I’ve never been the type to throw the baby out with the bath water. I can find the good in a bully, I can see the merits of other religions and glean truths from them, and I can watch a sleazy televangelist and see where he might be right about some things – all three of those were necessary to get through four years of ORU under Richard Roberts without losing my faith and without losing my sanity. 

Richard Roberts is the son of the late healing evangelist Oral Roberts (founder of Oral Roberts University). Whatever anyone thinks about Oral’s dramatic exclamations, or his poor money management skills, I remain thoroughly convinced of the man’s love for Jesus and his God-given gift for supernatural healing. I never saw Oral on t.v., only in person, but I did see his son Richard’s t.v. program once or twice while waiting for Lukus in the fishbowl (our nickname for the all-glass lobby). Like his father, Richard spoke on his program about a “point of contact”, and if you needed healing, all you had to do was believe and place your hands on the television screen where Richard’s hands were, and you could be healed. He compared it to the woman with the issue of blood who reached out to touch the hem of Jesus’ garment and was healed, and spoke often of the need to exercise your faith in order to release your miracle. Now I’m not sure how many people were healed when they touched their t.v. screen, but what stands out to me is the fact that this evangelical preacher insisted on this “point of contact”, this need to exercise your faith and take a practical step toward releasing your miracle.

I also recall my Assemblies of God youth pastor questioning if certain individuals were “really saved” because their lifestyle hadn’t changed since that time they’d said the Sinner’s Prayer. My own mom, who adamantly despised a “works-based religion” often told me, “You know a tree by its fruit. If the fruit is bad, then that individual’s faith isn’t genuine.” And when my grandfather was dying, my mom tried to share the gospel with him because he’d clearly never cared for God, the Bible, or church, and there was no evidence that he was a believer of any kind. He told her, “I said the prayer years ago. God and I are good.” Yet she could tell by his tone that he just wanted her to shut up and she didn’t at all believe that he and God “were good.”

So after all these experiences growing up in evangelical communities, when I became Catholic I had to bite my tongue any time someone mentioned that they couldn’t understand why I would join a “works-based religion.” This is the point at which I think Protestants just aren’t being honest with themselves unless they’re the type like my grandfather who believe they can live doing whatever they want and still claim to be saved, in which case, they aren’t really Christians at all. Catholics and Protestants are surprisingly on the same page when it comes to faith and works, so let’s get down to brass tacks.

Let me start with a transparent analogy: You have a car. It’s a good car, runs well, fairly new. You can go anywhere on land. You know this because you know your car and you trust its reliability. But tell me, what is the point of your car if you never get inside it, turn the ignition, and drive somewhere? Can your car get you anywhere if you don’t drive it? Nope. You can believe in that car all you want, but just believing won’t get you to the grocery store or to Arches National Park. Would I take a car all the way from Spokane to Arches if I didn’t believe in the reliability of the car? No. So to really get where I want to go, I need to trust my car, and then I need to actually drive the darn thing or I get nowhere. 

So it is with works and faith. Super simple. And yet Protestants think they believe that simply having a car and believing in it is enough to get somewhere, which in their practical Christian lives isn’t really the case. They then look at Catholics and think we’re trying to carry our car across the country on our own backs, which also isn’t true. 

Catholics believe that God initiated salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus, and without Jesus, no amount of good deeds makes us righteous. Works do not grant us access to God. There is some grace, of course, for those who have legitimately never heard the gospel message and, like Romans 1 says, will be judged by their conscience. But I grew up believing that even in evangelical circles. For those who have heard the gospel, strictly doctrinally speaking, salvation comes by grace through faith in Jesus. But we’d also argue that, like Richard Roberts used to say, faith needs a “point of contact”. Faith itself IS work. Hebrews 11:1 says that “Faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen.” Faith, if it is not EVIDENT, if it has no SUBSTANCE is merely hope. No honest Christian would claim that wishin’ and hopin’ is sufficient for salvation. Faith is the key ingredient, and yet, faith is a compound chemical made of hope mixed with action. We could all easily agree that “faith alone” is sufficient stuff for salvation if we could also agree that the very nature of faith includes works. 

But if we define faith as only “belief”, herein lies the rub. You could quote Ephesians 2:8 to me, “For by grace you have been saved through faith – and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, lest anyone should boast,” and exclaim that faith alone is enough. And even if we used faith to only mean “belief” I would agree with you if it also meant that “saved” referred to the initial act of being made right with God. But I would tell you to keep reading, “For we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” Works is right there paired with faith, and that’s because salvation is not a one and done deal. We have been saved, we are being saved, and we shall be saved. It is in the “we are being saved” that we Catholics believe in works. If you ask a Catholic if they’re “saved”, they’ll likely look at you funny because few Catholics will point to a singular moment in their lives and tell you “I got saved when…”. That’s because we believe that salvation is ongoing until the day we die, and that means a lifetime of “working out our faith with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12).” I think that’s something we actually all agree on because ALL Christians believe that upon conversion, our lives ought to reflect a real change. We ought to bear good fruit.

James 2 makes it all very clear that faith without works is dead, but I’ve heard so many Protestants just come right out and say they don’t like James. One Bible study leader I had said he wished Martin Luther had just taken James out of the Bible when he had the chance! So despite the glaring inconsistency of sola scriptura folks wanting to completely ignore an entire book of the Bible, I’ll go ahead and ignore James since so many people don’t like it and use the more revered words of Paul instead. He wrote in Romans 10:9-10 “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” So even at the very moment of conception of the rebirth of one’s spirit, it requires both belief AND a work: the act of confession. In John 15, Jesus says that every branch that does not bear fruit, He cuts off. What is the point of planting a grapevine if it doesn’t bear grapes? What is the point of Jesus dying to make us righteous if we do not then do righteous deeds? 

It’s also important to state that we do not believe these good works are done in our own power or by human effort. Catholics understand that it is only by the grace given to us by the Holy Spirit that we are equipped to carry out any kind of good. Nothing done by our own effort will make an ounce of difference; we must align ourselves to His suffering, His power, His heart, and His will. 

One particular work that Protestants have difficulty with is Penance. They understand repentance, and yet penance is right there inside the word repentance. The issue seems to be that Protestants mistakenly think that penance is either a form of punishment, or a good deed that curries favor with God so He’ll forget about your sins. Neither is true. First of all, doing the right thing should never be considered a punishment. If you’ve sinned and confessed to a priest and he tells you to go pray an “Our Father”, how could praying ever be considered a punishment? Or if your penance is, say, to return the blouse you stole from your sister, that’s not a punishment, it’s simply righting a wrong. Second of all, penance isn’t about getting your sins forgiven. If you’ve confessed your sins, the forgiveness happens right then and there. Penance comes after the forgiveness takes place. It helps to look at penance as coming from the word repentance, which means “to turn around and go the other direction.” So if you’ve been walking in the direction of sin, confession and forgiveness is the moment when you stop, are pointed in the right direction, and turn in that direction. Penance is simply taking that first step in the right direction. It can be hard to talk to God when you still feel ashamed of a sin. It can be hard to do the next right thing when you’ve been doing all the wrong things. So penance is a little nudge, an easy, gracious step toward getting back on the right path. It’s not some legalistic work that saves you, it is a response in faith to the mercy of God. 

So I hope that clears up another misnomer about the Catholic faith. Like many misunderstandings, it often comes down to defining the terms. A Catholic might say, “We are saved by faith and good works,” and if someone believes “works” to mean an attempt to reach God through human righteousness, there’s going to be a problem. But if they believe that “works” means a faith-response to God’s grace, the empowerment by His Spirit to carry out His will, and being conformed to the image of Jesus, well then we’re getting somewhere. Richard Roberts turned out to be right about one thing at least: that “point of contact” is essential.

So now that I’ve hopefully dispelled the myth that Catholics do not have a biblical worldview in my last post, it’s only logical to now address the issue of how Catholics approach the Bible: the concept of “Sola Scriptura” vs. “Scripture & Tradition”. Since my last post, I feel like a switch has flipped, causing a whirlwind of thoughts about my Catholic faith and the insatiable need to write it out. I find myself falling in love with Jesus and His Church afresh, so while this all may come off as an intellectual treatise, the whole point of the intellect is to lead us to Truth, so that we may know what it is we ought to love and set our affections on. It’s like this little recitation I do with my kids every morning before we start school; I ask them, “Why do we learn?” And they respond with, “To know Truth, so we may know God, so we may reveal Him to others in love.” And that’s where I find myself as I mull over these truths again. 

I’ll never forget the first time my only Catholic friend, Andrew, leaned back in his chair, arms crossed confidently, and sat in amused silence as the other nine of us non-Catholic Christians debated the meaning of a Bible verse. I was curious because Andrew was not one to keep silent for so long, so I asked him what he thought the scripture was saying. He said, “I don’t really care what the verse says.” WHAT?! I was very offended on God’s behalf. Then he said, “I don’t care what it says because I care what the Church teaches about its meaning. The nine of you have been sitting here arguing for some time. All of you know what it says, and yet there are nine different opinions on what it means and you’re all convinced you’re right. So who is? Sola scriptura just doesn’t work.” Andrew had singlehandedly dealt a serious blow to, not only my ego, but also my assurance that scripture was all I needed to know God’s truth. The cracks had already been forming before that as I had become extremely frustrated with a number of pastors and churches we attended where I always felt like they were wrong about something. Would I ever find a church where I agreed 100% with everything that was taught? Andrew didn’t know it at the time, but by exposing the weaknesses of Sola Scriptura, he had just started me and Lukus on an unexpected journey.

I want to make it very clear that the Catholic Church does not hold Tradition above Scripture. God’s Word is held sacred, but that’s all the more reason why it must interpreted properly, and that’s what Tradition does. Tradition is actually two parts: 1) the Apostolic Tradition as handed down by St. Peter and the Fathers (and Mothers) of the early Church, and 2) the Magisterium, the teachers who have continued to discern and define doctrine and who address current issues that never would have been considered in ancient times (though I will not be addressing the role of the Magisterium in this post). It was Martin Luther who introduced the concept of Sola Scriptura, or “Scripture alone”. Catholics, however, would say that a one-legged stool isn’t very stable. That leg is essential, but it needs the other two to make a solid surface safe enough to stand on.

The fact is, Tradition came before Scripture. As I stated in my previous post, the early Church did not have the Bible. The Bible wasn’t canonized until the late 300s, and yet during all that time, the gospel had spread like wildfire, Christians were willing to be fed to lions for the name of Jesus, and Christianity had gained so many followers that by the time the Bible was canonized, an emperor had eventually come along who would make Christianity the official state religion. So what was it that was so compelling that people risked their lives to become followers of Jesus? They relied on the word of mouth teachings of the apostles that were handed down to the bishops, the priests, and the people, generation after generation. They read from the Torah, and some churches had letters that had been sent to them by the original apostles, but much of what was taught was passed down by word of mouth.

Paul refers to this “in person” teaching in his second letter to Timothy, “And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2:2)” Paul loved Timothy like a son, and the people that Timothy pastored relied on him to pass down doctrine to them as given by Paul. 2 Thessalonians also states, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Chapter 3 of the same book also vaguely references what was taught to them “in person”, with the expectation that what they heard by mouth would be followed. Philippians 4:9 says, “What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.” This oral teaching by the Apostles came to be known as “Apostolic Tradition”, and their spoken instructions carried all the authority that their written instructions had.

Jesus also frequently used Jewish oral tradition when he taught, frequently using the phrase, “You have heard it said,” and often, none of those sayings are found in the Old Testament. Matthew 2:23 says, “And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene,” yet nowhere is it mentioned in the Old Testament that “he would be called a Nazarene”, so which prophets is it referring to? The Jewish oral tradition was good enough for Jesus and the Apostles, so is it any wonder that they expected their word of mouth teachings to be passed down? We were never meant to be islands unto ourselves with a Bible as our companion; we were meant to live in community, to be the Body of Christ and to be taught under authority.

That leads us to the authority of the Catholic Church to interpret Scripture. Because the Church came before Scripture, because the Church canonized Scripture, and because Jesus and His apostles passed down an oral tradition, it only makes sense that the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture in light of that tradition. 1 Timothy 3:15 says, “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.” So even the Bible says that the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of truth,” not the Bible. It is for this reason that Christ told Peter, “Upon THIS rock, I will build My Church.” He didn’t say, “Upon a Bible I will build My Church” or “Upon sacred Scripture will I build My Church.” He was giving Peter the authority to take what Jesus had been teaching him for three years, and what the Holy Spirit would reveal to Peter (and his successors), and that would be the cornerstone for Christ’s Church.

But when there is no authority to interpret Scripture, the Body of Christ becomes fragmented with all kinds of doctrinal disputes. Without an authoritative interpretation, it would be like someone saying that they “just believe in the U.S. Constitution as the country’s authority.” While the Constitution is a fantastic guiding document for governance, you can’t “just” believe in the Constitution, because for 200 years it has required a Supreme Court to interpret it, and measure whether or not certain actions are in accordance with the Constitution. Of course every citizen should read and have a working understanding of the Constitution, but for every 300 million citizens, there would be 300 million interpretations of it. We rely on the Supreme Court as the ultimate authority on the interpretation of this founding document.

And just as the Constitution itself grants authority to the Supreme Court, Scripture itself grants authority to Apostolic Tradition to secure true doctrine. Ephesians 4:11-15 states “The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ.” Throughout the New Testament, the call to the Church is unity. While that little living room disagreement that Andrew observed was a friendly discussion among friends, not all doctrinal differences are so lighthearted and respectful. Many a war and broken relationships have occurred due to disagreements about what the Bible says. Is that really what Jesus would have wanted? This is another piece of what drew me to the Catholic faith. One of Jesus’ very last prayers was that “They (the Church) would be one, just as You and I (the Father and the Son) are one,”  John 15. Unity amongst His followers was a precious concern to Jesus, and His Church has never been more fractured since the time of the Reformation when it was proposed that everyone could decide what the Bible said for himself with no authoritative interpretation.

And speaking of craftiness and deceitful scheming, it is interesting to note that the Pharisees often tried to trip Jesus up using Scripture, but it was Jesus’ interpretive teaching on Scripture that revealed truth, not Scripture alone. And 2 Peter 3:16 concedes that Paul’s writing are difficult to understand, and “the ignorant and unstable twist [them] to their own destructions, as they do the other scriptures.” 2 Peter 1:20 states that “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,” and he then proceeds to expound upon false teachers. Satan himself used scripture in his attempt to tempt Jesus to throw Himself off the temple when he says, “For it is written, ‘He shall give His angels charge over you,’ and ‘In their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone.’” Satan knows the Bible well, and is willing to use it to deceive. Individuals have used Paul’s admonition of “slaves obey your masters” as justification for slavery, or “wives submit to your husbands” as reasoning that women are inferior to men. And an even more bizarre instance is when the Bible refers to the “four corners of the earth” and there is now a ridiculous resurfacing of flat-earthers. These are all dangerous or just ridiculous misinterpretations using scripture alone. 

Now that we’ve uncovered some concepts that are in Scripture, let’s address some that aren’t. For instance: Sola Scriptura. Nowhere in the Bible is it even hinted at that the Bible is the sole authority of God’s revelation. When Martin Luther invented the concept of Sola Scriptura, he was begging the question, where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible? It’s simply not. Know what else isn’t in the Bible? The Trinity. This is where Tradition holds irrefutable significance. Nowhere does the Bible refer to the Trinity, and in some places, it can be a bit confusing who’s who. Jesus says the Father is greater, but in other places, Jesus says He and the Father are one, and He has the authority of the Father. And where does that leave the Holy Spirit? Scripture doesn’t define any of this very well for us, but Sacred Tradition does. In fact, many heresies sprang up in the beginnings of the faith regarding who Jesus was in comparison to Father God. Was Jesus a man who became like God? Was Jesus God simply impersonating a man? Without Tradition, those heresies would not have been so effectively squashed, and our faith today could look very different. Not to mention that the councils that canonized the Bible did not feel the need to add any additional writings defining some of these concepts because they trusted that the Apostolic Tradition would take care of it. Protestants inadvertently adhere to many doctrinal beliefs that are specific ONLY to traditional teachings established by the Catholic Church. Other things missing from the written Word are any writings by Jesus, or any commands from Jesus that His disciples write anything down. 

So where does that leave the individual and God’s Word? It leaves us with freedom!  We do not have to constantly reinvent the wheel and try to discover for ourselves true doctrine, but rather through the lens of the doctrine handed down to us through the Spirit-guided succession of apostles, we are then free to apply God’s Word to our lives. There are still personal revelations to be had, the Holy Spirit still is at work between the individual and God’s Word, but we get a HUGE head start when we can build upon the broader teachings of the Church. It’s a massive gift! To have Tradition as another leg on our stool doesn’t detract from the importance of God’s Word as another leg, it only makes it stronger. It’s like starting French at level 4 instead of level 1. I don’t have to spend my personal devotional time trying to figure out the role of works versus faith, or God’s sovereignty versus free will, or whether evolution or young earth creationism is true. I can jump past all of that straight to “what does God want to say to me right now, in my life, to help me be more like Jesus in this very moment?” without any fear of slipping into my own personal heresy. It also leaves us a little more humble. Just as my ego was taken down a notch when Andrew exposed my arrogance in believing I was the one amongst our group that was right, and that I knew better than all my previous pastors, I was left with much more mercy toward my fellow Christians. I wasn’t the sole cavalryman bearing the standard of truth. I now had the firm foundation of the historical Christian doctrine, but all the humility of knowing I didn’t arrive there on my own.

In summary, Tradition came before Scripture, Jesus and the Apostles used Tradition and expected it to be passed down, Scripture itself grants authority to the Church as the pillar of truth, Tradition ensures proper interpretation and true doctrine, it secures unity in the Body of Christ, Tradition expounds upon and defines things that are not clearly addressed in Scripture, “Sola Scriptura” is not scriptural, and Tradition frees the individual from reinventing the wheel so that he or she may move forward with a firm foundation of truth into personal revelation of how to uniquely live one’s life for Christ.

And one final thought: one of the lovely ideas that comes to my mind is that Jesus is called the Word, but that word “Word” has a distinct meaning in its original language – it means “God’s Spoken Word”. God spoke, and the world was formed. Jesus spoke and demons fled. Peter spoke and thousands were converted in a single day. Paul spoke and miracles followed. The spoken word holds all the same power as the written word, and I find that astoundingly wonderful.