Newspaper Page Text
EIGHT
THE BULLETIN OF THE CATHOLIC LAYMEN S ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA
NOVEMBER 23.
NOVEMBER 23, 11117.
THE BULLETIN OF THE CATHOLIC LAY!
OHG1A
NINE
Archbishop's Reply To Reverend Hall f s Fourteen Questions
54, Parksidc,
London, 8. W , 19
15th August 1957
Reverend Dick Houston Hall, Jr.,
Pastor. 1st Baptist Church,
Decatur, Georgia, U. S. A.
Reverend and dear Sir:
Rather tardily I thank you /or
your two kind communications
of April 12th. Daily I hoped to
reply to them but. alas, I have
had to wait for the summer va
cation to give them the attention
they deserve. Now the handicap
is intense heat, almost as bad as
Georgia summer heat and you
and I know what this is. Life is
like that!
I am glad you name our chief
difference at the beginning of
your letter. Our chief difference
is the Church. Perhaps, therefore,
I shall best begin my reply with
an outline of the Church as we
see it. Other points you raise will.
I hope, come up for more positive
treatment as a development of
that outline. At the end of my
letter I hope to answer briefly
your 14 questions. The answers
will come better against a posi
tive background.
To begin at all we need some
common ground. You must have
noticed that words and phrases
appear in your letters and in
mine with rather different mean
ings. Were this a formal disputa
tion, I fear we should both have
to spend time defining our terms,
However, it is a friendly discus
sion and we may already have
enough common ground to pro
ceed. Indeed you supply a firm
piece of common ground in your
constant concern for the rights
of the individual soul. I notice
that is the subject of your last
question in the longer document
(Q. 14). But that is not the only
place it appears. I cannot do
less than salute warmly this
abiding preoccupation.
Believe me. we share it. Our
exact (and exacting!) theologian,
St. Thomas Aquinas, insists that
each of us must say with St. Paul
Christ “loved me and gave Him
self for me" (Gal. 2:20) in the
sense that Our Lord could not
have intended redemption more
personally had each one of us
been the only soul to be redeem
ed.
Each one of us therefore is of
incalculable value. Each one of
us is an end in himself and never
a mere means to an end. Our
Lord’s Grace cannot destroy or
diminish any man’s personal dig
nity. On the contrary!
You would regard with loath
ing any embodiment of Christ’s
redemptive work which violated
the rights of the individual soul.
So should I. We begin to differ,
alas, as soon as we turn to con
sider the kind of community in
which Our Lord intends the indi
vidual soul to receive the benefits
of redemption. You tell me you
hold that Christ founded One
Church. In some sense therefore
we agree that Our Lord intends
the individual soul to receive re
demption in a community.
Your position, as I see it( cen
ters around pages 3 and 4 of your
longer document. You write:
“Jesus insisted that religion is a
relationship between the individ
ual and his God. separated from
any kind of authoritative control
from outside.” (p. 3) A little fur
ther on: “The Holy Spirit, rather
than any Church or institution,
was the promised agent in bring
ing the world to Him (Cf. John
16: 7-15). The Spirit may and
does use redeemed people as
channels of His grace, working
individually or corporately, but
never to bring Christianity into
a set of rules or into the confines
of a single institution." (p. 4)
There, 1 take it, is your pivot
Other convictions you kindly ex
plain for me clearly turn upon
these Logically they bind you
to assert what you call "complete
soul liberty” and "soul compet
ency" They bring you to see any
authoritative Church as a menace
to the soul’s freedom. Any claim
to teach the Christian faith infal
libly must seem to you, on these
premises, pure fantasy; any ef
fort to safeguard the purity of the
Christian faith gratuitous and un
fair. Your logical ideal of the
community in which Our Lord
intends us to receive redemption
is at most a free association of
Christians on their own terms.
Any other would conflict with
the soul’s freedom and the action
of the Holy Ghost, as you see it.
Free association of that kind will
in the nature of things multiply
itself. You accept that as natural.
For you one single visible Church
with unity of faith, worship and
government is anathema.
There are limits to what we
can reasonably cover in this kind
of correspondence. I will not at
tempt any complete description of
Christ’s community as we see it.
Let us keep close to our common
ground, the freedom of the re
deemed soul. I will touch on one
or two of our principles that
must seem to you to challenge
that freedom. Need I say my
purpose is explanatory, not pole
mical? You began by asking for
explanation; I want to finish by
giving explanation. I shall have
to confront your view with a very
different one. The idea is not to
contest yours but to make mine
clear to you.
And let us by all means stick
to the Scriptures. You are stern
with Tradition; you maintain,
and perhaps logically on your
premises, that it is all man-made
and Pharisaical. I may say a
word about that later. For the
moment we can prescind from
Tradition.
OUTLINE OF THE CHURCH
(A) “The Truth shall make you
free (John 8: 32). “Sanctify them
through thy truth: thy word is
truth ’ (John 17: 17). (I have used
the Revised Version throughout.)
It is no wonder, therefore, that
the Apostle salutes the Church as
“the Pillar and Ground of truth"
(1 Tim. 3:15); no wonder that he
speaks of “bringing into captivity
every thought to the obedience of
Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5). Whatever
be the freedom of the individual
Christian, he is certainly bound
by a collective duty to complete
submission of mind to the truth
revealed by Christ. So far from
doing violence to his essential
freedom, this submission sets him
on the road to true freedom.
A community then which
makes a collective demand on its
members of utter submission to
Christ’s revelation is no challenge
to the soul’s liberty or the action
of the Holy Spirit of truth within
it. On the contrary, such a com
munity takes the first step to
safeguard and promote the true
freedom of the Christian soul.
(B) “All power is given unto
me in heaven and in earth. Go
ye. therefore, and teach all na
tions . . .” (Matthew 28: 18. 19).
The word of God is therefore to
come from Christ through teach
ers sent by Him. Without doubt,
they are to speak with His au
thority. “He that heareth you
hearcth me; and he that despis-
eth you despiseth me; and he
that despiseth me despiseth him
that sent me” (Luke 10: 10) (Cf.
Matthew 10 40). “As my father
has sent me, even so send 1 you"
(John 20: 21). At the outset of the
Christian community, therefore,
there are authoritative teachers.
Was the arrangement merely
temporary? No, it was perma
nent, by Christ’s own decision.
After giving the commission to
teach all nations, He goes on:
“And, lo, 1 am with you always,
even unto the end of the world"
(Matthew 28: 20). With them—
how? At least in their function
as teachers, the function He has
just entrusted to them. So the
teaching office is to endure and
have always the same authority
and the same guarantee.
There can, therefore, be no real
challenge to the soul’s Christian
liberty in a community which
teaches: in which the teachers
claim, as the successors of
Christ’s Apostles, to speak with
His authority. No other commun
ity would fulfill that description
of the Church as “the Pillar and
Ground of truth." A Church must
be the pillar and ground of truth
to be the custodian and promoter
of true Christian liberty.
(C) "... teaching them to ob
serve all things whatsoever I
have commanded you" (Matthew
28: 20).
“But the Comforter, which is
the Holy Ghost, whom the Father
will send in my name, he shall
teach you all things and bring
all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you"
(John 14: 26).
“I have yet many things to say
unto you, but ye cannot bear
them now. Howbeit when He. the
Spirit of Truth is come, he will
guide you unto all truth; . . .
(John 16: 12, 13).
The official teachers are there
fore to teach all Christ’s revela
tion in their authoritative capaci
ty. The consequences for their
disciples are immediate. The dis
ciple may not pick and choose; he
may not please himself what he
accepts. The whole revelation of
Jesus Christ rests on the same
authority: His word is propound
ed by those who He has commis
sioned to guard and interpret it.
To deny one part of their witness
is to call the whole principle of
their authority into question.
Therefore there can be no pre
judice to the liberty with which
Christ has made us free in a
community which imposes a uni
versal rule of faith in the name of
Christ. The rule must be univers
al in two ways: it must oblige
all members: it must oblige them
to all it contains.
In view of the enduring man
date and promise of Christ, one
must look, at any time in the
world s history, for a communi
ty which has an objective, uni
versal standard of faith binding
all members without exception.
(D) You rightly point out that
Our Lord gave the power of bind
ing and loosing to all the Apos
tles (Matthew 18: 18) as well as
to Peter (Matthew 16: 19). So
there is authority to rule in the
Christian community as well as
authority to teach: and Sacred
Scripture as explicitly associates
the Holy Ghost with the one as
with the other.
"Take heed therefore unto
yourselves, and to all the flock,
over which the Holy Ghost hath
made you overseers, to feed the
Church of God. which He hath
puhehased with His own blood."
(Acts 20: 28).
“Obey them that hath the rule
over you. and submit yourselves,
for they watch for your souls, as
though they must give account. .”
(Hebrews 13: 17).
“Where the Spirit of the Lord
is, there is liberty” (2 Cor. 3: 17)-
true Christian liberty. A com
munity then in which the in
dividual soul must obey lawful
pastors is no cleg on true liberty
The individual soul which sub
mits to their authority, whatever
personal intuitions or illumina
tions might suggest to the con
trary, has not but gained. Such a
soul has remained truly under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit:
that is the way of freedom.
As we see it, therefore, the
Church of Christ is one which
requires of its members complete
submission to the whole revealed
truth; one in which pastors by
virtue of Christ’s enduring com
mission and promise inherit from
the Aposteles authority to teach
in His name all that Christ com
manded. The soul which enters
this community and comes under
the authority of the Aposteles,
believes and obeys Christ when
it submits to the teaching and
ruling of the legitimate pastors.
To believe and obey Christ is not
to destroy or diminish liberty but
to find it: to serve Him is to reign.
So far I have sought to establish
two principles from the Sacred
Text: 1) that external authority
to teach and rule is compatible
with true Christian liberty; 2) so
far from obstructing the work of
the Holy Ghost in the individual
soul it is the vehicle of His in
fluence.
These are general principles.
How do they work out in practice?
What are people like who live in a
community which holds this kind
of theory,? The Catholic Church
holds it and among her members
it is fair to study those who have
most thoroughly submitted to it.
They are the saints—men and
women who have lived lives of
heroic virtue in utter submission
to teaching and ruling authority
of those whom they acknowledge
as the successors of the Apostles.
It is precisely the saints who at
the same time are remarkable for
their spirit of liberty and splend
id initiative. Think of St. Francis
of Assisi, St. Francis Xavier, or
the Theresas of Avila and Li-
sieux. Men without any axe to
grind recognize these people as
dynamic personalities of their
time, even of an time. Yet they,
even more carefully than the
rest of us, listened to the voice
of the Church. If an angel from
heaven had spoken differently,
the angel, not the Church, would
have been anathema. They were
so imbued with the scriptural
doctrine that the Holy Spirit,
Christ’s Spirit of Truth, is the
soul of the Church which is
Christ’s Body.
Perhaps you may have a natu
ral distaste for canonized saints;
let us therefore place the canon
ized saints to one side for the
moment. I invite you to consider
the case of a layman of our time
Group Captain Leonard Che
shire, V. C., the British air-ace
of the last war. His friends told
him he would cramp his mind
for good if he became a Catholic.
He reasoned that, when he want
ed to gain the freedom of the
skies as an airman, he had to go
to authoritative teachers and sub
mit to the principles of aerody
namics. Could it not be the same
with Christianity and gaining the
freedom of the Sons of God? He
became convinced it was the
same and submitted to the au
thoritative Catholic Church. I
know him but you might regard
my story as prejudiced. It was
3.
THE FOURTEEN QUESTIONS
1. In th* light ol the freedom lor *11 which Chrui desired when He end. "II the Son there
fore shell make you free, y* ihlll be free indeed" (John 8:3*1. is it possible lo justify the
refusal of freedom to worship and to preach their beliefs to minority groups in countries
where the Roman Catholic Church has political power?
2. In tho light of history, can Roman Catholics claim lo be solely responsible for the New
Testament Scriptures?
It your answer is affirmative, does it tollow that all of those who use the New Testament
are obligated to become members of the Roman Catholic Church—especially when these
Scriptures have not always been urged upon the laity by the Roman Catholic Church?
4. DO you believe that those of us who have studied the doctrines of the Roman Catholic
Church and who consciously and conscientiously cannot identify ourselves with the Roman
Catholic Church, are going to hell?
5. If baptism were necessary to salvation, would not the writers of the letters which now
compose the New Testament canon have been careful to have included this stipulation
each time they mentioned the way to be saved, since these letters went out as individual
documents?
6. In the light of the ex pres* d teachings of Srripture that both the Holy Spirit and Jesus
Christ now make intercession for us (Romans 8:26. 27; Romans 7:25, 8:34). how can Mary's
intercession be necessary or more effective than Theirs?
7. WHY should it be necessary for us lo suffer in "Purgatory" for part of our sins when we
are told that "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin" (I John 1:7)?
8. Why should Roman Catholic priests require a fee for their prayers for the dead if the
Roman Catholic Church is "The body of C.irist" who was all compassion?
9. If Mary had been sinless, why should she have suffered death, which is sin's penalty?
10. If fhe church and certain Popes have erred in the sale of indulgences, how can the claim
of infallibility even for the office of Pop? be sustained?
11. SINCE, as you say. "it is the law of the Catholic Church that no one may be coerced into
accepting the Catholic Faith.” is it possible to justify persecution and restriction in Roman
Caiholio-dominated countries for those who have once been members of fhe Roman Cath
olic Church and have changed their religious views?
12. In view of your statement. "It is no part of the law of the Church that anyone should be
taxed to support a religion m which he do* not believe." can any Church justify the ac
ceptance of tax mcney fW the propagation of its faith?
13. We will also be grateful if you will discus; just how far the Roman Catholics of America
would like lo go in breaking down our wall of separation between church and state.
Should the Roman Catholic Church become predominate in America, would it be willing
to grant the freedom of religion which we nsw enjoy under our Constitution, or would fhe
Roman Catholic hierarchy impose the same limitations here that it does in countries where
it dominates?
b®H®ve that the Church of Jesus Christ should be person-centered: that each individual
is infinitely precious lo God and claims th? utmost regard, love, and effort of all Chris
tiana in seeking his salvation. Where does the Roman Catholic position place the indi
vidual?
his own father, not a Catholic,
who assured me of the tremen
dous change in his son. The old
courage and initiative had gain
ed new depth and purpose. He
has tackled very difficult social
problems, in two continents. A
stunted personality? The best
judges have agreed to honor him
for precisely the opposite.
Cardinal Newman, a convert to
the Catholic Church, as you
know, said: “you cannot read
history and remain outside the
Church.” Of course one has to
read history with an open mind
and real history that is factual
and unbiased. Here in England
there died a few hours ago a
great Catholic scholar — The
Right Reverend Ronald ^nox,
whose opus magnum was his
single-handed translation into the
English of our time of the entire
Bible. Monsignor Knox was for
years a member of the Anglican
Church. I mention him in con
nection with history. Apart from
the grace of God it was the read
ing of history that finally per
suaded him that there was only
one true Church, the Roman
Catholic Church. Monsignor
Knox became a Catholic in 1917.
In his autobiography called “A
Spiritual Aeneid” he tells us of
the torments of his mind when
he was faced with arguments that
to him seemed valid for remain
ing outside the Catholic Clffiirch
and on the other hand with argu
ments that seemed to point to
the Roman Catholic Church as
the Church that he should join.
I trust that I am not giving undue
length to this letter by quoting a
part of Monsignor Knox’s auto
biography covering the period of
his intellectual tension prior to
becoming a Catholic. He is refer
ring to his reading of history:
“From all this reading I deriv
ed a wealth of impressions but I
think the only sudden access of
illumination I got was from a
phrase in Milman’s (soundly
Protestant) "History of Latin
Christianity.” I cannot remember
it well enough to quote it, but
the gist of it is this: he com
ments upon the extraordinary
precision with which, time after
time, the Bishops of Rome man
aged to foresee which side the
Church would eventually take in
a controversy, and "plumped"
for it beforehand. The Church
fixes the date of Easter, the
Church decides that heritics need
not be rebaptized, the Church de
cides that the Incarnate combined
two Natures in one Person; but
each time Rome (like Lancashire)
thinks today what the world will
think tomorrow. This uncanny
capacity for taking the pulse of
the Church is ascribed by Mil-
man partly to the extreme cun
ning of the early Pontiffs, partly
to their geographical central po
sition, and so on. And then it
occurred to me that there was
another explanation. I could have
laughed aloud."
“Strange as it may seem, I had
always assumed at the back of
my mind that when my hand
books talked about “Arian” and
“Catholic" bishops they knew
what they were talking about; it
never occurred to me that the
Arians also regarded themselves
as Catholics and wanted to know
why they should be thought oth
erwise. “Ah! but,” says the
Church historian, “the Church
came to think otherwise, and
thus they found themselves de-
Catholicized in the long run.”
But what Church? Why did those
who anathematized Nestorius
come to be regarded as “Catho
lics" rather than those who still
accept his doctrines? I had used
this argument against the attitude
of the Greek Orthodox Church
when it broke away from unity,
but it had never occurred to me
before that what we mean when
we talk of the Catholic party is
the party in which the Bishop of
Rome was, and nothing else: that
the handbooks had simply taken
over the word without thinking
or arguing about it, as if it ex
plained itself; but it didn’t.”
"I am desperately afraid here,
continues Monsignor Knox, “of
not stating my meaning clearly;
what it comes to is this. I had
been in the habit of supposing
that the Nestorians were wrong
because East and West agreed
that they were wrong: I now felt
that “the East" had no right to
condemn the Nestorians, it was
merely a matter of • haul swear
mg" except in so far as the
Easterns, when they did so had
the Pope in their own boat. If
you ask. Who are the Ortho
dox?" you will be- told “The poo-
Pie who hold the Orthodox
Faith.” If you ask them how they
know it is tin- Orthodox Faith
they say. “Because it i held by
the Orthodox Church." And the
Nestorians will say exactly the
same ol themselves and who is
to choose between them 0 Each
say that they have.* the* consensus
fidelium behind them and if you
ask who the 1 fideles were you arc
referred back to the very formula
which the consensus fidelium was
to prove. But if you ask a Catho
lic- “What is the* Catholic Faith?”
and arc* told it is that held by the*
Catholic Church; if you perse
vere. and ask what is the Catholic
Church, you are no longer met
with the irritatingly circular def
inition “tin* Church which holds
the Catholic Faith"; you are told
it is the Church which is in com
munion with the Bishop of
Rome."
YOUR DIFFICULTIES
(1) The One Single Institution:
The community of Christ as it
appears in the large outline above
is one in itself and unique in the
world. Christ’s commission to His
Apostles was universal: they were
to teach all His revelation to all
nations. They were one single
body. The night before He suf
fered, Christ prayed for them
and “. . . for them also which
shall believe on me through their
word; That they all may be one,
as thou. Father, art in me. and I
in thee, that they also may be one
in us: that the world may believe
that thou hast sent me" (John 17:
20-21).
Christ’s prayer is all powerful.
So the unity of Pastors and faith
ful is guaranteed. It is a visible
unity: it has to convince the
world of a divine fact. It is close;
it is patterned on the ineffable
unity of the Most Holy Trinity.
There can be no second inde
pendent community distinct from
this. In what would the dif
ference lie? Not in doctrine, legit
imately. for Our Lord has already
entrusted to this community the
right and duty to teach all things
whatsoever He has commanded.
If a new community were to arise
teaching part of Christ’s revela
tion which the other had omitted,
then Our Lord’s promise of the
Holy Spirit "to guide you unto all
truth” would have failed.
Holy .Scripture leaves no room
for independent bodies of Christ
ians teaching different things.
In both your documents you
demur at this. The shorter one
offers two reasons for your hesi
tation. First you tell me that Sac
red Scripture uses the word
"Church" in the plural. I remind
ed you that Our Lord nowhere
speaks of "My Churches." You
quote me other New Testament
passages where the word does
appear in the plural. They only
serve to strengthen my point.
Here as elsewhere, the sense in
which Scripture speaks o f
"Churches" is not your meaning
at all. The New Testament
“Churches" are not autonomous.
They are local communities with
in the One Church, united by one
faith, worship and government.
"Churches" in your sense ap
pear neither in Our Lord’s words
nor elsewhere in the New Testa
ment. The sense in which Scrip
ture uses the plural has always
been current in the Catholic
Church from St. Paul’s "care of
all the Churches" (2 Cor. 11:28)
to tin pu-M iii day Code of Canon
Law (e. g C. 32!) S 1) “Bishops
an- the successor* of the Apostles
who by divine institution have
authority ovei particular Chut eh
Your account of the Apostolic
j Council at Jerusalem (Document
P 3) suffers gravely from the
meaning you have read into tin*
New Testament plural of Church
cs It was not only "courtesy"
that prompted the consultation
from Antioch but submission to
recognized authority. Nor was it
“equal Christian grace” w h i c h
prompted the answer. The Apos
ties are explicitly conscious of
their power to bind and loose
with the authority of tin* Holy
Ghost. As non-Catholic scholars
have freely admitted, tin- decisive
intervention was Peter’s.
In the second place, at some
length, you ask me to consider
worthy Christian men who do
not belong to the same Church. I
had the honor in my last letter
to speak briefly of the true rela
tion which binds a sincere Christ
ian. ready to do all that Christ
requires of him, with the One
Church, even though he be- in
visible separation from it. You
sharpen your hesitation in your
longer document by pointing
candidly to your own case — the:
case of men who have sincerely
studied the claims and history of
the Catholic Church and have no
desire to be members of it. The
answer is still the same: a genu
ine bond of union with the One
True Church can and does sub
sist where men are invincibly ig
norant of it, so long as they are
prepared to do all that Christ re
quires for their salvation. I do
not question the sincerity of your
study. I must doubt its adequacy.
How otherwise explain in a docu
ment which you tell me has been
released for immediate publica
tion inaccurate views of Catholic
teaching and practice? I may
have occasion to refer to this
later.
We do not doubt for a moment
there are many non-Catholic
Christians and indeed there are
Pagans, whose lives put us of the
“household of the faith” to
shame. We do not pretend to
understand the mystery of
grace. The Church readily recog
nizes that grace reaches far be
yond the visible membership of
Christ’s Church. But the real
goodness of Christians and Pa
gans outside the Catholic Church,
for which all must thank God.
must not be allowed to disturb
the real landmarks God Himself
has placed.
I passed from general princi
pals to the test of history in the
outline of the Church as we see
it. Here again it is fair to remark
on the phenomenal unity of the
Catholic Church in history. It has
been constantly tested by opposi
tion without and even more se
verely by infidelity within. Yet
it has never broken, and when
its critics have been most inclined
to prophesy its failure, then has
been the moment of its renewed
increase and vigor. Purely as a
historical phenomenon, impartial
historians have recognized it as
unique.
(2) The Divine Tradition of
the Church:
Our Lord enjoined on His
Apostles the duty of teaching ;
“all things whatsoever I have 1
commanded you." Even at the
Last Supper, near the end of the j
Gospel narrative. He says: “I
have yet many things to say unto ;
you. but ye cannot bear them i
now" (John 16: 12). After His
| glorious Resurrection lie was
! being seen of them forty days.
I and speaking of the thing- pei
laming to the Kingdom of God"
: (Arts I 3» The Scriptures c\
plicitly deny that they record the
j whole of His life and teaching
I I hey can be read hi a lew hours
| Even it His public ministry lusted
I but one year, as sonic claim. II.
•‘Poke with tile people and. apart
from the people with His dis
ciples. for .i considerable space
ol each day. But most important
of all. as I pointed out in my
last letter, Our Lord nowhen
limited the* medium in which I I s
Apostles were* to teach: He* no
where promised the* Holy Ghost
to His Apostles simply as write i ;
He* nowhere said His Apostles
were* to write at all.
There* are* tlie*n truths revealed
by Christ which the* Apostles
must pass on under command
from Christ, which arc not necc--
sarily contained in the Sacred
Scriptures. Those truths are* what
a Catholic means by the word
“Tradition." “Divine Tradition"
It is “Divine" because the truths
arc part of the revelation given
by God the* Son. They are*
vinc also in that the*v come* un
der the Divine Command and
the Divine* Guarantee. God com-
manded the Apostles to teach
them and God gave the authority
and the protection which make
the Apostles and their successors
sacred custodians and faithful in
terpreters of these divine truths.
The Church insists that such
truths have the same honor as
those written down in Sacred
Scripture.
I have no desire to score mere
debating points. The chance to
throw light on the function «>f
Catholic Tradition alone decides
me to write the following para
graphs which come closer to
grips with your argument.
You take me severely to ta.sk
about traditions and their men-
aee to the “simplicity of tl.r
Scriptures” (Document p. 3). You
do not hesitate to point out
where “the traditions of the Ro-
man Church need to be adjusted
to the simple teachings of the
Holy Scriptures” (Document p
15).
You and I have diametrically
opposite views about the Church
as you have seen. Presumably
your basis is the Scriptures: you
reject any other. I have delibt
rately shaped the outline of mine
from the same source. What do
two sincere men do in a situation
like that? Laugh or cry? One
thing they must clearly do is con
fess the Scriptures are not sim
ple. Scripture itself has forestall
ed them in this as I indicated in
my last letter (2 Peter 3: 16).
Nothing is easier than to set
Scripture against Scripture: to
press one text so hard that it
makes nonsense of others. You
assure me at one point that “the
overwhelming evidence of the
Scriptures is that when one has
exercised faith in Christ, it is
Christ who keeps that one saved
eternally” (Document p. 11). J
have no difficulty in producing
passages to contradict that: even
Paul feared, after preaching to
others, he might become a cast
away (1 Cor. 9: 27); we are ex
plicitly told of men who made
shipwreck of the faith (1 Tim. 1:
19); we are told to work out our
salvation "with fear and tremb
ling" (Phil. 2: 12).
Whatever the complexities,
there can be no real contradic
tions in Holy Scripture. Truth
does not contradict itself. I am
(Continued on Page 10)