These days, my life on the Internet mostly consists of the following: reading a mind-numbing number of books, articles, and scholarly papers on Christian theology; finding resourceful videos about Christian theology, participating in social media group debates about Christian theology, seeking out fellow theologians to talk about, well, Christian theology; and now answering questions via my channel, The Reconverted Catholic about, you guessed it, Christian theology.
Through this, I’ve realized I am fast turning into my Old Testament professor this semester in school, as I embark on a degree in Theology: When he introduced himself on the first day of class, he boldly stated he has no other hobbies or interests outside of theology. As he puts it, theology is his *life*.
With each course I take in the theology program, I increasingly understand why my professor is so in-love with theology. Think about all the fascinating documentaries out there about ancient civilizations – their history, anthropology, sociology – all the “ologies” (so to speak). Now, imagine a deep dive into ancient history, all while studying linguistic, source, form, and textual challenges — and dealing with thousands of compiled manuscripts into the most influential literary work in all of history: The Bible. Yes, not a bad way to spend your days!
Yet that also means a whole lot of studying, a whole lot of learning, and a whole lot of opportunity to incorporate what I learn during conversations with skeptics of Catholic Christian theology.
Case in point: Last week, I received a message from a Latter-Day Saints missionary who wished to show me a different perspective on, you know it, Christian theology. This message exchanged ended with sort of a cliffhanger – that is, I am still waiting on the reply – but I am posting this exchange for a couple of reasons: 1. ) to show how I go about discussions regarding Catholic Christian belief; and 2.) to pose the question to all non-Catholic Christian believers who may be subscribed, or may stumble across, this channel.
That said, here is the dialogue:
LDS missionary: “Would it be alright if I shared a 3 minute video from who I believe to be an apostle on the earth today?”
ME: Well, although I am generally open to other perspectives, what you are suggesting is completely contrary to Scripture, to God’s covenants with humanity, and to 2000 years of consistent theology, starting with Christ, and then consistently upheld by the Church until today. Have you thoroughly studied covenant theology, the early Church Father’s, and how core, Catholic Christian theology and Tradition has remained the same since the time of Christ?
LDS missionary: “Yeah I’ve studied it a little bit. I want to make sure the spirit here so I’m not sure we want to get too much into it because I’d disagree with some of the consistency part. I really do believe God has authority on the earth today and it comes through someone who was called by Him to have that. I hope that doesn’t sound too pushy or anything. I just want to share that message with anyone who’d like to hear it!”
ME: It doesn’t sound pushy at all — but then that leads to the following questions:
- Why do you disagree with the consistency part? In which ways is it not consistent?
- If you believe that God has authority on Earth here, then how does that contradict the deposit of faith — Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition — established at the time of Christ?
- Because Scripture is clear that there will be no new revelation after Christ, how do you reconcile that with what you are proposing?
LDS missionary: Those are some good questions. There’s more depth we can go into all of those but I’ll briefly answer them!
We know God isn’t a God of confusion, as in He won’t lead us astray. However, there’s so many different churches and doctrine that is argued/debated among churches. The gaps between Christian churches if you will.
The cool thing about God having authority on earth today is that it helps us understand things that may be confusing in the scriptures. It also allows us to receive additional guidance/counsel in a time that is so different than the time of Christ. Obviously this guidance would still align with and not replace His gospel.
I’m not sure if you’re familiar with the church I’m a part of. Simply put, we believe the gospel and new testament church Christ established was restored. How we support that claim/belief is another story haha
ME: I wholeheartedly agree that God is not a God of confusion. That’s why, in Matthew 16:18, Christ guarantees the Church will not be overcome by corruption and confusion: “And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”
But then why are there now so many Christian denominations throughout the world, right?
The primary reason goes mostly back to the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther, who was a Catholic priest and an interesting scholar overall, essentially decided that 1500 years of consistent, Christian theology was wrong the entire time. From that, and along with his criticisms about Church authority, he created two flagship doctrines:
1.) Sola Fide (faith only) — which claims that accepting Christ as Savior is the only requirement to gain salvation. This, then, launched the big debate of “faith versus works” to gain salvation.
2.) Sola Scriptura (scripture only) — the idea that the Bible is the ultimate authority in all matters of Christian belief.
Except that neither of these doctrines is entirely Biblical. Scores of Protestants have pushed these teachings for the past 500 years now — which has ironically caused one division after the next. That’s because the only authority Protestants think they have is the Bible. Therefore, if two Protestants disagree on how to interpret Scripture — largely because they have no consistent authority to guide them — they often just split and then start new churches.
The bottom line is the Catholic Church has not changed its theology — which, again, was established by Christ — though many people and movements over time have chosen to do what they think would work best for them, rather than follow the truth that has already been well-established for 2000 years.
That’s not meant to throw Protestants, or other related denominations, under the bus. However, the Reformation is simply a fact of history, and we are still dealing with the effects of that to this day. (See my dialogue with Suan Sonna to learn more about these effects).
However, that doesn’t mean the truth hasn’t existed all along. If you thoroughly study Scripture, and thoroughly study all of the Church Fathers as well, the evidence is abundantly clear that the Church is to establish and uphold Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition — which includes Mass/the Liturgy, partaking in the Sacraments given to us, and that we are to be one body of believers in Christ.
As for the Gospel and Church being restored, they were never corrupted in the first place. Again, just because some people, over the centuries, decided on another path or to create a new Church or belief, doesn’t mean the Church was corrupted. It just means the people who left changed their worldview, and which could have been just as corrupted.
For example, if somebody decided to steal my identity, make a few changes to it, and then promote it as his/her own identity, it doesn’t mean I am now corrupted. It just means that person is now claiming a truth, when it in fact it is not the truth.
Now, a question for you: if God is not a God of confusion, and Scripture is quite clear that nothing can be added to His revelation, and that Christ guaranteed that nothing would cause His Church — the Catholic Church – to collapse into ruin, do I believe Christ’s words, or do I fast-forward 1800 years –or really any time after the Church Fathers — to believe in someone who superseded Christ’s guarantee? In other words, did Jesus lie?