstand nearly everything about the Catholic church’s dogma. I’ve found that nearly everyone outside of the church (and many within) misunderstand Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the doctrine of Purgatory, to name a few.
Every one of these doctrines, if you read the doctrine, is backed up extensively by Scripture. And that is another key truth about Tradition. Tradition cannot contradict Scripture. They are coequals. One is not subservient to the other. So all Tradition that is set forth by the Church is accompanied by extensive Biblical references to support the truth of the Tradition. In this regard, Tradition is held accountable to Scripture, although that’s not quite an applicable concept. Now you might point to a specific scripture passage and say “Look, this disagrees with that doctrine!” My answer is that 1), you probably misunderstand the doctrine, and 2), I bet the actual writing of the doctrine addresses that very scriptural passage, and 3) who’s to say your interpretation of that passage is the correct one?
The second aspect of Catholicism you seem to denounce is Creeds, and I’m going to need more explanation on that. Creeds are simply statements of Faith. The current Catholic interpreation of the Nicene-Constantinoplean Creed is:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
This is a statement of Faith, a statement of belief. And really I don’t find anything problematic in there other than the Filioque clause (ask me about it if you care- I get fired up), and see no theological problems. I could speak this Creed in truth.
Our own church has a Creed. We call it a statement of Faith. We say that the New Testament is our Creed (but then we also provide our own statement of Faith, so the NT isn’t our only Creed). So you’ll need to explain better why Creed is bad.
And remember, the Creed I quoted above was first written around 325 AD. It’s served the Church for nearly 1700 years. It was in use Centuries before the Catholic church even existed.
So to close, I would strongly urge you not to reject Catholicism or to lump it in with Moronism (oops, Mormonism…) or the Witnesses. Catholicism is the second oldest expression of Christianity, worthy of a great deal of respect, and very much genuine.