Closing Statement: Follow Others as They Follow Christ

Last updated on: September 30, 2024 at 4:49 pm by Dennis Knapp

0 Comments

Closing Statement: Follow Others as They Follow Christ 2024-09-30T16:49:32-06:00 Dennis Knapp

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Guest writer: Eric Luppold

Introduction

I want to first say thank you to Dennis for inviting me here to debate. Our discussion has been rigorous, but I think that we have made some great progress and have done so in a gracious and respectful manner. My intent now is to summarize what I believe to be the key issues and to try to tie up any loose ends, including answering any final questions that Dennis had for me.

Principles of Authority

Throughout this debate, I have attempted to argue that “rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15) implies that there is a proper way to interpret and apply Scripture, and that this is something that could be verified. That is, if someone were to handle Scripture, another person could see whether this was being done correctly.

Dennis responded to this by claiming that I am granting all individuals the right to make judgment calls about Scripture and to decide for themselves the proper interpretation. But this alleged problem applies to both Catholics and Protestants. Dennis himself, at some point, made the decision to submit to the Roman Catholic Magisterium. In that moment, he made a judgment call about the claims of the Roman Catholic Church and decided that both the Magisterium’s historical claims and its interpretation of Scripture were correct.

My point in bringing this up is that all humans exercise reason. We all “submit to” or “follow” something or someone. As Christians, we are commanded to follow others as they follow Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). This means that we must be able to discern what following Christ looks like so that we can ensure that we follow the correct under-shepherds (John 10:1-16). This does not mean that we ignore our elders/pastors and sit alone under a tree with our Bibles. Rather, we recognize that Scripture is the final authority that directs and guides all governing authorities, including the family, church, and state. And so, we follow our parents as they follow Christ, but we do not follow them into sin.

The same is true in our relationship to the church and state. Simply stated, those who are in authority are obligated to listen to Christ’s voice and to obey it themselves.

Principles of Communication

Now, Dennis might argue that this does not answer the question concerning how to verify what the proper interpretation of Scripture is. I would respond by arguing that all forms of intelligent communication between persons – whether human or divine – operate on several fundamental principles. We utilize these principles in our daily communication without even thinking. These principles can be presented in the following questions:

Who is the author of the message?
Who is the recipient of the message?
What is the author’s intent in the message?
What is the context in which the message is given?
What meaning do the word-pictures, sentences, and paragraphs convey in the message?

These principles could be said to be the natural laws of communication, as fundamental as the laws of logic. When people are engaged in regular communication, whether via phone, text, or in-person, they are following these principles. Communication breakdowns (i.e., misinterpretations) occur when one or more of those principles are ignored or purposefully twisted, such as in arguments between spouses or between parents and their children. And because we live in a sinful world, people will not always consistently adhere to the laws of communication just as they do not always adhere to the laws of logic. In short, sin has affected our ability to communicate. We can be lazy, hasty, or downright hostile. We also bring along our biases, assumptions, and traditions, which often hinder our ability to understand.

In fact, one of the forms of judgment that God used on mankind was to purposefully disrupt human communication, as we see in the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). Prior to that, mankind was functioning rather efficiently and in great unity. Yet this was done out of a heart of rebellion, incurring God’s wrath. Later, God reversed the judgment at Babel in the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, bringing unity by the Spirit where there previously was no unity (Acts 2:5-13).

The Role of the Holy Spirit

This brings me to the next fundamental point – the necessity of the Holy Spirit. As we have seen, confusion is a judgment from God, one that we all deserve. But good communication is a blessing from God, one that all people regularly enjoy by his common grace.

The same is true in God’s communication to us in Scripture. It was an act of grace and divine mercy that God has given us his word and not left us alone in the dark. It was God who closed the communication gap between us and him that existed because of our sin. For without the working of the Holy Spirit, God’s word would fall on deaf ears.

This is an important point. God’s word is perfect, and any misunderstanding of his word on our part is due to our own infirmities, not to any lacking in God’s ability to communicate. But apart from the Holy Spirit working in man’s heart, the word of God will be abused and twisted. For example, Satan knows that Jesus is the Son of God. He knows that Jesus died and rose again on the third day. And he knows that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father. But he hates those things. He knows that God has spoken in his word, but he twists God’s word because he is the father of lies (John 8:44).

And so, if breakdowns in communication between God and his creatures are the result of sin, then only the power of God can bring restoration. This is one of the functions of the Holy Spirit, who interprets spiritual truths to those who are spiritual (1 Corinthians 2:13). It is the Spirit who opens the eyes of God’s people to follow the principles of communication and to recognize any faulty biases, assumptions, and traditions when they approach God’s word.

This is one of my concerns with Dennis’s arguments. I know that he believes that the Holy Spirit is real, but I think he often minimizes just how important of a role that the Spirit has in the matter. When we look throughout the New Testament, we see that the Spirit is present and known by believers (John 14:16-17). Additionally, the works of the Spirit are evident (John 16:7-11) and can be discerned from other spirits (1 John 4:1). The Spirit also leads us as sons and daughters of God while bearing witness to our own spirits (Romans 8:14-16).

Even so, Dennis continues to demand verification of the Spirit’s work. In response, I would say that there is no appeal to an authority higher than God, for God swears by himself (Hebrews 6:13). I would also point out that, even if it were possible to appeal to an authority higher than God, the Roman Catholic position offers no solution.

For instance, Dennis says that “Protestants simply lack any legitimate authority to interpret the Bible.” But I ask, “Who gets to decide what counts as a legitimate authority?” He might say, “the Magisterium does.” But then I would respond, “How do you know that they have legitimate authority?” Dennis could say, “Because God said it in Scripture when Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom.” Yet this would lead me to ask, “How can you verify that the Magisterium is interpreting that passage correctly?”

I use this simulated conversation to show that, if we keep asking enough questions, Dennis at some point will need to appeal to the working of the Holy Spirit. In fact, he does this when he brings up the sensus fidei or “sense of the faith.” This refers to the ability of believers, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to discern truth from falsehood regarding matters of faith. Of course, this is fundamentally no different than what I have described throughout this debate as the Holy Spirit’s use of the sword of the Spirit – the word of God – to sanctify the people of God.

But the key difference between my position and Dennis’s position is the final standard, or measuring stick, by which all matters of faith are weighed. Per the document Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church, published in 2014, the Vatican asserted that “judgment regarding the authenticity of the sensus fidelium belongs ultimately not to the faithful themselves nor to theology but to the magisterium.” The Vatican further stated that “resistance, as a matter of principle, to the teaching of the magisterium is incompatible with the authentic sensus fidei.” This is significant. In essence, the Magisterium – constituted by the pope and the bishops – gets to decide when the sensus fidei is real in any given situation. This results in the current Magisterium ending up as the final and ultimate authority – Sola Ecclesia.

The Church vs. The Magisterium

This leads me to the third fundamental point. My understanding of the term “Church” is quite different from Dennis’s, which is why I have attempted to be careful in how I use it. Dennis claims that the Roman Catholic Church can trace an unbroken line back to Peter and the apostles. When I make the case that the Roman Catholic Church looks nothing like the early church, he utilizes an analogy similar to John Henry Newman’s oak tree metaphor by saying that the Roman Catholic Church has matured with age.

While I would agree that some changes are to be expected over time, such as meeting in buildings rather than people’s homes, we should be able to confirm that the fundamental faith remains the same. That is, our doctrines and worship should parallel that of the apostles and the early church. And this is found by referencing the infallible word of God, the final rule of faith that is sufficient “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). But the Roman Catholic Church we see today is truly different, having placed man’s traditions over the word of God.

As a result, it now teaches a different gospel, requiring complete affirmation of dogmas such as Papal Infallibility and the Bodily Assumption of Mary, things not taught by either the apostles or the early church.

Conclusion

To close, I want to answer two direct questions from Dennis. First, he asked me about his status as a believer due to our disagreements on Scripture. Well, in one of my earlier responses I quoted Augustine, who described how a genuine believer might hold to an incorrect interpretation of Scripture. So, while I do not know Dennis’s heart, I would not say he is unregenerate simply because he and I disagree.

Second, Dennis asked why anyone should accept my authority over that of the Magisterium. That is a loaded question, for I am neither claiming authority nor asking anyone to submit to me. Rather, I am asking people to follow others as they follow Christ. This means being grounded in God’s word, reading it and seeking to submit to it and to those who follow it. It means utilizing the God-designed principles of communication and neither twisting, adding to, or subtracting from God’s word. It means testing the spirits using the mind of Christ to discern whether someone is teaching truth or falsehood.

That is why I believe that the Roman Catholic Magisterium is not following Christ as Christ requires. It is not teaching what the apostles taught. No doubt there are many believers who call themselves Roman Catholic. But if they are saved, it is despite the Magisterium’s official teaching, not because of it. With that in mind, my hope and prayer is that Dennis, and other Catholics, would adhere to what Christ and the apostles taught. And what they taught is found in Scripture, not in man-made traditions that end up “making void the word of God” (Mark 7:13). Thank you.