A Conversation with Catholic Apologist Trent Horn (Part 2): Is There One True Church?

This is part 2 of my conversation with Catholic apologist Trent Horn. You can read part 1 here.

RR: Let’s switch gears, Trent. Personally, I don’t believe that God calls everyone to be part of one church. I believe, instead, that he calls some people to be Coptic and others to be Congregational. He calls some to be Presbyterian and others to be Pentecostal. And he calls some to be Catholic and others to be Baptist. (I devote a chapter to my own calling as a Baptist in What’s So Confusing About Grace?)

I can put my thesis of ecclesiological pluralism modestly as follows:

At least one person (e.g. Billy Graham) faithfully fulfilled his calling to follow Christ apart from becoming a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

Would you agree with that?

TH: Before I answer the question it may be fruitful if you contrast your ecclesiological pluralism with general religious pluralism. Some have argued, “I don’t believe that God calls everyone to be part of one religion, He calls some people to be Trinitarian Christians, others unitarian Christians, Jews, Muslims, and even atheists in some cases. Do you think at least one person has followed Christ’s will even though he or she never became a Christian (e.g. Gandhi, Aung San Suu Kyi, etc.)? I ask the question because it may provide insight into my explanation for why I am not an ecclesiological pluralist (which I promise to answer shortly) and perhaps find some common ground between us.

RR: Since Vatican II the Catholic Church has embraced Karl Rahner’s concept of anonymous Christians according to which it is possible that (for example) a sixteenth-century Buddhist monk who never hears of Christ may nonetheless be saved by Christ, all while participating in his Buddhist community. Are you denying that this sixteenth-century Buddhist monk could have been called to salvation in Christ by participation in that Buddhist religious community?

TH: It may be helpful for us to distinguish inclusivism from indifferentism. Indifferentists would claim that salvation is probable, or even definite, for non-Christians because there is no ideal faith for them to embrace and so it doesn’t matter what they believe. Inclusivists, on the other hand, claim it’s possible for someone to be saved even if he never manifests Christian faith (something Catholicism affirms) but that it is still ideal if this person were to become a Christian. However, even if they don’t accept the Christian faith God can still act through this non-Christian’s life in order to accomplish certain goods.

From the Catholic perspective, “many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 819). But, it is still ideal for non-Catholic Christians to belong in full communion with the universal or “catholic” Church that Jesus Christ established (in paragraph 838 in the Catechism says non-Catholic Christians have a certain yet imperfect communion with the Catholic Church).

If attending a church were just a matter of finding a nice building in which one praises God and has fellowship with like-minded people, then indifferentism would seem to follow. But belonging to a church also entails accepting its theology, which leads me to ask, “Does our call to ‘follow Christ’ include believing a particular, ideal theology that has positions on issues like predestination, sacraments, Church authority, eschatology, and serious moral issues?”

Remember, one could accept the ideal exists but acknowledge that genuine, saved Christians who do a tremendous amount of good in the world may not achieve it (inclusivism) or one could say there is no such ideal theology and that as long as one “follows Christ” that’s all that matters (indifferentism). And of course there’s a spectrum between these positions but your answer will help me better address your thesis in my next reply.

RR: There’s no question that a Christian ought to prefer a Buddhist become a Christian so the position you refer to as indifferentism is off the table. But the scenario I proposed is one in which a Buddhist has no access to Christianity. In that case, it would appear on an inclusivist theology that God calls the Buddhist to Godself within the context of Buddhism. And that’s consistent with saying that counterfactually had it been possible in that circumstance for that Buddhist instead to be called to Christianity, then that would have been preferable. But that’s not the situation in which that individual finds himself.

If you’ll grant that much, then you should also grant that if a Baptist missionary is the first Christian to visit that Buddhist’s village, then it is preferable for that Buddhist to convert to Baptistic Christianity over remaining a Buddhist.

Finally, let’s fast-forward twenty years. That formerly-Buddhist village has now converted to Christianity en masse and there are two churches. The first church is run by indigenous Baptist natives who speak the language and know the culture intimately. They exude the love of Jesus as they help the poor and feed orphans and widows. The second is run by a corrupt Catholic priest from Spain who does not speak the language and who is known to have beaten many of the children.

Now I’m not suggesting for a moment that Baptists are better than Catholics: far from it. I’m only asking this: is it not reasonable to believe that in this third case God may be calling at least some of those villagers to the Baptist church rather than the Catholic one? And if that is plausible, then how do you know the same reality doesn’t obtain in various other places worldwide?

TH: It depends on what you mean by “calling.”

If you mean God will accommodate those who did not receive the fullness of his revelation because there was an obstacle in their path (like a gravely sinful priest), then I agree God may choose to reveal himself to that person through other means (like a non-Catholic Christian pastor). He would then judge that person according to the revelation he or she received. Paragraph 2125 of the Catechism even says the moral culpability for disbelief is lessened by Christians who are, “said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion.”

However, if you mean God positively wills these people away from the fullness of divine revelation, which includes his presence in sacraments like the Eucharist or Reconciliation, just because he wants to spare these indigenous people of suffering then I must disagree. We are not in a good position to know how God can use suffering to facilitate a person’s ultimate good, which is eternal life with him. St. Martin de Porres was a wonderful example of a saint who courageously faced racist Catholics and, instead of becoming bitter or faithless, became an example of Christ’s humility and generosity to the poor of 17th century Peru.

Let’s replace your example with wicked Baptists and morally virtuous Mormons. I don’t think God would positively call someone to a deficient Christology just because of some sinful Baptists. Likewise, I don’t think God would positively call someone to a deficient ecclesiology and soteriology for the same reason.

Finally, I’m concerned thought experiments like these might prejudice our thinking to an incorrect intuitive conclusion (similar to Daniel Dennett’s intuition pumps). In the vast majority of cases, the choice is not between a wicked church and a welcoming one, but Churches of differing theologies with relatively welcoming clergy and laity (though I admit as Catholics we could learn from Evangelicals on how to be more welcoming at mass!). In that case, don’t you think a person should examine these Church’s respective theologies and try to discern which contains the fullness of divine revelation?

RR: Okay, so you agree that God may draw people to himself outside the Catholic Church at least in cases where there are  “obstacles” to people finding God in Catholicism. I’m glad we agree on that point. I would add that we really have no idea what kind or range of obstacles might be sufficient for God to call people into specific communions which otherwise deviate from the divine ideal. Assuming, as you believe, that the Catholic Church is that ideal, for all we know, non-Catholic churches may be full of people called to those alternatives because they present the best opportunity for those people to find fullness in Christ.

Let’s unpack this a bit. Imagine two churches: doctrinally speaking, Church A is 80% correct and Church B is only 70% correct. With that in mind, could God call Jane to Church B despite the fact that it has more incorrect doctrines? Well, imagine that these are the two possible outcomes:

Scenario 1: If Jane attends Church A, after five years she will have 60% correct doctrine and be 20% sanctified.

Scenario 2: If Jane attends Church B, after five years she will have 70% correct doctrine and be 30% sanctified.

In scenario 1 the church has more true beliefs than Jane ends up holding after five years of membership/participation. In scenario 2, Jane ends up holding all the true professed beliefs of the church (i.e. 70% of the total of true doctrinal beliefs). Hopefully, this isn’t too confusing. The idea is that church A has more true beliefs but is less effective at getting Jane to hold the true beliefs it professes.

Given those alternatives, it is very plausible that God would call Jane to Church B because while this church has less correct doctrine overall, it will bring about greater doctrinal and personal transformation in Jane.

What is more, God does not only call people to specific churches for their own sake. There could be many reasons God might call Jane to Church B beyond her own personal formation. For example, maybe Jane is a great teacher and she could have the most transformative impact on the kingdom in the non-Catholic church where she is at.

So I don’t see any problem in imagining that God would call a person to a church with a deficient theology. After all, every church in history has some degree of doctrinal deficiency: no church is batting a thousand! (Cf. 1 Corinthians 13:12.)

With all that in mind, I’d like to return to my ecclesiological pluralism thesis:

At least one person (e.g. Billy Graham) faithfully fulfilled his calling to follow Christ apart from becoming a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

Agree? Disagree?

TH: Since this will be my last reply, let me first thank you for this discussion. I think it’s important for Catholics to continue to dialogue both about what divides us as well as what unites us when it comes to spreading the Gospel. The Catechism says, “All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church” (818).

I agree with your statement in the sense that some people have done wonderful things to build up the kingdom and save souls without becoming Catholic. The Catechism says, “ Christ’s Spirit uses these [non-Catholic] Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church” (819). God has called non-Catholics to practice works of mercy (like feeding the hungry and comforting the sorrowful) and evangelism that leads to salvation. So some people “faithfully followed Christ” by saying yes to these specific callings without becoming Catholic.

But I can’t agree with your statement if it means that a person faithfully followed Christ by saying “yes” to God’s call to be Protestant rather than Catholic. God would never positively will someone away from the explicit means he gave us to have eternal life. God may work through whatever means of salvation the person stumbles upon (such as a virtuous Baptist over a sinful Catholic) in order to draw him closer to himself, but that would be an example of ecclesiological accommodation rather than ecclesiological pluralism.

I also disagree with your assumption that all Churches have theological deficiencies. In 1 Corinthians 13:12 Paul is talking about our knowledge of heaven being incomplete rather than the Deposit of Faith entrusted to the Church. While the Catholic Church has many deficiencies because it is composed of sinners, I trust God’s promises that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18). This means that Christ’s Church will not definitively teach theological or moral errors.

Finally, I hope you won’t take my defense of Catholicism as some kind of triumphalism or mere desire to “get more converts.” I truly feel it would be selfish of me to hide what I find to be beautiful about Catholicism, like the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the infusion of Christ’s righteousness into the soul in justification, and the teaching authority of the Church derived from the apostles and “hide it under a bushel basket.” Instead, I desire to share it with others, answer their questions in response, and continue to “reason together” (Isa. 1:18) so that we can attain the fullness of God’s truth and grace that lead to eternal life.

The post A Conversation with Catholic Apologist Trent Horn (Part 2): Is There One True Church? appeared first on Randal Rauser.