The Doctrinal Chaos Argument

“Such is the unity which the Romish Church so often and so tauntingly contrasts with what she is pleased to term “Protestant disunion.” As a corporation, having its head at Rome, and stretching its limbs to the extremities of the earth, she is of gigantic bulk and imposing appearance; but, closely examined, she is seen to be an assemblage of heterogeneous materials, held together simply by the compression of force. It is a coercive power from without, not an attractive influence from within, that gives her being and form…It is combination, not incorporation; union, not unity, that characterizes the Church of Rome. It is the unity of dead matter, not the unity of a living body, whose several members, though performing various functions, obeys one will and form one whole. It is not the spiritual and living unity promised to the Church of God, which preserves the liberty of all, at the same time that it makes all ONE: it is a unity that degrades the understanding, supersedes rational inquiry, and annihilates private judgment. It leaves no room for conviction, and therefore no room for faith. It is a unity that extorts from all submission to one infallible head, that compels all to a participation in one monstrous and idolatrous rite, and that enchains the intellect of all to a farrago of contradictory, absurd, and blasphemous opinions. This is the unity of Rome.”

-J.A. Wylie, The Papacy, Book 2 ch.2

An argument that is usually made by Roman Catholics in dialogues with Evangelicals is the “Doctrinal Chaos” argument. It goes a little something like this:

Just look what happens when people believe that only the Bible is to be followed (i.e. sola scriptura). There are just so many Protestant denominations, and yet, they all follow the same Bible. I heard there were as many as 30,000! Obviously, the belief that the Bible is the only rule of faith doesn’t work. Christ promised us unity (John 17:31), not a great splintering of denominations. This clearly shows the necessity for the Church to bring unity and clarify what the Bible says.

The argument sounds quite compelling at first, and no doubt, it has caused a few Evangelicals to convert to Rome. However, the argument over simplifies the situation:

1. First, the number of 30,000 is completely untrue. According to the book that this number was taken from, there are 223 different Roman Catholic ‘denominations’ by one counting and 2,942 by another counting. Documentation of this is found here:

http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm

2. Second, division within Protestantism is not due to sola Scriptura. Rather, it is due to a lack of adherence to it. For example, when confronted with the true Biblical teaching on predestination, many Evangelicals react emotionally and refuse to accept it. Instead, they will choose to follow an emotionally or philosophically based view of predestination that is totally devoid of any Biblical support. This is what happened during the ‘Remonstrance’ in the 17^th century which split the Arminians from the Reformed. Sometimes, a division will be caused because some refuse to believe true Biblical teaching over their institutionalized traditions which they have been taught since childhood. This was what caused the first division within Protestantism, between the Lutherans and the Reformed.

3. All conservative Christian denominations that consider each other within the ‘pale of orthodoxy’ agree at the most basic points (i.e. sola fide, the Deity of Christ, inerrancy of Scripture, the Trinity, morals, etc.), and none of these groups would ever consider each other non-Christians. Those things that divide these particular conservative Christian groups are non-essentials to salvation (even if they are of relatively great importance). This is true spiritual unity. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church has within its fold traditionalists, conservatives, moderates, and liberals. Some of these liberals are at the very height of power (i.e. Cardinals, Papal Biblical Commissions, etc.), and the traditionalists and conservatives are forced to accept these men and their authority because the R.C.C. not only refuses to excommunicate these men but promotes them to higher power. This is a forced outward unity with no true spiritual union. This is the unity of the Roman Church.

4. The Roman Catholic apologist usually says that because he has an infallible authority, he can have clarity on doctrinal issues. However, when examined, the R.C.C. has not clarified many issues but only made them more obscure:

a.) In the past, the R.C.C. has officially stated that the Scriptures are fully inerrant. However, a more recent dogmatic statement released by the R.C.C., Dei Verbum, has stated that the Scriptures are inerrant concerning that which is “for the sake of our salvation” (Part 11). Many Roman Catholic scholars would say that this means that the Scriptures are only inerrant on statements concerning salvation (i.e. how to be saved, etc.), but most R.C. apologists would disagree and take the more historic stance of verbal, plenary inspiration. Even if the conservatives (represented by the apologists) have the weight of evidence on their side, the R.C.C. refuses to clarify the issue in order to please both sides.

b.) Next, there is the issue of the nature of tradition. There are those who believe that Divine Revelation is contained partly in Scripture and partly in ‘Sacred Tradition’. This view is commonly called ‘partim/partim’. On the other side is the view that all Divine Revelation is contained in Scripture and that ‘Sacred Tradition’ is an interpreter of Scripture. This view is called “material sufficiency”. During the Counter-Reformation Council of Trent, the majority held to the ‘partim/partim’ view, and the minority held to the material sufficiency view. The wording of the council was specifically made obscure so that it would please both sides. For many centuries afterward, most Roman Catholics interpreted the wording of the council to mean the ‘partim/partim’ view, but now, most Roman Catholics interpret it to mean material sufficiency. To this day, there has never been any clarification on an issue as important as the nature of the rule of faith.

c.) Historically, the R.C.C. has said that there is no salvation outside of official membership in the R.C.C. (“extra ecclesiam nulla sallus”). This statement was very clear and had the context that “every human creature” must “be subject to the Roman pontiff” (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctum, circa 1302). However, as of Vatican II, the R.C.C. has made statements that state that not only can Protestants be saved but also Jews and Muslims (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 819, 838, 840, and 841). Liberals and moderates will say the R.C.C. teaches that Judaism and Islam are different paths to God and Heaven. Conservatives say that these passages teach that only those who are ignorant of the details of the Gospel in those religions can be saved and that Protestants and Eastern Orthodox are true Christians. Traditionalists continue to hold to ‘extra ecclesiam nulla sallus’ except for the case of extreme ignorance. Statements and actions by John Paul II lend support to the liberal or moderate view. However, church leaders in Central and South America have given support to the conservative and some to the traditionalist. The R.C.C. refuses to clarify the issue because it wants to please all sides.

d.) What is the official belief of the Roman Catholic Church on the issue of predestination (Augustinianism, Molinism, etc.)? No one knows. Go here to see the many views: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

e.) There are several competing views about the ‘New Order of the Mass’ as prescribed in Vatican II. Even according to R.C. organizations, the wording is vague and used by all groups to promote their own doctrine. There are even some traditionalists who insist that the Mass can and should only be said in Latin.

f.) There is no unanimity on which official statements by the R.C.C., such as Papal Bulls, are infallible. J.A. Wylie explains:

“On nothing is it more difficult to obtain certain information, for on nothing are the bishops of the Roman Church so divided, as on the infallibility of particular bulls. It is a fortunate decision indeed which carries along with it the unanimous assent of the Romish clergy. A bull may be held to be orthodox in Britain, but accounted heretical in France; or it may be accepted as most infallible in France, but repudiated in Spain; or it may be revered as the dictate of inspiration by the Spanish bishops, but held as counterfeit by those of Italy. Not a few bulls are in this predicament. Thus the person finds that this infallibility, instead of being a Catholic, is a very provincial affair; that by crossing a particular arm of the sea, or traversing a certain chain of mountains, he leaves the sphere of the infallible, and enters into that of the fallible; that as he changes his place on the earth's surface, so does the pontifical decree change its character; and that what is binding upon him as the dictate of inspiration on the south of the Alps, he is at liberty to disregard as the effusion of folly, of ignorance, or of heresy, on the north of these mountains. What is the man to do in such a case? If he sides with the French bishops, he finds that the Italians are against him; and if he takes part with the Italians, he finds that he has arrayed himself against the Iberian and Gallican clergy. Truly it may be said, on the subject of the infallibility, that “he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.”” -J.A. Wylie, The Papacy, Book 2 ch.7

5. Which ‘Church’ should we follow to find this infallible authority? There are numerous “churches” that claim infallible authority and Rome is just one of them. The Eastern Orthodox, the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and every cult on the planet also claim infallibility. All of these groups are willing to bring about unity through their respective ‘infallible’ authorities.

6. Just because it may be desirous to have an infallible authority does not necessitate the existence of one. For instance, it would be desirous that money would grow on trees, but the fact is that it doesn’t.

Quotes from The Papacy by J.A. Wylie can be found at:

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/wylie/papacy.htm

Read these articles:

http://www.ntrmin.org/open_letter_to_rc_apologists.htm

http://www.ntrmin.org/RCDivisions.htm

http://aomin.org/YouTell.html

http://aomin.org/credenda.html

Also, some helpful audio on this topic can be found at:

http://www.straitgate.com/aom/dl/98.htm