Debate Review 1: Is There a God? - Rick Warren v. Sam Harris

Below are my reactions to the informal debate between Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church and the neuroscientist Sam Harris on Religion and Atheism, which was published back in 2007. This is intended to be the first review in a series of debates between prominent atheists and theists. The link to the debate is below:

Informal Debate on Religion and Atheism Between Rick Warren and Sam Harris, 2007 - via Newsweek

Bridges in the Debate for Mutual Understanding

Hmm, while an interesting debate, I think there are a few valuable take-aways for those reading. First, you'll often find religious debates revolve around the same issues without really moving forward.

For instance, in this debate Sam Harris opens up to an understanding of spirituality that is couched in reason. That's something that both sides should really explore further, as it seems like a great bridge.

Additionally, Rick makes some statements regarding wonder, order, beauty, etc. that would be helpful both when talking about our understanding of the universe, and in the Christian understanding of God. Another bridge.

The Inadequate Treatment of Miracles

However, a number of statements were made (particularly by Rick) that were either unhelpful, in my opinion, or were not unpacked sufficiently. For instance, he appealed to miracles as a reason for faith, but did not address Sam's statistical or cultural concerns surrounding the phenomenon.

It would be helpful if miracles were explained in their theological and phenomenological sense: If miracles are (or were) real, then they have been directed by the Deity. If they have been directed by the Deity, then they were performed within that particular cultural context (time, place, etc.) for a reason, presumably as part of some greater story. And, if they occurred for a particular place and time, then they are not repeatable.

This is relevant, as it makes them statistically undetectable and experimentally untestable, but not necessarily any less real. They simply move from the realm of the natural sciences to the realm of the social sciences. In this realm, their entire context must be taken into consideration, including the context of the witnesses.

It is still possible that their occurrence is bogus, but it must be recognized as possible that their occurrence isn't. Honestly, when placed in the study of social sciences, even their non-occurrence may mean something theologically relevant.

The Value of Mythic and Poetic Language in Scripture

The problem is that both sides attempt to argue from a natural sciences standpoint. And in this realm, Rick Warren is severely disadvantaged. There are many faithful Christians who believe that Genesis (esp. ch. 1-11) is primarily mythic poetry, that while borrowing from similar tales in other cultures, is still transformed to say something real and true about the relationship between God, humanity and Creation.

It is helpful here to note, that when I use the word "myth," I do not mean the popular understanding of the word as a story that's made up. Instead, myths are generally structured stories which often call on a variety of sources and often are transmitted orally before being written down. Such stories often convey a deeper human truth. It makes sense to me that if God has revealed Himself to humanity through the stories in scripture, then he would use the cultural tools available to both reach as wide an audience as possible and maintain relevance over a long period of time. These tools would include poetry, wisdom sayings, songs, mythic stories, biographies, etc. I see no reason why He would be constrained to modern notions regarding scientific or historic accuracy, as these things have not been a major concern for humanity during most of its history.

But Rick doesn't acknowledge this. He simply says he believes in the literal reading of Genesis and doesn't back that claim up in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

The Differences Between Faith, Belief, and Dogma

Additionally, Sam seems to understand faith as the opposite of reason, and faith and dogma as equivalent. He questions why God would allow someone, born within a tradition, to be punished for believing that tradition. Rick doesn't challenge him on this, but I will. I would argue that dogma is defined as an immovable position which disregards any subsequent discovery or fact. Faith, on the other hand is much more malleable.

In fact, faith even maintains room for doubt! If you notice, almost every major "hero" of the faith in the OT has doubts at some time or another (Job, Moses, Gideon, Elijah, Jonah, the writers of half the Psalms, etc.). In each case, God never punishes the doubter. Instead, the doubter comes out stronger for the experience.

For the person born in their own tradition, they are not judged because they don't believe in Jesus (especially if they have never encountered Him). They are judged according to how they faithfully adhered to their understanding of goodness. Scripture tells us that every human being betrays that understanding eventually, and that makes our reconciliation with God (through Christ) most necessary.

Faith is better defined then, not as belief in defiance of reason, but instead as trust founded on reason, experience, and revelation. One may question their beliefs continuously, and still remain faithful. In fact, whenever new situations, knowledge, or experiences arise, it makes sense to question our assumptions. And this is absolutely OK, and I would argue, is a sign of wisdom. However, I have still found reason to have faith, and because of this, I will do my best to be faithful.

My Further Thoughts on These Issues

Note: To give a bit of background on my opinion. I am a Christian, and I believe in the God whose attributes include transcendence, imminence, and goodness. I believe God is, and has been, active in the cosmos. And I believe in objective truth. However, I also understand that truth and fact are often different things.

There is allegorical truth, poetic truth, wisdom-truth, ethical truth, etc. But in the realm of fact, there is scientific and historical fact. I do believe truth needs to be informed and understood in terms of scientific and historical fact, but I do not believe that truth needs to rest entirely within the realm of fact.

In my own study, I have come to the conclusion that the bodily resurrection of Jesus fits into the realm of historical and scientific fact, and therefore the theological truths I arrive at are anchored in this. This is rooted in my understanding that the gospel accounts are for the most part reliable, at least in regards to his teaching, miracles, death, and resurrection (a complete analysis of this viewpoint would require its own post). And as a result of this conclusion, my theology rests along the same lines as the rest of orthodox Christianity. However, this does not mean EVERY story in the bible can be treated in the same way, or that every story should be treated as literally, historically accurate.

I think that in order to tell the difference, we use experiential, structural (to the scriptural passage), traditional (contextual), and reasonable (scientific, historical, philosophical) methods to arrive at our conclusions. Because we arrive at different conclusions, theological debate becomes a worthwhile exercise. However, I also believe that such differences of interpretation are not grounds for discrimination or hate, as Jesus' teaching makes clear.

The problem with the above debate is that neither side really devotes sufficient energy to using these methods to arrive at truth. In my final analysis I think Sam did better and "won" the debate. However, even his arguments were insufficient to turn me away from my conclusions. I do not think that this is due to an "unreasonable" attitude on my part.

Fourth Rebuttal to "A House Divided" & Ivan's Response

Rebuttal by Edward N. Haas on a Catholic Forum

"Well, Johnny Blackpool, famous adventurer, I briefly consulted your blog. It causes me seriously to doubt you have any inclination toward joining the Catholic Church. I think you are merely using that line as a come-on to entice the guillible into your web -- a web in which you hope you can then "reason" them into quitting their Catholic affiliation. One ought not to waste one's time trying to debate with someone like yourself; but, since I'm looking for an excuse to delay cutting a quarter acre of grass and bushhoging 9 acres of weeds, I'll bother to go a brief round with you, little spider, in your web.

If you consult the second chapter of St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he tells us faith should be founded on seeing a demonstration of the power of God, and warns us against this business of trying to found one's faith on what, in the original Greek, he calls "sophia". This is generally translated as "wisdom"; but the Greek word "sophia" was also used by the Greeks of that day to signify shrewdness, cunning, and craftiness. As you can perhaps see for yourself, the Greek word "sophia" is the root source for the English word "sophistry", and we all know what kind of verbal rigmarole that implies. Thus, what St. Paul is here telling us is this: Faith is not to be founed on an elaborate series of clever, dialectical arguments such as people like you relish in setting forth at great length in books or blogs or what have you; rather, faith is to be founded on the simple act of staring into the face of a what obviously bespeaks divine support.

Therefore, wherever one is truly a Catholic, one's faith is not based upon an elaborate display of verbal gymnastics; rather, it is based upon seeing what obviously says: Such a level of success could not possibly be, unless God is behind it. Incarnate God Himself promotes this principle when, in verses 24 thru 27 of chapter 7 of St. Matthew's Gospel, He tells us how only an edifice built on His word can endure best of all. He again promotes this same principle when, in Matt. 13:31, Mark 4:31, and Luke 13:19, He assures us the kingdom of heaven starts as the smallest of seeds but grows to be the LARGEST of shurbs --- so large it becomes a tree.

Now then, as even the bitterest of its enemies readily admit, Catholic Doctrine has built far, far more effectively than has any other ideology known to history (One group of zealots incessantly thunders that this outstandingly outstanding succees is what proves the Catholic Church is the work of the devil.). It has built by far the largest world-class, centrally organized institution in history and the only such institution to survive for 2,000 years. That it has done despite the fact that the institution it's built (i.e.: the Catholic Church) is also the most violently and persistently attacked institution in history. The military and intellectual assaults upon the Catholic Church are legion, and the number of its martyrs boggles the mind. For all of that, the institution built by Catholic Doctrine thrives far, far more effectively than does any other institution known to history. Past versions of France, England, Germany, and Italy have all tried to destroy the Vatican and to put an end to the Papacy. The Papacy, though, remains a sovereign state, and the France, England, Germany, and Italy which tried to crush it are gone with the wind. Shades of Luke 20:18!

Like so many others, you seem to think that, by listing the foibles of this or that pope or what have you, you make points against Catholic Doctrine's claim to be THE mouthpiece of God. I'm surprised you didn't mention Galatians 2: 11 in which St. Paul recounts how he had to correct St. Peter on a point of doctrine. I'm surprised you didn't mention Pope John XXII who had to be corrected by the king of France on a point of doctrine. Contrary to what you apparently think, you do not, in listing all these foibles, make points AGAINST Catholic Doctrine's claim. On the contrary, you UPHOLD its claim. For, the more you run into the ground those responsible for spreading Catholic Doctrine, the more you exalt the power of the Catholic Doctrine able to overcome such handicaps and, in spite of the Catholics, to thrive far, far more effectively than does any other doctrine. Sixteen hundred years ago, St. John Chrysostom alluded to this principle when he at least effectively said this: If you look at the success of Catholic Doctrine and then look at how pitiful are those charged with spreading that doctrine, it's all too obvious that the latter are much too incompetent to produce the former; and so, the success of the former plainly tells you that it must be God who has done this. Yes, God works thru the incompetent in order that, when great success follows anyhow, it may be obvious that it is God who is responsible for the success. Look at the wretchedness of all too many Catholic popes, bishops, priests, religious, and laity, and it is all too obvious that Catholic Doctrine's outstanding success can't be their doing and, so, is clearly and unequivocally God's doing. Thus is one face to face with what bespeaks divine support, and thus is one presented with faith based upon seeing a demonstration of the power of God rather than upon the long, drawn-out dialetcial, lawyer-like arguments of Johnny Blackpool and company.

Because of the scale on which it has obviously built, Catholic Doctrine's claim to be THE revealed word of God is the most substantiated claim ever given to the human race. That, then, is the basis upon which I rest my unshakably fearless conviction that, in Catholic Doctrine's testimony, I have found what is, by very, very far, the most reliable testimony there is, namely: THE TESTIMONY OF INFINITELY INFORMED GOD. This is the 73 year old, white bachelor, Edward N. Haas, financially independent by birth, and living and writing up a storm (17 self-published books in print) in the middle of 27 inherited acres at 39193 Haas Road in Haaswood, La."

Note by Ivan: Mr. Haas has provided a website you can visit at this link .

"Edward N. Haas here again. Add this to my prior reply. It's from pg. 42

of the Catholic Cathechism. It's also designated as paragraph 156. Here,

then, is how the Catholic Cathecism expresses and affirms what I said in

my prior posting:

So 'that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance
with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be
joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit.' Thus the miracles of
Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and
her fruitfulness and stability 'are the most certain signs of divine
Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all'; they are 'motives of
credibility' (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of
faith is 'by no means a blind impulse of the mind.'

Even as some saw Jesus raise the dead, they turned away from the obvious

demonstration of the power of God and chose, instead, to cling to a bit

of mental gymnastics using scripture as its source of power: "Scripture

speaks of no prophet coming from Galilee. But, this man comes from

Galilee; therefore, this man is no prophet . Furthermore, this man's

acts contradict scripture when he heals on the Sabbath. But, no man of

God contradicts scripture; therefore, this man is not from God.

Therefore, we shall not believe no matter how many people he raises from

the dead. Not even if he himself rises from the dead! For, we can prove

by logical arguments drawn from scripture that he cannot be a man of God

no matter what." No matter how powerful the demonstration of Divine

support, some always have preferred, and always will prefer, the

inferences produced by the complex gyrations of their own minds ---

particularly those inferences seeming to feed off of scripture. For

them, no miracle means anything, until one can thoroughly explode every

one of the adverse inferences which their mental gymnastics can produce.

And what good does it do to explode every one of their adverse

inferences? For, if you convert them that way, then they'll wind up with

a faith based on "logic" rather than on seeing the power of God

demonstrated. Such faith shall not endure. For, somewhere down the line

they'll come upon some new bit of mental gymnastics which shall

instantly destroy their faith, unless and until, they or someone else

can explode the new inferences produced by this latest bit of mental

gymnastics. Show me, then, a man with a catalogue of inductions and

deductions which must be exploded before he can believe, and I'll show

you a man who --- as long as that is his attitude -- is inherently

incapable of GENUINE faith, which is to say faith based upon SEEING THE

POWER OF GOD DEMONSTRATED."

Ivan's Response to Mr. Haas' Rebuttal

Mr. Haas,

you bring up many good points, and i think you bring up something that i really did overlook: that we are not saved by sophia, but by the demonstration of the power of God. and clearly the power of the R.C. Church and its ability to endure for so long do show that God's grace is with it. I don't contest that and it's something I shouldn't overlook any longer (also, if it's alright with you, i'd like to put your response up - and this answer - on my blog, as it was a very good one).

i do still have a couple of questions, though. while you stated that my "real" goal is to entice catholics into my web & suck the life out of 'em (not your exact words, but i like my description better), i assure you it's not. i think if their faith is genuine and the work God is doing in their lives is genuine as well, then they should stay put. i'm only asking, why should I convert to catholicism from my current tradition (Baptist)?

and maybe a little of my personal background would help you understand why it's even an issue for me. I am a Christian and i love God with everything i am. But i felt a call to the ministry and in my study of the Church, what she teaches and her history i became convinced of the importance for unity in the Body of Christ (that this is Jesus' desire during his last prayers in John 17:20-21 is clear). in fact, because Jesus prays so fervently for unity not just for his immediate disciples, but for all "those who will believe in [Jesus] through their word;" and this became my passion.

unlike a lot of other Baptist pastors, i'm not content to see the Church split in a million pieces. i think it would show a hard heart if i were. and so that left me looking at the largest Communion of Christians, with clear apostolic succession and continuity, and left me wondering whether i should convert. but that also left me looking at all these issues of doctrine (for instance "required celibacy," i have a wife & son and that would preclude me from R.C. priesthood, but not priestood in any of the other denominations). it also made me seriously consider the actions of the Church over the ages, as James makes it clear our actions are the sole evidence of our faith and Jesus states in John that our love for one another is the standard by which others will judge the truths that we speak.

but when we look at the history of the Church (and not just on the R.C. side, but on the Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant sides as well), we see a lot of inward strife, hatred and political machinations against fellow brothers and sisters. because of all this (and the doctrinal issues that seem to contradict scripture), i ask myself "Do I need to join the Roman Catholic Church to be fully in communion with God's people?"

Can I be just as fully in communion if I become Eastern Ortothodx (as they also have a chair of Peter in the bishopric of Antioch and exhibit the same ancient apostolic succession as the R.C. Church, as does the Oriental Orthodox communion)? Or if I become a Pentecostal preacher? You said to judge by the demonstration of God's power. They still speak in tongues, prophecy and cast out demons. In fact, they're the fastest growing Christian communion (especially in areas where the Church is heavily persecuted). We can't ignore their claims either.

I want to know what makes the Roman Catholic claims unique in the face of all this? i don't think the answer is to pull a Joseph Smith and start my own religion (what a mess that would be!). but i'm also not convinced that i or anyone else needs to join the R.C. Church or that the Roman communion holds the title of One True Church solely within her institution. but if we are to become unified as the people of God, how should we tackle these issues? by the way, i for one think this exact dialogue is a great first step; but we must have dialogue, ministerial cooperation, and dogmatic decision bottom-up (through regular believers) as well as top-down (through the hierarchy).

And since Mr. Haas was kind enough to submit his real name, here's mine:

Ian Hyde, Pasadena CA (though everybody calls me "Ivan").

Third Rebuttal to "A House Divided" & Ivan's Response

Second Rebuttal by Sambos671 on a Catholic Forum

Quoting Ivan:

I see your point about the distinction between infallibility and impeccability. How do we apply this in regard to the more corrupt popes listed? As James states that faith not backed up by action is no faith at all, these particular popes seemed to do everything in their power to actively oppose faith. also, what about Pope Honorius I who was declared a heratic both by the sixth Ecumenical Council and Pope Leo II? That particular episode shows pretty clearly that the Church doesn't always quickly catch heretical decrees.

I do not want to take the place of God but in my estimation and in speculation I would think by certain acts of certain Popes seem to have them condemn themselves to Christ judgement. Still a pope is not permitted to teach against the deposit. As far as Honorius we must consider that he did not defend orthodoxy against the Monothelites (nor did he openly approve it from the chair) and is condemend based on his letters saying that he followed Sergius in all things. If Sergius is condmened a Heretic so must Honorius. However, nothing was taught ex cathedra in violation of the Deposit of Faith.

Ivan's Response to Rebuttals by Silvereel and Sambose671

Quoting Silvereel:

You're not going to get anywhere by collecting a list of 'bad deeds' Popes did. We don't deny that they're sinners just like us. Some of them did some terrible deeds. But their personal lives are not infalible. This doesn't do any harm to their Infalibilty at all, it just goes to show that the Church IS protected by God - could a human institution stand through so many controversies and attacks? No, it could not. Any institution founded by men would have fallen due to our own deeds and sins. I fail to understand why Protestants always attack the celebate priesthood as well... would you attack Paul, too?

It is definately not my intention to attack the nobility of celibacy or Paul's estimation of it. And it is definately not my intention to attack those presbyters who choose to be celibate (as all Roman presbyters do). But I don't agree that the Church should enforce a doctrine that seems to me, at least, to go against scripture (the forcing goes against scripture, not celibacy itself).

I guess my personal concern is (and while you might not believe it, i am considering whether i should convert) as a baptist seminarian, i believe i am called to be a presbyteros (and for baptists, based on the testimony of the NT, this includes the role of episkopos as well). but i am married and have a son. so it's something i have to seriously consider. and i guess i'm really asking why i should consider the Roman Church's claims to be the One True Church as more valid than the claims of the Eastern Orthodox communion? They also have apostolic succession, they have an older bishopric of st. peter (in antioch) and disupute the immaculate conception of Mary (though they do believe her to be sinless throughout life), and they have withstood their own test of hardship.

anyway, to Sambos671, thanks for clarifying the issue about Honorius. that takes care of that though, since i still have issues with the immaculate conception, required celibacy and the supremacy of the pope in rome, these both affect the infallibility of the pope's and the Roman Catholic Church's decisions as they are ex cathedra doctrines that seem to go counter to the Deposit of Faith (at least, if one conforms the Deposit of Faith to Scripture). for me it's an issue of figuring out whether the Roman Catholic Church = The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (meaning i should convert to fully be in communion), or whether other Christian bodies have equal claim (like the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East or the Anglican Communion - though i have doctrinal issues with the last, too).

i do think the enduring Roman Church is a living demonstration of God's power in His Church. But I also think the enduring Orthodox and Assyrian Communions exhibit this as well. Even in the Protestant Churches I can see evidence of the miraculous intervention of God's grace (especially in the Pentecostal Churches enduring in areas of heavy persecution around the world). But I do want to know if true unity can only be achieved if other communions subject themselves to Roman doctrines and supremacy.

Honestly, I wouldn't even have a problem submitting myself to the Pope (I think many of the original issues raised by the first Protestants have been resolved), but I don't think I could blindly state that ex cathedra decisions are infallible, when there seems to be evidence that they aren't (at least in the above doctrines, and maybe others that i don't know about). If the Roman, Eastern, Oriental and Assyrian Churches do ever come into full Communion, then I think a very good argument will exist that their institution constitutes the full Church. That may happen someday, and there are encouraging developments in that area. But right now it doesn't, and these Apostolic communities are at odds with each other. To me, that means the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church encompasses something greater than the Roman institution and hieararchy. To what degree, however, I just don't know for sure.

While I put all my faith in Jesus Christ and love His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church with all my heart, as brothers and sisters, I think it would be remiss of me if I were to exclude elements of that Church by claiming it includes (or should submit to) only one of these communions.

Second Rebuttal to "A House Divided" & Ivan's Response

Rebuttle by Sambos671 on the Same Catholic Forum

Quoting Ivan:

I raised five serious theological issues I have with the Roman Catholic Church (Immaculate Conception of Mary, Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope, Transubstantiation, Forced Celibacy of the Clergy and the claim to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church)

Like Archer said in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties Inerrerant is not impecable with regard to the Scriptures. We can use the same view with regard to Infallibility. Infallibility does not equal impeccability. What it does mean is that the Pope can not make a declarative teaching on Faith and morals that contradicts the Deposit of faith. The Pope is in a community and cannot go against the deposit. His teaching is reflective of that deposit of faith. community members will verify if the Pope teaches something in error. But most likely any error that may be in germ from will be weeded out before any declaration from the council of Cardinals. In other words the Pope cannot teach against the deposit of faith.

Transubstantiation: Also terms must be properly understood in order to obtain an understanding what is being said here. Read Thomas Aquinas and understand the classical understanding of what substance means. In an attempt to define what it could not be. The protestants at the time denied that it was the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. But the deposit and writings of early Christians such as Ignatius and Justin verify that the elements are no longer just plain elements but have Mystically become the body and blood of Jesus. Therefore this doctrine cannot be taken to mean that these elements are meerly symbolic but in fact are the body and blood of this same Jesus Christ.

Immaculate conseption of Mary. The Catachism defines what it means when it says "everything we believe about Mary come about from what we believe about Jesus" Remember there is the deposit which has been passed down and we can see as early As John Chrysostom a particular view about Mary has existed throughout church history. In order to understand the Immaculate conseption you must first understand what Catholics believe about Jesus. The dual nature of Christ lends itself to Theotokos. Mother of God. The incarnation is about God becoming man. Mary did not give birth to just a man that became possesed by the Son. No she gave birth to Jesus who is man and the divine son. To say anything else lessens Jesus. Next you have to understand what Catholics mean by original sin. A quick review of St. Augustine can reveal that to you. But in order for Mary to give of herself in total obedience God's grace overshadowed her from her conseption. More can be said on this but you would have to list your particular disagreements. (I didn't read your entire article.) We See Elizabeth say of Mary "Mother of my Lord" etc...

As far as the one holy catholic and apostolic Church a quick review of Eusibius should give you insite into this consept. There are an apostolic succession of Bishops that have been passed down through the ages to this very day.

Forced Celebacy for the Chruch was devoloped initially because of abuse such as heredity in titles and land and wealth. It continues because... well there are many reasons not the least because they take Paul seriously when he says I wish you were as I. The Church wants total devotion to the lord for its clergy. Not a bad request. What are you willing to give up to do what Jesus calls you to do? I must say I never became a priest because I know I would have burned with desire an rahter have that problem I followed the Lord into sacramental marriage and raise children that honor him.

Quoting St. Anselm: For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this I believe - that unless I believe, I should not understand.

Ivan's Response to Sambos671's Rebuttle

Sambos, thank you for the clarification of terms, it's definately very helpful.

I see your point about the distinction between infallibility and impeccability. How do we apply this in regard to the more corrupt popes listed? As James states that faith not backed up by action is no faith at all, these particular popes seemed to do everything in their power to actively oppose faith. also, what about Pope Honorius I who was declared a heratic both by the sixth Ecumenical Council and Pope Leo II? That particular episode shows pretty clearly that the Church doesn't always quickly catch heretical decrees.

On transubstantiation, I think you would be surprised at how many Protestants agree (though, I tend to appreciate the Eastern Orthodox explanation of the Mystery of the Eucharist more). For me, this wasn't so much of a "theological problem" as it was a "theological question".

In regards to the immaculate conception, I totally agree that the point is that Jesus is fully human and fully Divine. But being born to a woman guilty of sin doesn't lessen His Divinity, it fulfills His humanity, which is necessary for Him to totally identify with us (if I understand Athanasius' On the Incarnation correctly). To take the burden of our sins on His shoulders and to experience the rejection that goes along with that, He had to be born into a sinful world, to a woman guilty of sin though still given God's grace.

Finally, I agree with your assessment in regard to the value of celibacy. I just don't think it should be forced, and I think the 1 Timothy passage cited in the essay supports that assertion.

First Rebuttal to "A House Divided" & Ivan's Response

Rebuttal by "Ender" on a Catholic Forum

Quoting Ivan:

On my Theological Discussions blog, I raised five serious theological issues I have with the Roman Catholic Church (Immaculate Conception of Mary, Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope, Transubstantiation, Forced Celibacy of the Clergy and the claim to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church) in the essay "A House Divided: A Critique of Roman Claims to be the One True Church".

I'll have to read the essay before commenting on it but I can make two observations now. The question of priestly celibacy is of a different type than the other four issues you raise in that, unlike the other four, the Church may at any time decide to change her position. This is not an unchangeable law of God, it a Church law and as such she may make of it what she will. I don't believe it rises to the level of a theological issue.

Your brief comment about justification by faith alone is unclear. The Catholic Church does not teach sola fide - are you saying you think she should?

Quoting Ivan:

The Church that can truly be described as One is that which spans across denominational or other dividing lines to reach those who truly believe they are sinners and that Christ's death on the Cross covers their sins and paves the way for their inclusion in the Kingdom of God.

What you describe is a collection of individuals who agree on one specific, theological point. It is not the definition of a church. A random aggregation of individuals that never meets, never discusses the implications of that (one) shared belief, and does not even know who is or is not included cannot be called a church by any reasonable meaning of the term.

Quoting Ivan:

Holy? Really? If the Church is holy, it is solely by the grace won at the Cross of Christ and not by the many traditions, dogmas and institutions of the churches.

The Catholic Church does not claim holiness derives from her any more than she claims that the doctrines she proclaims derive from her. "The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith." (Fides et Ratio) If she is the one true church then she would be holy by that fact alone.

Quoting Ivan:

The R.C. ceased being Catholic in a definite manner with the Great Schism of 1054

This is like the complaint that God doesn't exist because there are so many people who don't believe in him. After all, if he existed, surely he would want everyone to know about him so they could believe, but because not everyone believes he obviously doesn't exist. That not everyone accepts Catholicism is no more an argument that the Church is not what she claims to be than the fact that not everyone believes in God shows that he is not who he claims to be. Her catholicity is intrinsic to her and is unaffected by the actions of those who may or may not accept her.

Quoting Ivan:

Finally, to be truly Apostolic a church must not only hold Apostolic Succession (through the laying on of hands from bishop to bishop, though Scripturally many can make the argument that those who are presbyteros are also episkopos, and therefore are able to perpetuate that line) ...

You don't sound convincing on this point because you don't sound convinced yourself. If you don't take it seriously don't present it.

Quoting Ivan:

... but the church must also hold Doctrinal Apostolic Succession. Though a church retain lists of ordained bishops all the way back to the Apostles, if they don't preach the Gospel as stated in the Scriptures or hold dogmas that go against the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles as stated in Scripture, then they are not Apostolic.

It is not clear whether this is a merely claim for the validity of Sola Scriptura - which by definition rules out Catholicism - or (as it appears) a claim that the teachings of the Catholic Church disagree with Scripture. The latter is an interesting charge: are you claiming that the Baptist interpretation of scripture (if there is such a thing) is the true interpretation and all others are wrong? On what could such a claim be based? By what authority do you claim that only you (or only Baptists) correctly interpret scripture?

Aside from this, the claim that apostolic succession also means doctrinal apostolic succession is a real stretch. It is fair to argue that the Catholic Church is wrong on doctrine but that has nothing whatever to do with whether she is apostolic in the sensible meaning of the term.

Ender

Ivan's Response to Ender's Rebuttal
Ender, you bring up many great points and I'll try to address each of them in order (if it's alright with you, I'd like to put your comments up on my blog along with my responses, because your responses are honestly the only decent answers I've gotten back).

First, while not on the level of the other issues, clerical celibacy hits home to me. If I am called to be a pastor (presbyteros in the Church (as I believe I am, and this is the vocation I'm currently pursuing in the Baptist church), then it's something that I personally would have to address if I am to convert to Catholicism, especially as I have a wife and son.

As for sole fide, my understanding of the doctrine is that while faith alone is what opens us up to the grace of God, real faith always pours forth into pious action. If the action is missing, then the faith is too (these views are based primarily on Ephesians 2:8-9 and James 2:14-26). Where the Catholic system is one of grace born out of the merits (and meritous acts) of Christ (primarily and all encompassing) and the Saints, I think a Protestant could agree in the understanding that these merits are brought about by faith. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

You make an excellent point about the "Oneness" of the Church. The guidelines I provided were totally insufficient, though I think there is more cooperation between these groups than you realize. Those who are moved by the faith in and love of Christ find themselves working for charity in any way they can (and often with other communions). Currently the R.C. Church and most Protestant denominations use virtually the same lectionary, which means that the Gospel read in these churches on any given Sunday remains consistent. And recent documents between the R.C. Church, the ELCA, and the Eastern & Oriental Orthodox Churches (and the Assyrian Church of the East) have shown that the different sides ARE talking, though this dialogue must be bottom-up (like what we're doing right now) as well as top-down to be effective. To me this shows a desire on all sides to truly be One, but to do so, I believe the R.C. Church (and others) will have to seriously address not just why they broke apart, but what changes they've endured since then.

Anyway, I still haven't found a convincing argument that identifies the R.C. Church as THE One True Church above, say, the Eastern Orthodox Communion (as they have all the claims to apostolic succession the Roman Church has, and they also have a chair of Peter in the bishopric of Antioch).

Quoting Ember:

The Catholic Church does not claim holiness derives from her any more than she claims that the doctrines she proclaims derive from her. "The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith." (Fides et Ratio) If she is the one true church then she would be holy by that fact alone.

You bring up a good point here, too and I honestly can't contest it.

Though you dispute my claim that the Roman Church lost its Catholicity at least after the Great Schism, as far as I can tell the Eastern Orthodox Churches have as much a claim to that same Catholicity (based on the reasoning above).

On the next point of Apostolic Succession through both the presbyteros and the episkopos as they are arguably synonymous in the New Testament (see Acts 20, Titus 1:5-7 and 1 Peter 5:1-2), I do believe I am convinced (though only recently, and through much wrestling with the subject) based on the authority of Luke, Paul and Peter. Anyway, if they truly are synonymous from the earliest period, then the later (though still very early in the 2nd century) division of the office would still be an innovation and one that, while dividing the administrative duties of the office, cannot diminish its apostolic authority. So there, I will present it! Bwa ha ha!

Finally my appeal to Doctrinal Apostolic Succession is one of more of logic than an appeal to sola scriptura, which I agree would preclude Catholics. As Paul repeatedly lays the guidelines for appointing leaders in the Church, he emphasizes that they be taught rightly and uphold certain standards of behavior (two of which are being married only once and ruling over their children well).

Anyway, that all oughtta give us a few things to think about for a while. And, believe it or not, we did resolve a few things, namely the guidelines for the Holiness of the Church. I welcome any more comments on all this and above all I ask that whoever reads this prays for unity between the Catholics, Orthodox and Protestant Christians (on whatever terms God wills).

Ivan