Haec ego admirans

A C(c)atholic and Christian Dialogue

¹

The following is a conversation between me and Stuart Weiss, who has a newsletter called

Letters for My Children

. Stuart is an intelligent and charitable Roman Catholic whose post on Ignatius of Antioch, which also spoke of his conversion from Protestantism to Rome, I came across one day back in October, I think. After exchanging a couple of friendly comments about some of our differences, I proposed to him that we continue debating the core differences between our positions in some longer comments, and eventually publish them as posts on each of our newsletters.

He agreed, and this is the end result. The debate was kept pretty concise and narrow in range, not delving into granular details or citing academic sources. It took place over a couple months. As you’ll see, he graciously let me have the final word, and I made it probably my longest reply yet. Don’t tell him, but deep down I hope to draw him into further conversation. Really, though, as long as we can stay in touch I’ll be happy. I do sincerely recommend all of my readers to go check out some of his stuff. He writes well and with conviction, and I believe him to be a brother in Christ.

My wife, here and there, would find me dead to the world, typing out a reply to Stuart, and would say, “Is that the Catholic dad?”, and I’d say, “Yeah. I’m really digging our conversation.” And she’d say how sweet it was that he was writing to his children like that.

Noah:

I appreciate learning about conversions out of Protestantism to RC, even though I am a committed Reformed Baptist.

What do you make of other early church Fathers making statements that seem either ambivalent or pretty decidedly in favor of a more figurative understanding of the Lord’s presence in the elements of the Supper? Thinking of the Didache, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others.

Stuart:

Hi Noah, thanks for asking! In general, I would say that the language suits the occasion and intention of the author. The earliest Christians relied primarily on oral teaching and the liturgy for preserving and passing on the faith, and so many of these letters presuppose an understanding. Also, not every Christian had a full grasp of these mysteries. The truth of them never changes, but our understanding of them can continue to unfold over the centuries.

Justin Martyr is a good example of someone writing with a specific intention. He was writing an apologetic to the Emperor to persuade him to stop persecuting Christians. One of the slanders against Christians used to justify the persecutions was that they were engaged in cannibalistic rituals, so it makes sense that he would use more figurative language to address this concern. However, the fact that Justin Martyr had to defend Christians against this charge is, I think, more testimony in favor of the earliest Christians believing in the true presence. If they were being accused of cannibalism, it was probably because they were overheard speaking in very non-figurative terms about the Eucharist.

I’d be happy to share about the others as well, if you have particular examples. I have read the Didache and could speak to that, but not much Tertullian, so you would have to give me specific examples there.

But I would rather hear from you before I end up accidentally typing an essay! So sort of the inverse of your question: what do you make of the early Church Fathers, like Saint Ignatius, speaking so explicitly about the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the Church Hierarchy?

Noah:

Thanks for the in depth reply, Stuart!

You raise some good points, and I will reflect a bit before giving a thorough answer to your question.

It has also occurred to me that the charge of cannibalism certainly seems to point toward a pretty robust and concrete understanding of the Lord’s Supper by early Christians.

My own views which I can speak to with a bit more confidence are the ones based on the texts of Scripture themselves which speak of the institution and practice of the sacrament. I think Steven Nemes and others have made good arguments to the effect that the background of a strongly symbolic understanding of the Passover and its rituals by the Israelites would have paved the way quite well for an equally symbolic (although not necessarily mere memorialist) understanding of the Supper among the Apostles and first disciples.

Moreover, Jesus’ discourse on being the bread of life in John 6 is strongly suggestive of a faith based and therefore figurative understanding of the Supper. Jesus routinely gave difficult sayings to the crowds to weed out those who are not of his sheep. He also throughout that passage continually relates eating and drinking to hearing and believing. He finishes up by saying “The flesh profits nothing.” The Spirit gives life, and his words are spirit and life. It is thus not literal eating and drinking or literal food that impart God’s grace any more than they impart his Spirit.

Stuart:

Your remarks on John 6 segue well into what these conversations ultimately always come back to, and what my conversion hinged upon: what structure / authority did Christ leave us in His Church for preserving doctrine? Scripture only, or Scripture and Apostolic Tradition?

When I read John 6 I come away thinking that He means it more literally. You read it and, very understandably, come away thinking He means it more symbolically. Who will clarify for us? What if we can’t come to an agreement? Should we each found our own congregation that worships based on our differing interpretations?

I think Sola Scriptura is unlikely to be the method that Christ intended, since he founded His Church “on the foundations of the Apostles” and, most strikingly, the New Testament wasn’t even finished being written until probably around 90 AD., and even then there was dispute among Christians about the canon of the New Testament until the 300’s. Also, the only reason the canon could be confirmed was because of the authority of the Church. If the Church can be wrong in these matters, then who is to say that the Didache, for example, doesn’t belong in Scripture?

Noah:

I fully agree with you that this is the fundamental divide between us. It is a question of authority (partially epistemic and partially ontic), and it goes deep.

I feel the force of your argument about interpretive authority, but I don’t think the Roman Catholic is in a better position than the Protestant here. Appeal to the Magisterium seems to merely kick the epistemic can down the road. Who is to decide between different interpretations of Ex Cathedra papal statements, or the deliverances of ancient Church councils? This is not to mention the different positions on ecclesiastical, exegetical, and ethical matters from Church Doctors down the ages.

I wonder if your answer might not be too different from that of a Reformed and confessional Protestant such as myself: that the Spirit of God, through long stretches of time, is bringing more and ever more unity and doctrinal clarity to his Bride the Church, even though this is not a straight upward line.

In the meantime, it seems to me best that we all follow the advice of the Apostle Paul when he said “Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind.” (Romans 14:5)

As to the question of canon, I agree with you: Apostolic authority and written Scripture were at first indistinguishably intertwined and interdependent (from my understanding). We can almost think of them as written canon and oral canon—two sides of the same coin. It was probably a generation or two after the Apostles that written Scripture came to have (quite necessarily) the venerated position of authority that it did, being the closest thing to the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles available to anyone.

It doesn’t follow, however, that the Church was creating or choosing which texts would be considered Scripture.

Interested to hear your thoughts, as always! May God bless you.

Stuart:

Noah, thanks for the thoughtful response. Let me respond to your last point first.

I almost completely agree that it there is (or you might say “was”) a “written canon” and an “oral canon.” Catholic theologians would call these “Sacred Scripture” and “Sacred Tradition,” respectively, and they would constitute the fullness of Divine Revelation to man through Christ Jesus (i.e. everything that Christ revealed to us). To emphasize your point about the need for these two complementary and intertwined sources of Divine Revelation, I think it would be hard to conclusively arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity without Sacred Tradition (indeed, that’s what many of the first councils had to affirm).

If the Traditions of the Apostles and the Scriptures were so intertwined, how and when exactly would Scripture Alone take the place of this authority? Additionally, if it was truly the movement of the Spirit that the Scriptures would replace the need for Apostolic succession and authority, then you would expect the Christians around that time to start to reflect those views (so, if a few generations later, then between the years 150-300?). However, we see the opposite: during this same time period the teaching on Apostolic succession becomes even more clear. So if Scripture was supposed to eclipse Apostolic Tradition, when was it supposed to do so, why at that time, and why don’t we see any Christians in that time frame advocating for that position? If you agree that Apostolic Tradition (or the oral canon) was a part of Divine Revelation, then we may actually agree on this. Do we agree that there is such thing as Sacred Tradition (the parts of the faith handed on by the Apostles by word or deed, but not specifically written down) and Sacred Scripture (the writings of the Old and New Testament)? If we agree on that, then really our only difference on this point is who (if anyone) was given teaching authority to interpret these two sources of the same One Revelation in Christ. I’m very curious to hear where you’re at on this and if I represented your position clearly.

As for your statement that the Church did not create or choose which texts belong in the canon, I basically agree with you. It’s not that the Church chose or picked the canon. It’s that there are some texts that are inspired by God and are part of Divine Revelation, and the Church merely affirmed which ones they were. We couldn’t have known, and could not know today, if Christ did not establish an infallible way to answer that question. For example, how do you know that the book of Wisdom is not part of the Scriptures, like Catholics believe?

Which leads me to the last point I want to address, and probably the point we are farthest apart on. I disagree that it is equally difficult to interpret the Magisterium as it is the Scriptures alone. The fact that Catholics have one clear teaching on the Eucharist, while Protestant denominations have many, is testament to that. Who is to decide between different interpretations of the ancient Church councils? The current bishops, as successors of the Apostles, under the Pope, as successor of St. Peter. Who is to discern between the different positions on ecclesiastical, exegetical, and ethical matters from Church Doctors down the ages? The current Bishops united to the Pope. What if their explanation is unclear? Then they can be asked, because they are alive and can specifically answer the question. St. Paul gives us a great example of this. Jesus Himself appeared to Paul and taught him. Yet Paul, even though he was so bold as to rebuke Peter when he thought he was acting hypocritical, still went and submitted the gospel that he preached to the Apostles “lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.” (Gal. 2:2)

Thanks for engaging in this discussion, I apologize if my reply ran long… I’m working on writing more succinctly! I look forward to your reply. Feel free to take up as much space as you need 😄

Noah:

Thanks again for a great and in depth reply, Stuart! No problem at all on the length; this discussion deserves it. And I think my reply here might have you beat for length 😆

So, to the issue of the Magisterium again (one on which I definitely stand in need of more education): You’re right that on multiple headings of theology, the RC Church has one official position, and perhaps more homogeneity among its theologians than among many Protestant churches (although within specific denominations there may in fact be more than in RC; this is one I’m willing to put a pin in, not really knowing the answer). And you mention the ability we have of asking living bishops their opinions on what they or the Church has said. But what happens when they disagree with one another, as they do? What happens when one says one thing about Christ’s second coming, or the charismatic gifts, and another bishop says something else? Sure, they are here to explain to us, but they do not speak with one voice. I’m sure you do have a way of reconciling that with RC ecclesiology, but I am not sure we are fundamentally in any different position here as confessional Protestant and Roman Catholic.

I, like you, will appeal to what the Church down the ages has taught in the central Orthodox tradition, on things like the Trinity or Christ’s incarnation; I, like you, will give credence and deference to Church tradition (wherever conscience allows), and also use reason; like you, I will mourn the loss of knowledge of and respect for Church history and creedal fidelity among many evangelicals. Like you, I will interpret and cite Scripture—and now in our own languages, rather than the language of the educated elite.

If the Roman Catholic Church

a) traces its lineage to the Apostles,

b) has a core of agreed upon doctrines based on Scripture, with fringes that are more debated,

c) is an organism which works out its positions and teachings over time, through controversy, heresy, and study, aided by the Spirit and right reason (including the discoveries and advances in scholarship),

d) looks to Christ and His Spirit as the true Head, who will finally decide all disputes and answer all questions at the end of the age,

Then I don’t see a real difference between where we stand; I don’t see the Roman Catholic on any higher ground epistemologicallly. Our differences, rather, regard how we interpret some Scriptures, and what we consider the most reliable sources of doctrine to understand and interpret Scripture. But this is just the same difference as the one between me as a Reformed Baptist, and, say, a Presbyterian or Pentecostal. (To be clear, I’m not saying the actual doctrinal differences between me and you are just the same size as those between me and the Presbyterian; I’m speaking of the epistemic position in which we all find ourselves as we formulate doctrines.)

In sum, a Magisterium seems superfluous here.

A question occurs, purely from curiosity: do you feel you have the freedom to discover something from the Bible and believe it without support from clergy or church history? Or would you seek to kind of push anything like that to the side in your mind if there seems to be no support for it from the Magisterium?

On the question of canon again: you ask when we see the early church prioritizing Scripture over Apostolic Tradition. On one hand, I don’t think this was ever felt as a dichotomy (and needn’t be in our day either, depending on how one defines that; I might prefer to use the term Apostolic Teaching), unless, as does happen, even within the RC Church (there have been those from within who were excommunicated), someone strays in their teaching from truly Apostolic teaching.

On the other hand, I’d say: even while the Apostles were alive. The Apostles themselves put the Word of God (written or spoken to them) highest of all. And there was not any opposition between these two things. The Apostles saw themselves as recording and preaching the words of God to all flesh, and their own authority was an entirely derived authority. Their words mattered to the extent that they faithfully transmitted the message of God, and no further. For this exact reason, incidentally, Apostolic authority is not transferrable. If it were, the Church wouldn’t be built on the foundation of the Apostles. It would in fact be one gigantic, ever-increasing foundation.

A lot of this hinges on how one views God’s word and revelation more broadly. And I can say more on that later if we feel the need.

More to say, but this post seems long enough for now, so I’ll pull the trigger :)

Stuart:

First, let me answer this question you posed:

do you feel you have the freedom to discover something from the Bible and believe it without support from clergy or church history? Or would you seek to kind of push anything like that to the side in your mind if there seems to be no support for it from the Magisterium?

Yes, any Catholic absolutely has the freedom to discover something from the Bible, or any other means the Holy Spirit uses for that matter. Teaching of the Magisterium (or just put more simply, Christian Doctrine)protects us from error and keeps us within the Truth. I would feel free to respond to and appreciate any insight the Lord has given me, but thanks to the infallible nature of the Dogmas of the Church, if I ever “discover” that there are actually Four Persons in the Trinity, or that Son is not equal to the Father, then I can know for certain that “inspiration” or “discovery” was not from God, because I have an infallible foundation, the foundation of the Apostles.

To get to the root of our disagreement, I think you correctly mentioned that a lot of this hinges on our understanding of God’s revelation more broadly. So before I continue, let me ask you this quick question: do you believe in Sola Scriptura? I.e. that the Bible is the only infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice?

Noah:

Stuart, thank you again for the reply. Gotcha, that’s a helpful thing to know about the freedom you have to glean insights from the Word. I am glad to hear that.

You ask if I believe in Sola Scriptura. The answer is yes, I do. We can delve into what various Reformers meant by that, but I hold it to mean that the Bible (the 66 books of the Protestant Canon) is the “norming norm”, the highest and only infallible standard to which we can appeal for knowing right doctrine, pertaining to the Christian life and theology, and all matters on which it speaks.

Stuart:

Cool, thanks, Noah Nevils. I figured, but I didn’t want to assume. So, here are my follow up questions:

If Sola Scriptura was Jesus’ plan for perpetuating His infallible doctrine then…

1. Why doesn’t Jesus mention or even allude to it at all in the Gospels?

2. Why don’t the Apostles reference it in the New Testament?

3. Why don’t any of the Church Fathers speak of it?

On the contrary, Jesus spends a great deal of time appointing and training Apostles, and building His Church.

Likewise, while we’re all agreed that Scripture is infallible, the New Testament Authors speak of the faith being founded on the Apostles, and holding fast to both the traditions and writings of the Apostles, but nowhere mention the idea of Sola Scriptura.

Finally, if Sola Scriptura were true, then you would expect the Early Church Fathers to speak and teach about it (just like Protestant Pastors do today), but they speak instead of Bishops and the Church.

So I guess to summarize, my last question (in addition to the three above) is where does your belief in Sola Scriptura come from?

Noah:

I appreciate the reply, Stuart. I am excited to answer these questions and points you raise.

(I do still want to hear your response to some of my questions above: for instance, my question of how you reconcile the fact that members of the RC clergy disagree with one another and with past teachers and Church doctors on various issues.

But I’m also happy to go on the defense for a bit.)

You say that if Sola Scriptura (SS) “was Jesus’ plan for perpetuating his infallible doctrine”, then why doesn’t he “mention or even allude to it”?

I guess I find it an odd question because I don’t think we should expect him to have to mention or allude to it; it just happened. He spoke, and the Spirit sovereignly oversaw the writing and preservation of his holy words, just as with the words of the Prophets before him and the Apostles after him. He had no need to give instruction regarding that.

But we do see him using Scripture in such a way as to reveal his extremely high view of it. It was, after his and his Father’s authority, the main authority he appeals to.

To your question of where my belief in Sola Scriptura comes from, here’s part of the answer: the words of God are always and intrinsically the highest and only infallible authority we have for life and doctrine. That has been true since God first spoke to man in the Garden. Apostolic teaching was authoritative because those men were appointed by Jesus, and their words (the ones in the Bible) are infallible only because the Spirit of God inspired them. I believe this is how the Apostles themselves saw things, and how the earliest Christians did as well. We can zoom in on this if you’d like.

As I outlined in an earlier post, many new churches in the first century would not have been able nor had the need to separate the teaching or words of the Apostles from the idea of Scripture. However, they would certainly have had to use both spoken and written Scripture (the OT and Apostolic teaching) as a rule of faith to discern true and false doctrine and true and false writings. Do you agree with me on this?

I believe that you and I could go back and forth for years with different quotations from the church fathers where they cite Scripture as an authority and also where they cite bishops and other forms of church authority.

I think that an incipient form of SS as well as of the Magisterium is found in those writings. Both can be found even within the same writers. It’s been famously said that the entire Reformation controversy was a footnote to Augustine.

Two other things to mention here:

1. While we both hold the Scriptures to be infallible, I do not believe the Apostles were. By their own witness they were not. Just look at Paul confronting Peter for his sin in Galatians 2. Nor were they always united in their views (cf. the dispute and falling out between Paul and Barnabas). Again, they had authority only to the extent that they were faithfully transmitting God’s holy message and words.

1. If we think of something like the doctrine of the Trinity, you and I are probably agreed that not every Christian doctrine requires explicit biblical support. This is something confessional Protestants have no trouble believing in, without a Magisterium. Jesus barely even alludes to the fact of the Trinity by word, and yet of course you and I both believe it underwrites much of what he said and did (and of course who he was).

There’s more to say, as always, but I think this suffices to move us along for now.

Stuart:

many new churches in the first century would not have been able nor had the need to separate the teaching or words of the Apostles from the idea of Scripture. However, they would certainly have had to use both spoken and written Scripture (the OT and Apostolic teaching) as a rule of faith to discern true and false doctrine and true and false writings. Do you agree with me on this?

Yes, I generally agree with you on this.

I believe that you and I could go back and forth for years with different quotations from the church fathers where they cite Scripture as an authority and also where they cite bishops and other forms of church authority.

I think that an incipient form of SS as well as of the Magisterium is found in those writings. Both can be found even within the same writers. It’s been famously said that the entire Reformation controversy was a footnote to Augustine.

This is my point exactly. The early Church Fathers, who learned directly from the Apostles, teach that Scripture and the Magisterium are BOTH authoritative. This is incompatible with Sola Scriptura, which says ONLY (sola) Scripture.

And this brings me back to my main question of “How do you know Scripture is infallible?” You cannot infallibly know that Scripture is infallible, the Sola Scriptura is the truth, or even what belongs in Scripture, because your reasons for believing those things come from falliblesources. That is why it is so important that Christ Himself, infallible God, establish an infallible means for communicating His teaching and graces, otherwise there is a chain of custody problem. You might have good reasons for believing Scripture is infallible, and what books belong in it, but you must always admit that without the infallible Authority of the Church, you could be wrong about those things.

If your argument is that the writings of the Apostles are all Scripture because they were appointed by Jesus, then there is no reason to believe that Mark, Luke, Acts, or Hebrews are Scripture any more than the Didache or Ignatius of Antioch’s letters are Scripture.

It’s a knowledge problem. You really can’t be 100% sure that Scripture is infallible, what belongs in it, or its role as an authority if you’re just basing it off of fallible sources.

The same problem goes for figuring out what books are even really scripture! Luther took 7 books out of the Old Testament. Why couldn’t I say that I see the Spirit of God in the Didache, for example, and include that in Scripture? Or why couldn’t I remove more Old Testament books like the Scribes and Sadducees did and just say that the Torah is Scripture? We could argue all day about why certain books belong in Scripture, but without an Authority to definitely and infallibly pronounce which books belong in Scripture, our faith is built on fallible assumptions. Really, it’s built on the Authority of the Church, since that is where we get the Canon, but Sola Scriptura is like cutting off the branch that you’re sitting on. It’s a worldview that was really only seriously proposed 1,400 years after Christ and wouldn’t have made sense without taking the Church’s teaching for granted.

Sola Scriptura asks you to believe that this book is the infallible Word of God, without having any infallible source affirming what books belong in it, or even that it is infallible in it’s entirety.

I do believe that Scripture is infallible, and I know what books are in it. But I can only say so confidently because I know that Christ established an infallible Church as the “Pillar and Bulwark of Truth” (1 Tim 3:15) that confirmed the nature of Scripture and the Canon.

As Saint Augustine says, "I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so."

Noah:

Stuart, I finally return to the lists here with a reply to your latest and thoughtful comment. Hope you have been well! Also, a Merry Advent to you!

I know you said you’ll bow out and let me have a final word here, which leaves me in the somewhat delicate position of wanting to reply at a granular level, but also be sporting enough not to attack a now-undefended wall.

My compromise is this: I will reply to only one or two of the points you raise, and then I will offer a take on how my view of the Church could fit into God’s plan, and am curious to hear your thoughts on it. And if you ever feel the urge to re-enter the fray, it would be a development welcomed by me.

So. Let me start by answering this statement from you:

“The early Church Fathers, who learned directly from the Apostles, teach that Scripture and the Magisterium are BOTH authoritative. This is incompatible with Sola Scriptura, which says ONLY (sola) Scripture.”

You must have heard a Protestant say this before, but it bears saying here: Sola Scriptura is not the belief that Scripture is the only valid authority for a Christian; it’s that it is the highest authority. As in any structure of authority that contains more than one member or voice, there must be a mechanism for breaking the tie, so to speak—for finally adjudicating each issue that comes up. The American Federal Government contains an Executive for just this reason. A family has two authoritative persons (a husband and wife), but the husband’s authority is final, because he is the head. In the same way, both Church and Scripture have authority, but only one can be a final and a norming authority. We Protestants have said that this position is filled by Scripture, because it is God’s word.

Then you say this: “You cannot infallibly know that Scripture is infallible, the Sola Scriptura is the truth, or even what belongs in Scripture, because your reasons for believing those things come from fallible sources.”

But this exact line of reason can be used against the Roman Catholic as well: how do you infallibly know that God established the Roman Catholic Church as his mechanism on earth for teaching and shepherding his saints, and for interpreting Scripture? Follow that one back to its headwaters and what you have are church writings and Scripture itself. You say that Christ dubbed Peter the first Pontiff of Rome; but how do you know that except from Scripture, and other written records of church tradition, which themselves are based on the witness of Scripture? You say that Christ established the Eucharist at the Last Supper before his crucifixion; but how do you know this except from Scripture? If you object and say that you know this because of Church Tradition and Magisterial teaching, that is circular, since you are basing Church authority on Church authority.

Now, of course, the same charge of circularity can be leveled against the Protestant in regards to Scripture. But here is the difference: Scripture is God’s very words. You and I can (and do) disagree about the meanings of some of those words, but we both agree that they are God’s words. By virtue of this, they unequivocally bear his authority. His Church also bears authority, but in a different and derivative way. His words established his Church. The Church did not establish or create Scripture, nor did it confer authority upon Scripture. Scripture had the authority of God’s own speech because that is what it is.

And there is a second point to raise in response to what you said above: it is in fact not fallible sources (or not solely fallible sources) that I appeal to in believing Scripture, the 66 books of the Canon, and Sola Scriptura. These things are all consequences of Scripture’s own self-attestation. I believe in Scripture the way I believe in the Gospel: because I take it to be from God. Some of that belief might have to remain a bit fuzzy and unsubstantiated, in the same way that first principles like the laws of logic do, or even as an intuition of personal trust does. Nevertheless, I believe that to be the position any Christian (including a RC one) is in.

What do I mean by Scripture, and how do I define it? Well, I believe God’s own words reveal themselves to be such, and refer to each other in a way that reveals the Canon. There is a whole lot to be said here, and so I’ll link to a helpful video that lays out my view on this (feels like a cop out, I know; but I am certainly no expert in all of this, so I defer to others).²

So now, here’s the part where I offer a take (purely opinion, but I think grounded in Scripture) on how Protestantism can be part of God’s plan.

Let me start with laying out the Protestant view on authority: Christ and the Apostles treat Scripture as its own authority, and as something that the Spirit will aid the believer in understanding. A Magisterium is not mentioned or alluded to at all for this process. Look at John 16:13: It’s the Spirit who will lead us into all truth, not the Magisterium.

Now, the obvious objection is, “Was it really the Spirit’s will that there should be schism or disagreement among Christians?” That’s a good question, but it might not be one for us to answer. If God’s will is for us to be directly under and shaped by his word, led by his Spirit, then it is his responsibility as Head of his Church to guide us and shape us as he wills. Do we then attribute disagreements and denominations to God? Yes and no. Anything sinful and due to error in us is not from God, and yet he is sovereignly overseeing all that happens in creation, including in his church. Again, Paul urges each of us to be fully convinced in our own minds (Romans 14:5), and help one another not stumble. He recognizes that there will be disagreement among brothers. He didn’t say, ‘All of you be sure to subject your opinions to the Magisterium.’ Certainly we are also urged to be of one mind, and we should seek that. I’ll put a pin in that for a second.

Where the church is deficient in some area, God will bring that to light. “Let judgment begin with the household of God” as Peter says. His people have never been perfect or free from error, and probably never will be while this world lasts. Might it not be the case that God must at times discipline and shame parts of his church (that are lacking or have left behind some bit of true doctrine, or sought to add something of their own) by allowing a new shoot to spring up which may not flatter the branch it came from at all? Just so, Pentecostalism might in some way be God’s response to a Protestant church that was growing liberal and staid and dead, failing to believe in the miraculous claims of his word; Protestantism may have been God’s answer to a bloated and over-politicized Roman Church that was in some ways diseased and beset with excesses like greed and restricting access to the Bible in languages that average people could read. Pentecostalism and Protestantism might not have it all together, and might even bring about other challenges or thorns for God’s church, but all, I believe, as part of his purifying and guiding work over us.

A final word, on this unity of mind that the Bible speaks of: I believe part of how we can strive for unity is by sitting at the feet of Church Fathers and other great teachers of the faith from church history (Anselm, Aquinas, Turretin, Owen, Bavinck, Cardinal Newman, and so on). We ought to have a very anti-innovative and non-schismatic mind, looking to rely on sound teaching wherever it exists. Like you, I love God’s Church and want to submit myself to it (which looks, first and foremost, like submitting to my local congregation, which I believe to be one tiny embassy of Christ’s Kingdom in this world). And, like you, I believe God is purifying his Church and using it as his primary means of salvation and kingdom expansion in this world. There is no salvation outside of the Church.

May his Holy Church be blessed and protected from error and assault!

Here's another brief and helpful resource from Kruger about self attestation in Scripture. He raises what I think is a really important point: Jesus’ repeated emphasis that his sheep hear his voice and will come to him certainly primes us to look for signs within his words themselves, rather than from some external source, of the authority and signature of the divine—pace your point about no basis for Sola Scriptura in Jesus’ ministry. Indeed, this is a feature and not a bug, because of the winnowing function his words wield.

1. The subtitle refers to the dialogue itself, not to its two participants. Thus, ‘dialogue’ is a noun and not a verb here, although I admit to some double entendre. I consider both Stuart and myself Christians and catholics (that is to say, members of the universal Church; ‘catholic’ means universal); both of us with a lower-case ‘c’, and he with an upper-case.

2. Here's the video.