Dr. Steven Nemes is a Protestant theologian, phenomenologist, and adjunct professor at Grand Canyon University. He received his Ph.D. in Theology in 2021 from Fuller Theological Seminary. His dissertation was entitled, “A constructive-theological phenomenology of Scripture.” Steven also oversees the YouTube channel, “Words of Life.”
*****
I always hate having to transcribe or summarize video content, in order to interact with it. It’s time-consuming and tedious. But we’re in the “video age” of apologetics now, so it must be done: at least when written responses are made. Fortunately, in this instance, an excellent written reply has already been made by Dr. Bryan Cross: with transcriptions and summaries of Steven’s words from two videos: thus saving me the trouble. Direct citations of Steven’s words will be in blue; Bryan’s words will be in green. Here are the links to Steven’s two videos, from September 2021 (Part I / Part II).
Steven stated in his introductory comments:
In the internet circles I frequent, it is becoming more and more common for dissatisfied Protestants to consider Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy and even to convert. I was in the same situation for many years, but I eventually decided against it.
***
All quotations from Steven’s videos are referenced by the minute from which they are taken from the video from which they are taken.
Steven’s first argument for why Protestants should remain Protestant begins with the claim that the “Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches associate themselves with particular teachers in a way that goes contrary to Christ’s teaching.” (2′) To defend this claim he refers (3′) to Matthew 23:8-10, where Christ says, “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all students. And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father — the one in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Messiah.”
After describing how Christ’s words applied to the Scribes and Pharisees (5′ – 9′), Steven then claims that while the Catholic Church agrees that “in the truest and ultimate sense” that there is only one teacher, namely, Christ, in practice the Catholic Church contradicts this by prioritizing “tradition to Scripture.” (9′) He adds that the Catholic Church “set[s] up teachers alongside Christ, contrary to what Christ says to His disciple.” (9′) Here he is referring to the Magisterium, namely, the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. Steven then claims that Catholics put bishops “alongside Christ rather than under Him as His students.” (10′-11′) He claims that the Catholic church puts forward “certain students as though they were just as reliable as the Teacher Himself, namely the holy fathers and the Magisterium of the Church when speaking under certain conditions.” (12′)
This is already a lot to unpack, as these are rather broad and sweeping claims. It’s a bit like a happily married man having to answer the question, “why do you love your wife?” Hard to know where to begin . . . But I shall do my best.
“Call no one father” is a classic criticism of Catholicism, which I have dealt with. As I wrote in that article:
Jesus was making the point that God the Father is the ultimate source of all authority. . . . Those who try to reason in this way neglect to see that it would prohibit all uses of the word father whatsoever; even biological fathers. Since that is an absurd outcome, it is clear that the statement cannot be taken in an absolute sense.
Both Judges 17:10 and 18:19 use the terminology of “a father and a priest.” Jesus Himself uses “father” seven times, in terms of a biological father (Mt 15:4; 19:5; 21:31) and — more to our point — “father Abraham” (Lk 16:24, 27, 30; Jn 8:56). “Father Abraham” or suchlike also appears four more times (Acts 7:2; Rom 4:12, 16-17; Jas 2:21). Paul called Isaac “our forefather” (Rom 9:10), and called himself a “father” in relation to the Corinthians (1 Cor 4:15) and Timothy (Phil 2:22). The prophet Elisha called the prophet Elijah “my father” (2 Ki 2:12).
Jesus’ words in Matthew 23, then, are not at all intended to eliminate teachers in the church, or even those who would be called “father.” In fact, in the same passage Steven brings up, 5-6 verses earlier, Jesus’ acknowledges that even the Pharisees are proper teachers to Christians (!):
Matthew 23:2-3 (RSV) “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; [3] so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.”
Yes, they are hypocrites (His main point in the larger jeremiad against them), yet they still possessed profound teaching authority: just as Peter still did even when Paul accused him of behavioral hypocrisy. Jesus referred elsewhere to a “teacher” and his “disciple[s]” (Mt 10:24-25; cf. Lk 6:40). He told His disciples that after evangelizing all nations, they ought to also be “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:20). That’s certainly not a “no teachers but God” scenario, is it?
Acts 2:42 refers to “the apostles’ teaching” and Acts 4:2 to the early Christians “teaching the people.” See many more examples of “teach[ing]” in the Acts and Epistles, and of “instruct[ion]”. This notion, based on a misunderstanding of what Jesus intended to convey, obviously goes too far. Nor does Steven follow it (if I rightly understand his point) in his own life. He is apparently quite fond of the 16th century Protestant “reformer” Zwingli’s teaching, as a model for the Christian life. We can (respectfully) turn back his own statement against him and say that he, too, is associating “with particular teachers in a way that goes contrary to Christ’s teaching.”
Steven sees false teaching in the Catholic Church. In turn, we see (from where we sit) much in Zwingli. But the overall methodological dynamic is precisely the same in each case: he claims we are prioritizing Catholic “tradition to Scripture.” We say he is prioritizing the mini-tradition of Zwingli’s new (anti-Catholic) teachings to Scripture (i.e., he is using Zwingli as his guide and “lens” for understanding Scripture). I see no difference.
We have traditions (which go back to Christ); so do Protestants (which originated from Luther and other Protestant founders in the 16th century). The bottom-line task is to determine what teachings are true: not to claim that we mustn’t follow teachers (as if there is anyone who actually doesn’t do that). The question isn’t whether there should be teachers, but rather, which teachings of teachers are true (by the criteria of Scripture and existing apostolic tradition and succession) and which false.
Bishops are a NT office: mentioned four times in Paul’s epistles. This means it is proper to ask Steven who his bishop is, and if he has none, why not?: in light of the NT. Again, I don’t see how that can be ignored. Such bishops can then be judged as traditional or anti-traditional proponents. Right now in Germany, for example, the Catholic Church has a lot of anti-traditional bishops in some areas of teaching.
The office of the papacy is more difficult to explain, based on NT teaching, but a strong cumulative case can be made (especially considering how Peter is consistently presented). It’s already evident in Clement of Rome, one of the earliest popes, around 100 AD or slightly earlier.
As to the claim that Catholics believe (under certain conditions) that our teachers are “just as reliable as” God: this is not unique to us. Every Christian tradition has some authority structure and holds to teachings that are binding and non-negotiable. It’s only a matter of degree. Martin Luther asserted for himself a degree of authority so extraordinary (virtually self-defining himself as an infallible prophet) that it far exceeded anything any pope has ever said (and with no ecclesiological or theological basis other than his subjective self-assertion). He stated, for example:
I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you – or even an angel from heaven – to judge my teaching or to examine it. . . . I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3 ]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved – for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s. (Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called [July 1522]. From: Luther’s Works, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan [vols. 1-30] and Helmut T. Lehmann [vols. 31-55], St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House [vols. 1-30]; Philadelphia: Fortress Press [vols. 31-55], 1955. This work from Vol. 39: Church and Ministry I [edited by J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann]; pages 239-299; translated by Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch, citation from 248-249)
Traditional Calvinists are not in any way, shape, or form, allowed to deny the formula of TULIP, etc. If a Zwinglian starts asserting the real Presence in the eucharist he is no longer a Zwinglian, since a symbolic, non-sacramental Eucharist is one of the central Zwinglian doctrines. So I fail to see how that can be logically or “authoritatively” distinguished from Catholic infallible teachings. Both sides agree that there are “non-negotiable” doctrines that must be held. In effect, then, they are both assuming that these are unassailable teachings, ultimately from God (since they are derived from his inspired, infallible revelation). Again, this is not the way to refute Catholicism. Individual teachings must be examined in light of Scripture and apostolic tradition passed down.
Now the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic will say Christ has given authority to the teachers of the church to define dogma and to establish the limits of the faith against heretical opinion. It’s as if they were to say the teacher has given certain students the authority definitively to establish certain teachings as unquestionable. But this point has to be qualified. After all the scribes and pharisees could have claimed the same thing for themselves in response to Christ’s criticisms. It is true that the Church has the calling and the authority to define its faith but it doesn’t follow that every purported exercise of that authority is valid or true. (16′)
As noted, Jesus Himself granted the Pharisees extraordinary teaching authority (Mt 23:2-3). And they (most of them) weren’t even yet Christian. At some point we either bow to an established Christian / ecclesiological authority or we are on our own (“lone ranger” / “the Holy Spirit, my Bible, and me” Christianity). I would say that the Jerusalem Council (recorded in the Bible) demonstrated the sublime authority of the Church to make binding, infallible decrees (something sola Scriptura expressly denies can or should be the case).
It claimed to be speaking in conjunction with the Holy Spirit (“it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”: Acts 15:28) and its decree was delivered as such by the Apostle Paul in several cities (“As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem”: Acts 16:4). I’ve written about this council’s authority and its “Catholic” implications many times.
Another (I think) compelling biblical teaching on the binding authority of the Church (over against sola Scriptura) is 1 Timothy 3:15. I wrote about it in my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (2012, pp. 104-107, #82):
1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Pillars and foundations support things and prevent them from collapsing. To be a “bulwark” of the truth, means to be a “safety net” against truth turning into falsity. If the Church could err, it could not be what Scripture says it is. God’s truth would be the house built on a foundation of sand in Jesus’ parable. For this passage of Scripture to be true, the Church could not err — it must be infallible. A similar passage may cast further light on 1 Timothy 3:15:
Ephesians 2:19-21 . . . you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [21] in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;
1 Timothy 3:15 defines “household of God” as “the church of the living God.” Therefore, we know that Ephesians 2:19-21 is also referring to the Church, even though that word is not present. Here the Church’s own “foundation” is “the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” The foundation of the Church itself is Jesus and apostles and prophets.
Prophets spoke “in the name of the Lord” (1 Chron 21:19; 2 Chron 33:18; Jer 26:9), and commonly introduced their utterances with “thus says the Lord” (Is 10:24; Jer 4:3; 26:4; Ezek 13:8; Amos 3:11-12; and many more). They spoke the “word of the Lord” (Is 1:10; 38:4; Jer 1:2; 13:3, 8; 14:1; Ezek 13:1-2; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jon 1:1; Mic 1:1, et cetera). These communications cannot contain any untruths insofar as they truly originate from God, with the prophet serving as a spokesman or intermediary of God (Jer 2:2; 26:8; Ezek 11:5; Zech 1:6; and many more). Likewise, apostles proclaimed truth unmixed with error (1 Cor 2:7-13; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11-14; 2 Pet 1:12-21).
Does this foundation have any faults or cracks? Since Jesus is the cornerstone, he can hardly be a faulty foundation. Neither can the apostles or prophets err when teaching the inspired gospel message or proclaiming God’s word. In the way that apostles and prophets are infallible, so is the Church set up by our Lord Jesus Christ. We ourselves (all Christians) are incorporated into the Church (following the metaphor), on top of the foundation.
1 Peter 2:4-9 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; [5] and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. [6] For it stands in scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.” [7] To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, “The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,” [8] and “A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall”; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. [9] But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (cf. Isa 28:16)
Jesus is without fault or untruth, and he is the cornerstone of the Church. The Church is also more than once even identified with Jesus himself, by being called his “Body” (Acts 9:5 cf. with 22:4 and 26:11; 1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23; 4:12; 5:23, 30; Col 1:24). That the Church is so intimately connected with Jesus, who is infallible, is itself a strong argument that the Church is also infallible and without error.
Therefore, the Church is built on the foundation of Jesus (perfect in all knowledge), and the prophets and apostles (who spoke infallible truth, often recorded in inspired, infallible Scripture). Moreover, it is the very “Body of Christ.” It stands to reason that the Church herself is infallible, by the same token. In the Bible, nowhere is truth presented as anything less than pure truth, unmixed with error. That was certainly how Paul conceived his own “tradition” that he received and passed down.
Knowing what truth is, how can its own foundation or pillar be something less than total truth (since truth itself contains no falsehoods, untruths, lies, or errors)? It cannot. It is impossible. It is a straightforward matter of logic and plain observation. A stream cannot rise above its source. What is built upon a foundation cannot be greater than the foundation. If it were, the whole structure would collapse.
If an elephant stood on the shoulders of a man as its foundation, that foundation would collapse. The base of a skyscraper has to hold the weight above it. The foundations of a suspension bridge over a river have to be strong enough to support that bridge.
Therefore, we must conclude that if the Church is the foundation of truth, the Church must be infallible, since truth is infallible, and the foundation cannot be lesser than that which is built upon it. And since there is another infallible authorityapart from Scripture, sola scriptura must be false.
Regarding the Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, where Jesus says “whatever you bind on earth shall be should be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” Steven says:
“but I respond that what Christ says applies to Peter and to the Apostles since He was talking to them but not necessarily to those who come after them.” (17′)
I think this is quite clearly nonsensical. Why would Jesus give instructions and delegated power to forgive sins and grant absolution (or penance) to the apostles, if it was not intended as a model for the Church thereafter? To put it another way: it makes no sense whatsoever to set up offices and some sort of governmental structure of the early Church that would be in effect until the apostles die, and then we’re all on our own, like nomads in the desert: with no established Christian authority or tradition, except what we come up with in our own heads (as if Christian history is meaningless).
Jesus was expressly granting the apostles the faculties of the ordained priestly class. Likewise, Paul discusses various offices in the Church. Using the reasoning Steven employs here, all of them would have lasted until the death of the people who heard them, and wouldn’t have survived, say, 150 AD. But what sense does that make? None that I can fathom.
Steven next appeals in support of his thesis to three excerpts; one from Origen, one from St. Augustine, and one from St. Cyril. First he quotes Origen:
If there be anyone indeed who can discover something better and who can establish his assertions by clearer proofs from holy Scriptures let his opinion be received in preference to mine. (23′)
Catholics (like the Church fathers) are not opposed to searching for proofs and rationales for doctrines from the Bible. We do it all the time. It’s my own specialty in my full-time ministry — what I’m most known for (my blog is called Biblical Evidence for Catholicism and my first book, published in 2003, was A Biblical Defense of Catholicism). I love doing that more than almost anything else and anyone can observe me again doing it in this very reply.
That’s not at issue, or the issue in dispute between us. Sola Scriptura has to do with the relationship between three entities: Bible, Church, and Tradition. It places the Bible above the other two and denies to them the characteristic of infallibility. This is what Catholics deny in asserting the authority of all three (what we call “the three-legged stool”).
Thus, the proper question is to ask what Origen thought, not of Scripture, but of sola Scriptura (the rule of faith). Like all Church fathers, he denies sola Scriptura, as I have written about. Origen also wrote the following (a very “unProtestant” sentiment indeed):
[T]here are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the Churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition. (De Principiis, preface, complete section 2; ANF, Vol. IV; see many other related citations in this article of mine)
Lest someone think this is only my own bias, I cite Anglican patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly:
According to Origen, the rule of faith, or canon, was . . . the Christian faith as taught in the Church of his day and handed down from the apostles. Though its contents coincided with those of the Bible, it was formally independent of the Bible, and also included the principles of Biblical interpretation. (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, fifth revised edition, 1978, 43)
Then he quotes St. Augustine:
For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve to condemn and reject anything in their writings if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have by the divine help discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine. (23′ – 24′)
The same question that must be asked of Origen in this regard applies to Augustine and any other Church father: what was their opinion as to the rule of faith? I’ve written about Augustine’s view on these matters as well (since I’ve written more about sola Scriptura than any other topic, including three books). His statements contrary to sola Scriptura are so numerous and decisive that I won’t even cite any (I wouldn’t know which to choose!), and thus I simply direct the reader to my linked article on the topic.
And lastly he quotes St. Cyril of Jerusalem:
For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the holy Scriptures, nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me who tell you these things give not absolute credence unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning but on demonstration of the holy Scriptures. (24′)
I’ve dealt with him, too, and the same passage was brought up by my Protestant debate opponent (Jason Engwer). Again, this proves nothing one way or another as regards sola Scriptura. It does prove material sufficiency of Scripture, but Catholics agree about that. To find St. Cyril’s full view on the rule of faith, one must dig a little deeper. In his Catechetical Lecture V, “On Faith,” Cyril shows that he fully accepts the Catholic understanding of authority; the three-legged stool of Bible, Church, and Tradition, and apostolic succession:
But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it , and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper , but engraving it by the memory upon your heart , taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be to you anathema. . . .
Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your heart. Guard them with reverence, lest per chance the enemy despoil any who have grown slack; or lest some heretic pervert any of the truths delivered to you. (sections 12-13)
Patrick Madrid observed (and I know this is accurate, due to much first-hand experience):
Sometimes Protestant apologists try to bolster their case for sola scriptura by using highly selective quotes from Church Fathers . . . These quotes, isolated from the rest of what the Father in question wrote about church authority, Tradition and Scripture, can give the appearance that these Fathers were hard-core Evangelicals who promoted an unvarnished sola scriptura principle that would have done John Calvin proud. But this is merely a chimera. . . .
Were there time and space to cycle through each of the patristic quotes proffered by Protestants arguing for sola scriptura, we could demonstrate in each case that the Fathers are being quoted out of context and without regard to the rest of their statements on the authority of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. (online article, Sola scriptura: A Blueprint for Anarchy)
This concludes my reply to Part I. Now on to Part II:
Steven opens his second video by summarizing his second argument:
Now my second argument for remaining a Protestant is that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are sectarian. And what I mean by sectarian is this: I mean that in order to welcome someone into their fellowship they demand that a person assent to the truth of doctrines which are highly contentious and not obviously supported by any properly authoritative sources. (1′)
To illustrate his claim he picks three dogmas: the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the dogma of the Assumption, and the dogma defined at the Second Council of Nicea concerning the veneration of sacred images. (2′) He writes:
My argument is rather that such doctrines are highly contentious and not at all clearly supported by the most authoritative sources, and because they are not reasonably clear it is sectarian to set them up as conditions of fellowship with the Church. Scripture does not explicitly teach that Mary was conceived without original sin nor that she was assumed body and soul into heaven neither does Scripture teach that it is obligatory to venerate icons of Christ and of the saints. (5′)
He grants that these doctrines follow a trajectory set “in certain quarters.” (6′ – 7′) But he argues that these doctrines are neither clearly taught in Scripture, nor were they universally held. And therefore to make assent to them a condition of fellowship is sectarian, and thus a justification for remaining Protestant. Here, to support his point regarding the veneration of sacred images he quotes Origen regarding the practice among Christians of scorning “idols and all images.” (7′ – 8′) These three doctrines are sectarian, according to Steven, because “highly contentious and disputable points of view which cannot be established on the basis of the most authoritative sources are being put forth as non-negotiable conditions of fellowship.” (9′ – 10′) Steven then gives an uncharitable interpretation of the reasons why the Church has proposed these doctrines as dogma, saying:
Now what I think is happening is that a particular church or community of churchmen prefers its own ideas convictions and opinions so much to those of others that it is willing to exclude them from its fellowship unless they agree. (10′)
The problem with this is that this criticism (closely scrutinized) applies just as much to Protestant theological systems. Catholics and Orthodox vigorously maintain that neither sola Scriptura nor sola fide (“faith alone”) — the so-called “two pillars of the Reformation” — are biblical doctrines or part of the apostolic deposit of sacred tradition. Nor are the Protestant denials of what they call Catholic “distinctives” or “peculiarities”: transubstantiation, veneration of saints, the Marian doctrines, the seven sacraments, the sacrifice of the Mass, penance, merit, the papacy, infused justification, hierarchical Church government, baptismal regeneration, and on and on.
Corruption of theology can consist just as much in the rejection or “subtraction” of previously received doctrines as it does in adding supposedly unbiblical doctrines to the set of required beliefs. The burden of both sides — again — is to establish that their views are those taught in the Bible and historically through Christian history. Steven agrees that Christian history is an important component of the discussion, that can’t be ignored; hence, his citation of Origen, Augustine, and Cyril of Jerusalem. Even staunch Protestant apologist Norman Geisler confessed that the historical evidence for Christians believing in sola fide prior to the 1500s is almost nonexistent:
[O]ne can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period! . . . . .
For Augustine, justification included both the beginnings of one’s righteousness before God and its subsequent perfection — the event and the process. What later became the Reformation concept of “sanctification” then is effectively subsumed under the aegis of justification. Although he believed that God initiated the salvation process, it is incorrect to say that Augustine held to the concept of “forensic” justification. This understanding of justification is a later development of the Reformation . . .
. . . a feature in Augustinianism which Protestants will no doubt find interesting is that God may regenerate a person without causing that one to finally persevere [City of God, 10.8] . . .
Augustine does not deny the freedom of the human will . . . He resisted the notion of double predestination, which argues that God not only decides to elect some to eternal life but also actively predestines others to eternal destruction . . .
. . . the distinction between justification and sanctification — which came to the fore in the Reformation — is almost totally absent from the medieval period . . .
Like Augustine, Aquinas believed that regeneration occurs at baptism . . . he held that not all the regenerate will persevere . . . Aquinas believed that humankind is unable to initiate or attain salvation except by the grace of God . . . he is completely dependent on God for salvation . . .
Whereas the Reformers distinguished forensic justification and progressive sanctification, Augustine and Aquinas did not . . .
Augustine never held the doctrine of ‘double’ predestination . . . and actually argued against it . . .
Before Luther, the standard Augustinian position on justification stressed intrinsic justification. Intrinsic justification argues that the believer is made righteous by God’s grace, as compared to extrinsic justification, by which a sinner is forensically declared righteous (at best, a subterranean strain in pre-Reformation Christendom). With Luther the situation changed dramatically . . . (Norman Geisler, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, co-author Ralph E. MacKenzie, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1995, 502, 85, 89, 91-93, 99, 222; emphasis in original)
The same holds for sola Scriptura, as can be seen using a search of that belief on my Fathers of the Church page. If indeed these doctrines cannot be found in the Church fathers and not until all the way up to Luther, then it’s at least as scandalous requiring these beliefs of anyone. I myself have constructed entirely biblical arguments for Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption and the veneration of images.
Others will disagree, of course, but at least there is such a thing as a biblical rationale in all three cases, and all Christians agree that that is important; indeed, crucial. We have to make a positive biblical and historical case for these doctrines and others that Protestants reject, and likewise, Protestants have to show that they are neither biblical nor historical.
Nor are the doctrines Steven brings up as examples of alleged Catholic excess and over-dogmatism strictly Catholic. Martin Luther believed in Mary’s Immaculate Conception for many years, and later, believed in a view only slightly modified. All the Protestant founders believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity (whereas most Protestants now don’t), and there are plenty of biblical arguments for that, as I have made, myself.
Martin Luther even believed in Mary’s virginity during childbirth (i.e., a miraculous, non-natural birth: what is known in theology as in partu). Luther believed in Mary’s Assumption in some form, as Lutheran scholars agree. And historic Lutheranism, in various places, retained the Feast of the Assumption on the liturgical calendar.
All of these people believed in these doctrines for a reason. The usual Protestant explanation in reply is that they simply suffered from irrational “holdovers” from Catholic tradition, in their transitional age. I find that to be a belittling view: as if their very founders did not think through what they believed (whenever they agreed with existing Catholic tradition). It’s insulting to them.
I submit that it’s more plausible to believe that they should have kept these elements of Christian tradition (and that later Protestants erred), as opposed to believing that they held them for inadequate, indefensible reasons.
The church or community of church men in question takes itself as the standard of truth as though the mere fact that it has come to believe something is a proof that it is right. (10′)
In fact, it is based on the biblical belief that the Holy Spirit guides and protects the Church from error, and that the Church has authority (per the biblical proofs I offered above). Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could protect His Church from error. If they did, then they would agree with us that the Church is or can be (under certain conditions) infallible, just as Holy Scripture is.
And this can be seen in Ineffabilis Deus which says “The Catholic Church directed by the Holy Spirit of God is the pillar and base of truth.” Now note well this is not merely a citation of the words of Paul from I Timothy 3:15. It is an identification of a particular Church, namely the Church of Rome and those associated with it, as the Church. (10′)
If one believes that the Holy Spirit guides the one Church that Jesus established, then one must choose which church in existence among men is most plausibly identified with the one biblical (historical / institutional) Church. I think the Catholic Church qualifies hands-down as the most plausible choice. Protestants, likewise, believe in various versions of what the true Church is, or what “Church” means. It’s not immediately arrogant or irrational to do so. We all exercise faith in what we believe as Christians. Christianity doesn’t reduce to philosophy. It’s a religion.
And instead of measuring its statements against the things themselves and coming to a moderate conclusion about the truth of what it says, the Roman Church takes the truth of its thoughts for granted and declares its belief an infallible dogma and a condition for fellowship. Now to my mind this is sectarian behavior. It is putting oneself forward as the criterion of truth in a matter in which one appears to have no special access to the reality of the matter.” (11′)
It does so for the reasons I have provided. Again, if one believes that the Spirit guides the Church (an explicitly biblical notion), then by necessity one must choose which claimant for “the Church” is the correct one. We do that and provide our biblical and historical and logical reasons for doing so. The belief contrary to acceptance of one Church as the biblical one, is what I have called the perpetual Protestant “quest for uncertainty.”
It wasn’t my own outlook, as an evangelical Protestant for thirteen years. I wanted the fullness of truth; the whole truth: not partial or relativistic truth (wherever it was found: within Protestantism or not). I came to conclude after ten months of study and soul-searching, that this was found in the Catholic Church. I fought hard to retain my Protestantism (my Catholic friends at the time will bear witness to that!), but it was a futile battle, the more I learned (especially from St. John Henry Cardinal Newman).
Of course an unwritten tradition is a word that comes from nowhere in particular and can be traced back to no one with certainty. Who can know if an unwritten tradition is genuinely apostolic? (13′)
By determining (via historical research) if it was a tradition widely practiced and handed-down in an unbroken chain.
That is the attitude of a sectarian. He takes himself as the measure of truth and excludes all those who refuse to agree with him rather than putting himself on the same level as those with whom he might disagree and submitting together with them to the truth of things such as they seem.” (13′ – 14′)
I would say that this stance is far more characteristic of the Protestant rule of faith. The individual Protestant (just like Luther) can potentially determine that an entire body of tradition is wrong, and ought to be rejected. It matters not how long it was held or how many important people held it. And the individual (any individual) can do this in Protestantism because he or she believes that this tradition cannot be infallible (only Scripture is that).
If that is the case, then they are bound to no human institutions or traditions and can judge any given tradition in and of themselves, and reject it if they please. I don’t see this sort of thing (what might be called “ahistorical subjectivism”) in Scripture anywhere: nor in Church history, until Protestants introduced it.
***
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
***
Summary: Dr. Steven Nemes offered a two-part video presentation on the question of “Why Remain Protestant?” I make an in-depth reply, describing Catholic alternate views.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In