Upon This (Not So) Slippery Rock: Ecclesial Structure and the Issue of Certainty A Response by Chris Muha

Introduction In his recent book Upon This Slippery Rock, Eric Svendsen claims to have shown that the Catholic ecclesial system does not provide the kind of doctrinal certainty that Catholics believe it does, and that the pope as an infallible interpreter of Scripture is functionally useless !p"#$%" And while Svendsen&s main ar'ument is indeed a valid one, the conclusions he draws from it are unwarranted" (his will become clear as we e)amine the claims made in Svendsen&s book, particularly as those claims are understood a'ainst the back'round of the role that certainty plays in human decision*makin'" +efore attendin' to the specifics of Svendsen&s ar'ument, then, let us briefly e)amine the place of certainty in human decision*makin'" Certainty and Human Decisions It is a natural tendency of human bein's to demand more certainty in matters of 'reater importance than in those of lesser importance" ,or e)ample, a person mi'ht be willin' to make a -. bet on somethin' he knows relatively little about, even when the odds are heavily a'ainst him" +ut a sane person makin' a -. million dollar bet would want to know as much as possible about the situation he is bettin' on, and would demand far more certain odds before makin' the bet" /ikewise a father mi'ht not feel the need to meet every sin'le person his son or dau'hter dates" +ut a father certainly wants to 'et to know the person his son or dau'hter is 'oin' to marry, because he wants !amon' other thin's% to be reassured that his child has chosen a suitable spouse" 0e naturally tend to want 'reater certainty for thin's which are of 'reater importance" At the same time thou'h, thinkin' that one has absolute certainty can be an unhealthy thin'" 0hen a person thinks he or she has absolute certainty, it can often cause him or her to become complacent or la)" It causes them to take certain thin's for 'ranted, and may lead to a sort of unhealthy dependence" 1ne who is absolutely certain of his knowled'e about a particular thin' will be unwillin' to listen to others who may have somethin' valuable to contribute" After all, each one of us is finite, and can rarely !if ever% claim to possess absolute truth" As sure as we mi'ht be about our

understandin' of somethin', we must always be willin' to be corrected" (he more certain we are about somethin', the less willin' we need be to entertain other opinions" +ut at least some shred of willin'ness must always be there" Certainty and Matters o Reli!ion In matters of reli'ion then, it would stand to reason that one ou'ht to be afforded a relatively hi'h level of certainty" Reli'ious issues are undoubtedly the most important, and human nature would therefore seem to demand a proportionate level of certainty in such matters" A reli'ion that failed to provide such certainty would not be fit to be a reli'ion for humans" And yet, even in these most important of matters, one must 'uard a'ainst the desire to claim absolute certainty about one&s reli'ious claims" (his is not because of a deficiency in any 'iven reli'ion, but because of the fact that, to the end of our days, we will remain finite, imperfect creatures" (his should be all the clearer for the Christian, for whom ori'inal sin is a central belief" Reli'ious belief then ou'ht to be somethin' about which one can have a very hi'h level of certainty, but somethin' less than absolute certainty" S"endsen#s Criti$ue o Catholic %cclesiolo!y 0ith these thou'hts in mind, let us turn to the main ar'ument advanced in Svendsen&s book" It is most clearly and concisely stated on p"$23 +ear in mind that even the decision to trust Rome as an infallible 'uide is itself a fallible decision, based on a private readin' of Scripture and history" +y this Svendsen means that, while we Catholics believe the Church to be infallible in matters of faith and morals, we arrive at that decision by studyin' the bible, church history, etc" In other words, we make a private decision based on our understandin' of such thin's as the bible and church history" (hat understandin' may come to us via scholars and teachers, but the final decision is always ours" Svendsen illustrates this point by recountin' the story of a fictitious Catholic convert named 4ebbie who, when pressed by her friend 5ancy, reali6es that

0hen she had come to the conclusion years before that Rome was the true Church, she had always prided herself on the fact that that decision had been the fruit of years of personal +ible study and personal investi'ation of the writin's of the Church ,athers !p"27%"

(he same is true for anyone who is Catholic not simply because it is the reli'ion he or she was born into" (he readers of this article and other apolo'etic material are likely to be Catholic not simply because they were born Catholic, but because they have taken the time to study the bible, the Church ,athers, and the claims of other faiths, and have decided based on these thin's that Catholicism is indeed the true faith" It will not do to say that we know the Church and the 8ope to be infallible because they tell us so, for this admits of circular reasonin' that simply be's the 9uestion" Svendsen&s ar'ument demonstrates that we Catholics cannot have the kind of absolute certainty in matters of faith and morals that we sometimes claim to derive from our infallible ma'isterium" As infallible as the ma'isterium mi'ht be, the decision to believe that it is thus is always one that we fallible humans make" 0e cannot claim to have absolute certainty simply because our ma'isterium is infallible, and this is how it should be, if the brief analysis 'iven above of the place of certainty in human decision*makin' is correct" After all, do we Catholics not claim that it is impossible to have absolute certainty in even that most important of matters, namely, our salvation: If we see admit that we are unable to have absolute certainty about our salvation, we should be willin' to admit that we cannot have absolute certainty about these other matters as well" (o think that we have absolute certainty would be unhealthy for the reasons 'iven above" 0e ou'ht to concede this point to Svendsen and thank him for removin' this potentially unhealthy obstacle" Takin! Thin!s Too &ar +ut does it follow from this that the Catholic system is functionally useless : 4oes it follow that the Catholic system is in no way structurally superior to the 8rotestant system: (he answer to both of these 9uestions is a resoundin', 5o" +efore returnin' to address the issue of certainty as it pertains to the fundamentally private foundation of Catholic ecclesiolo'y, let us look at the problems with the evidence Svendsen provides as support for his claim" (o back up his claim that the Catholic system is functionally useless, Svendsen 'ives two ar'uments pertainin' to disunity3 .% there is disunity within Catholicism; <% there is more disunity amon' those employin' the Catholic*style system of bible plus infallible interpreter than there is amon' the 8rotestant system of bible alone" /et us address the latter of these claims first" ,alse Comparisons 0e Catholics often say that our ecclesial system results in a sin'le, unified denomination, whereas the 8rotestant ecclesial system has

resulted in literally thousands of denominations" +ut Svendsen wants to ar'ue that this is a false comparison, for it compares one entity !Roman Catholicism% within a broader structural system !bible = infallible interpreter% with an entire structural system !bible alone%" A fair comparison would be one that is either between two structural systems !e"'", bible alone vs" bible = infallible interpreter% or two sin'le entities !e"'", Reformed +aptist church vs" Roman Catholicism%" In both cases, Svendsen thinks, there is far 'reater unity on the 8rotestant side" (here is far 'reater unity within the Reformed +aptist church than within Roman Catholicism, and there is far 'reater unity between those who hold to the bible alone !8rotestants% than between those who hold to the bible plus an infallible interpreter !Roman Catholicism, Mormonism and >ehovah&s 0itnesses% !see pp"22,?@%" +ut Svendsen makes a crucial mistake here when constructin' this comparison3 he mi)es specific !or what we mi'ht call material % elements with 'eneral !or what we mi'ht call formal % ones" Ae uses a specific book !the bible%, but a 'eneral authority fi'ure !any infallible interpreter%" If Svendsen is to be consistent in his comparisons, he must use either entirely specificBmaterial elements, or entirely 'eneralBformal ones" If he wants to use entirely specific elements, that is fine" +ut the comparison would then have to be not bible alone vs" bible = infallible interpreter, but bible alone vs" bible = this specific infallible interpreter" (hat is, it would have to be somethin' like, bible alone vs" bible = the Magisterium, or, bible alone vs" bible = the First Presidency" In this case, the relevant comparison is not between Catholicism and a sin'le 8rotestant denomination, but rather between Catholicism and 8rotestantism as a whole" (raditional Catholic claims of 'reater unity then are validated" /ikewise if Svendsen wants to make a comparison usin' formal, non* specific elements, that too is fine" +ut it could not then involve a specific book, Cust as it could not involve a specific infallible interpreter" A fair comparison would then be any inspired book alone vs" any inspired book = its infallible interpreter" In this case, one indeed must 'roup Catholicism with such thin's as Mormonism and >ehovah&s 0itnesses" +ut one also has to 'roup 8rotestantism with other reli'ions which likewise base themselves only on an inspired book, and whose teachers possess only a pseudo*authority which is never final" Such a classification would lump 8rotestantism to'ether with Islam, Ainduism, and at least some strands of +uddhism" I do not think that Svendsen would here claim that there is 'reater unity on the 8rotestant side" So, if Svendsen wants to make a comparison of the two systems, he ou'ht then to use the purely 'eneral or formal elements, in which case the valid comparison is that between any inspired book alone

and any inspired book plus its infallible interpreter" If he wants to compare the specific elements used within these systems, then he ou'ht to do so consistently, comparin' the bible alone with the bible plus the Ma'isterium" In both cases, there is 'reater unity on the Catholic side" 4isunity 0ithin Catholicism 1r is there: (his returns us to the first of Svendsen&s ar'uments supportin' his assertion that the Catholic system is functionally useless3 there is not the unity within Catholicism that we say follows from our system" Ae raises two points in this re'ard3 .% the same source which supposedly says that there are <$,DDD 8rotestant denominations also says that there are <<@ Roman Catholic denominations; <% Catholic ecclesial pronouncements which purport to interpret Scripture are themselves subCect to interpretation, and thus disa'reement" (hese two, we shall see, are connected" Svendsen devotes several pa'es to dispellin' the myth that there are some <$,DDD or more 8rotestant denominations !see pp"$E*#2%" Ae claims to have tracked down the sin'le source from which this fi'ure is ultimately obtained3 4avid A" +arrett&s World hristian !ncyclopedia" +arrett proCected that there would be <<,.7D denominations by .7E$" 1f these he labels E,.7# as 8rotestant, <2D as An'lican, <<@ as Roman Catholic, and $D2 as Catholic but non* Roman !p"$7%" Svendsen 'oes on to recount how +arrett provides further fi'ures which would make the number of Roman Catholic denominations much closer to the number of 8rotestant ones !p"#D%" 0hatever mi'ht be concluded from all of this, one thin' is clear3 +arrett does not understand denomination in the way that almost everyone else does" 0e therefore have no reason to accept his division of Roman Catholicism into <<@ denominations" +ut by that same token, we also should 9uestion his division of 8rotestantism into a proCected E,.7# denominations" If we are unwillin' to accept the e)istence of <<@ Roman Catholic denominations, then we have to 9uestion his whole idea of denomination,& an idea which is also used to arrive at the fi'ure of E,.7# 8rotestant denominations" +ut these facts far from e)haust the issue of whether 8rotestantism is more prone to denominationalism than Catholicism" A full treatment would have to determine whether a sin'le denomination is properly characteri6ed by doctrinal similarity, or'ani6ational unity, a shared hierarchy or some combination thereof" Such a treatment would likely find Roman Catholicism to be a sin'le denomination, and 8rotestantism many" After all, the <$,DDD= fi'ure was one cited unhesitatin'ly by both Catholics and 8rotestants alike" I for one heard the fi'ure of @D,DDD mentioned years a'o by a professor at (rinity /utheran Seminary in Columbus, 1hio, in the conte)t of a discussion

that had nothin' to do with Catholicism" (here is somethin' about the nature of 8rotestantism that makes the acceptance of such a fi'ure natural" 0hat Svendsen&s research shows us is not that we are unCustified in claimin' 'reater unity within Catholicism, but simply that we are unCustified in citin' any specific fi'ure in re'ards to 8rotestant disunity, whether that fi'ure be @D,DDD, <$,DDD, E,.7# or any other fi'ure" 0e too would insist that 8rotestants are unCustified in citin' the fi'ure of <<@ Roman Catholic denominations, or any of the hi'her fi'ures +arrett also provides" 1ne is left to wonder thou'h what +arrett could mean when he says that there are <<@ Roman Catholic denominations" 1ne thin' he may mean is that, within Roman Catholicism, there are different understandin's of various theolo'ical issues, even those about which the Church has officially pronounced" (his is the second point which Svendsen makes with re'ard to disunity within Catholicism3 there are different interpretations of Church teachin's" (he Church documents which purport to interpret Scripture must themselves be interpreted" Svendsen uses as an e)ample the differin' interpretations of "ei #erbum re'ardin' the inerrancy of Scripture !pp"<@*<$%" Many Catholics appeal to the wordin' of "ei #erbum to show that the Church believes Scripture to be inerrant in all matters, while Cust as many !if not more% appeal to it to ar'ue that inerrancy e)tends only to salvific matters" Svendsen&s point is that havin' an infallible interpreter does not necessarily result in unity and clarity, since the interpretation itself !in this case, "ei #erbum% must be interpreted" +ut is this enou'h to prove that the Catholic system is functionally useless : Absolutely not" ,or what distin'uishes the Catholic system from the 8rotestant one is that in the Catholic system we have a principle of clarity and unity" It may not always be e)ercised, such that for certain durations of time there mi'ht actually be a measure of disunity arisin' from differin' interpretations of the same biblical or ma'isterial documents" +ut, to use the above e)ample, the Ma'isterium could at any time decide which of the two interpretations of "ei #erbum is the correct one" If the decision of the Ma'isterium on this issue was an infallible one, then those who continued to dissent would not have the same standin' within the Church, and full union with the Church could then be clearly said to revolve around the desi'nated interpretation of "ei #erbum" (his, in fact, is the process that we see takin' place throu'hout the history of the Church" 4isa'reements arise from varyin' interpretations of a written document !in most cases, Scripture%, and are allowed to e)ist for a period of time while discussion and debate take place" At a certain point the hierarchy of the Church definitively pronounces on the matter, thus arrivin' at a clearer and deeper understandin' of the ori'inal document in 9uestion" If at some future

point it comes to pass that varyin' interpretations of that very decision arise, the same process is then repeated, this time with the hierarchical decision as the main focus of discussion rather than the ori'inal document which the decision interpreted" (he Christolo'ical heresies of the first ? centuries provide perhaps the best e)ample of this process in action" /et us Cump into the middle of the whole process, at the Council of Ephesus !2@.%" 8rior to this council, the basic Christolo'y of St" Athanasius had become normative3 >esus Christ is fully Fod and fully man" +ut what e)actly this meant when it came to the particulars was left unsaid, and many different ideas arose" 1ne was that of 5estorius, who said that, while >esus Christ was fully Fod and fully man, his human and divine natures were not really united in their bein', but only in their manifestation or appearance" After years of discussion and debate, the Council of Ephesus convened and determined that 5estorius was wron'3 the two natures of >esus Christ were really and truly united, in more than Cust their appearance or manifestation" 0hat we have then is an initial position which was apparently clear at the time !>esus Christ is fully Fod and fully man% resolved into two incompatible interpretations3 .% the human and the divine are united only in appearance, and <% the human and the divine are really, truly united" Ephesus comes alon' and decides for the latter, thus deepenin' the Church&s understandin' and providin' a clarity that could serve as the basis of unity" 8roblem solved" Case closed" 1r was it: 5ot lon' afterward, thin's would become unclear a'ain" It had been established that Christ&s humanity and divinity were really and truly united, and theolo'ians be'an to reflect on what this meant" 1ne 'roup !the Monophysites% asserted that in Christ, the initially distinct human and divine natures come to'ether to form a third nature, such that Christ really has only one !monos% nature !physis%" Christ does not possess a human nature and a divine nature, but rather a third nature that is the result of the combination of the two" (his, they thou'ht, was the only way to do Custice to the fact that Christ&s humanity and divinity were really, truly united" Many theolo'ians thou'h were unhappy with this, and wanted to maintain that the natures, while united, remained distinct" (hus once a'ain there was an initially clear position resolved into two incompatible interpretations3 .% Christ&s natures combined to form a third nature, and <% Christ&s natures were united while remainin' distinct" 4ebate ra'ed for years until finally, in 2$., the Council of Chalcedon was convened" (here it was determined that the Monophysite position was wron'" Christ&s natures were not united by Coinin' to become some third nature, but rather found their union in the person of

Christ" 1nce a'ain a clarity was provided that could act as the basis of unity" (o summari6e the whole process then, we have an initially clear proposition !>esus is fully Fod and fully man% which resolves itself into two incompatible positions3 .% the humanity and divinity are united only in appearanceBmanifestation, and <% the humanity and divinity are really united" (he latter is seen to be ri'ht, and decided upon" +ut soon after, this initially clear proposition !the humanity and divinity are really united% is resolved into two incompatible positions3 .% that real union occurs by a blendin' of the two natures into a third; <% that real union takes place in the person, thus allowin' for them to be united but distinct" (his process has the potential to continue ad infinitum, with deeper insi'ht and clarity bein' 'ained each step of the way" A pessimistic observer mi'ht look at this whole process and say much the same thin' that Svendsen says3 (his system is functionally uselessG It clarifies somethin', only to have it become unclear a'ainG Every interpretation needs further interpretationG And he&s ri'ht to a point3 thin's become clear, only to become unclear a'ain" +ut is this a si'n of functional uselessness: Absolutely not; for as was Cust stated, deeper insi'ht is 'ained each step of the way" Ephesus provides an initially clear proposition !the human and divine are really, truly united in >esus%, but the Monophysites and Chalcedonians disa'ree on what e)actly that means" +ut already, they both have a deeper clarity than was had before Ephesus, for they both agree that the human and the di$ine are really and truly united in %esus " /ikewise after Chalcedon, there will be disa'reement on whether or not Christ has one will or two" +ut both sides already have deeper Christolo'ical insi'ht than those before Chalcedon, for both a'ree that the human and divine are united in Christ not by becomin' a third nature, but rather are united in his person" So the fact that further disa'reements arise is not a si'n that the system is functionally useless, for those disa'reements are what eventually allow for a deeper insi'ht into what was ori'inally said" (hose who lived after the Council of Chalcedon have a deeper insi'ht into what it means to say that >esus Christ is fully Fod and fully man, and they have this insi'ht precisely because of the disa'reements that arose alon' the way" 1ne could look at this as a very basic understandin' of the development of doctrine3 in one sense the teachin's of Ephesus and Chalcedon are new; but in another sense, they are merely clearer statements of that truth which had been passed down before, and ori'inates in the bible3 >esus Christ is fully Fod and fully man" (he fact that there is disunity then in the Catholic Church resultin' from differin' interpretations of Ma'isterial documents is not a si'n

that the Catholic system is functionally useless" It is simply a si'n that the system is catholicG (hat is, it is a si'n that the process the Church employs is no different than that which has been used since the earliest days" And Cust as it was not functionally useless back then, it is not functionally useless now" Infallible Interpretations of the Infallible Interpreter Svendsen mi'ht counter this whole line of ar'umentation by sayin' that each and every Ma'isterial document must be interpreted; in other words, there are always interpretations of the interpretations" Even if the Ma'isterium is infallible and its pronouncements are infallible, the people who read and interpret those infallible pronouncements are themselves very fallible" Even if it the Church passed down an infallible interpretation, that interpretation is fallibly interpretedBunderstood by fallible men" And it will not solve the problem to say that the infallible interpretation can then be infallibly interpreted by the Ma'isterium, for that interpretation still has to be interpretedBunderstood by fallible men" In other words, no matter how many infallible interpretations of infallible interpretations there mi'ht be in between, the last link in the chain will always be the fallible layman or cleric tryin' to understand it all" And if this is the case, then it is hard to see how havin' an authoritative interpreter is of any advanta'e at all" It is hard to see how the whole process of deepenin' understandin' would have any more help 'ettin' off the 'round" Is this obCection effective: 5o" In fact, it is actually self*defeatin'" If it is true, the obCection defeats not only itself, but the very possibility of verbal communication alto'ether" Aow is this so: It is obviously true that some thin's are hard to understand, and are in need of interpretation" (his is true, for instance, of parts of the bible" As 8eter tells us, certain thin's said by 8aul are hard to understand, and are in dan'er of bein' distorted by the unlearned" It stands to reason that such are the kinds of thin's that demand an authoritative interpretation for their proper understandin'" 5ow it is also true that these interpretations can themselves be hard to understand, and can lend themselves to further confusion, as illustrated above" +ut as also illustrated in the process above, this confusion ultimately resolves itself into any number of clear potential resolutions which are easily selected from" And it is at this sta'e in the process where this most recent obCection fails" ,or once the relevant potential resolutions are arrived at, it is simply a matter of choosin' between them" In other words, it is simply a matter of sayin' yes to one and no to the others" Is the union of the human and the divine in Christ one of mere manifestation: 5o" Is that union instead a real union: Hes" 1r a'ain3 4oes that real

union result from the blendin' of the two natures into a third: 5o" 4oes that real union rather occur in Christ&s person, thus preventin' any kind of blendin' of the natures: Hes" 1r to use another subCect3 Is one Custified by faith alone: 5o" Is one instead Custified by both faith and works: Hes" 0hat happens then is that the issue eventually becomes resolved into one of the most basic units of understandin'3 the yes or no 9uestion" (o say that somethin' as simple as this re9uires further interpretation is to deny the intelli'ibility of lan'ua'e alto'ether, and thus to render even basic communication impossible, includin' the very communication by which the obCection is communicated" An authoritative interpreter allows for somethin' which is initially hard to understand to be resolved into a very basic unit of meanin'" (o ar'ue that even this most basic level demands further interpretation is to state that lan'ua'e is basically unintelli'ible, which in turn makes the obCection itself unintelli'ible" +ut if you&re still readin' at this point, the obCection obviously was intelli'ible to you; which means that lan'ua'e can be e)pressed in intelli'ible units of meanin'; which means that a 'enuine interpreter can render intelli'ible that which is initially hard, to the point where it no lon'er needs special interpretin' in order to be understood" 0e see then the implications of the claim that every interpretation is itself in need of interpretation" It is true that some thin's are hard to understand; but it is also true that some thin's are not" 8recisely what an interpreter does is to render easily understood those thin's which are hard to understand" An authoritative mechanism is necessary for renderin' understandable those thin's which are hard, but not for 'raspin' those thin's once they are rendered easily understood" If indeed a 'iven person or body is a valid interpreter, they will de facto have the ability to render easily understood those thin's which are initially hard to understand" (he Catholic system then works by steerin' a middle course between two unfeasible e)tremes, both of which assume that, for an infallible interpreter to be of any advanta'e, the end point of every chain of understandin' must itself be infallible" 1n the one end is the e)treme that believes such a system to be possible, and to actually e)ist" 1n the other end is the e)treme which denies that such a system is of any advanta'e because the last link in the chain is always a fallible human interpreter" Each e)treme denies one of the two components which 'ive rise to the problem of interpretation" (he side which believes that havin' an infallible interpreter results in each person havin' infallible knowled'e denies the obvious fact that the last link in the chain is always the fallible human knower" (he side which believes that such a system, even if it did e)ist, would afford us no advanta'e denies the fact that, while some thin's are easy to understand and not in need of interpretation, others are hard and in need of some

kind of authoritative interpreter in order to be understood" (he position I have articulated mediates between these two e)tremes by reco'ni6in' that, while the last link in the chain is always the fallible human knower, an authoritative interpreter is able to reduce to units of basic intelli'ibility those thin's which are initially hard to understand" It avoids the first e)treme by acknowled'in' the fallibility of the knower, but compensates for this problem by reco'ni6in' the fact that certain basic units of meanin' are not in need of interpretation, and that these units can be arrived at via an authoritative interpreter" All Systems Are 5ot Created E9ual (hus it is that the Catholic ecclesial system affords us with a means of renderin' intelli'ible those thin's which are initially hard to understand" Each step of the way, what was initially obscure becomes more and more clear" (his is possible because each succeedin' step does not have to rely on the initially obscure formulation, but rather can start its reflection from the clearer, more detailed, and more easily understood e)pression" It is precisely this advanta'e which 8rotestants do not have" ,or in adherin' to sola Scriptura, they have ultimate recourse only to that which, at least in the case of some of the 8auline material, is initially obscure and hard to understand" (hey cannot construct clearer, more detailed, and more easily understood formulations of the mysteries found in the bible which can then serve as sure foundations upon which to 'ain an even deeper understandin'" So then, while the Catholic system affords one the possibility of a 'enuine 'rowth in the understandin' of those thin's which are hard to understand, the 8rotestant system can do no more than point us back to those hard thin's" 8rotestantism then is unable to afford us with a principle of unity, and it is for this reason that so much denominational division e)ists within the system of sola Scriptura, and that the number of <$,DDD or even of @D,DDD 8rotestant denominations seemed plausible to those on both sides before Svendsen&s research" (he Catholic system, because it can make those initially hard thin's more easily understood, can serve as a principle of unity" +ut in the Catholic system, this 'rowth in understandin' is always a work in pro'ress, and thus there is bound to be disa'reement each step of the way" (he difference is that this disa'reement, like the disa'reements before it, will allow for a deeper understandin' of the mysteries of Fod to be arrived at, when the Ma'isterium eventually determines which of the sides accurately e)presses the mystery" An authoritative interpreter allows disa'reement to become a step in the process towards 'reater shared understandin', which results in deeper and deeper unity" (he lack of

such an interpreter prevents disa'reement from bein' thus transformed because it prevents it from bein' definitively resolved" Svendsen&s Alternative3 (he Infallibility of the Elect (hus we see that in order for a system to be able to effectively determine which doctrines are Scriptural and which are not, it must have at least two 9ualities3 it must be e)ternal to Scripture, and it must purport to provide some level of certainty" Svendsen reali6es this when he proposes how it is that Christians are to determine what the true Church is and what proper Christian beliefs are" Svendsen reali6es that the 8rotestant position, taken at face value, must overcome a si'nificant obstacle3 if interpretation is always characteristically private, how can one know that one&s interpretations are correct: Svendsen ar'ues for what I have termed the infallibility of the elect" (he elect, he ar'ues, simply cannot be deceived about essential beliefs" Svendsen cites Matthew <23<2 and . >ohn <3<D*<? in this re'ard, and concludes, 0hat that boils down to is that the elect of Fod will always believe the essential tenets of the faith !p"$$%" 0hen it comes to the essentials, the elect are infallible" +ut how does a person become one of the elect: 1nce we know the true 'ospel !by readin' the ori'inal deposit%, and comply with its demands !Ibelieve and be saved&%, we may safely count ourselves amon' the elect of Fod !p"$$%" (hose who believe and are saved can be absolutely sure that they will correctly adhere to the essential tenets of the faith, and it is therefore unnecessary to name and define those tenets !p"$$%" +ut if we want to know what those beliefs are, all we need to do is compare the common beliefs within Evan'elicalism to arrive at that list !p"$$%" (he system that Svendsen here constructs easily comprises the poorest reasonin' found in Upon This Slippery Rock" (here are numerous problems with the reasonin' 'iven above, but they can essentially be boiled down to two3 .% the arbitrary employment of certain terms, and <% utter circularity" (he first instance of the former happens on p"$$ when Svendsen ar'ues that the elect cannot be deceived in essential matters" Ae starts to ar'ue for this by 9uotin' Matthew <23<2 and addin' his own comment3 In Matt <23<2, >esus says3 I,alse prophets will arise to deceive even the elect * if that were possible,& indicatin' that it is not possible" Het Svendsen 'oes on to make an absolutely unwarranted 9ualification3 0hat that boils down to is that the elect of Fod will always believe essential tenets of the faith !p"$$, emphasis added%" If Svendsen&s interpretation of Matt <23<2 is correct, then what warrant does he have for sayin' that the elect cannot be deceived only in essential matters: (he verse makes no such distinction" If

Svendsen&s interpretation is ri'ht, then they should be infallible in all matters" +ut Svendsen knows he cannot ar'ue for this, because the disa'reement amon' Evan'elicals on issues he would term non* essential is all the empirical proof anyone needs to see that that cannot possibly be ri'ht" Svendsen arbitrarily inserts the 9ualification essential into his ar'ument in order to avoid this problem" So what are these essentials which have arbitrarily become the focus of discussion: Svendsen makes a rather incredulous statement re'ardin' these essentials3 0ell, in short, there is really no need to define them if, as we have already seen, the elect automatically have a propensity to believe them when they hear them !p"$$%" Svendsen is here acknowled'in' the fact that what is and is not essential is not always so clear" +ut if Svendsen is ri'ht up to this point, it should be incredibly easy for Evan'elicals to enumerate and define their essential beliefs" If all of the elect believe the same way and cannot be deceived in these matters, it should be the easiest thin' in the world to determine each and every essential !and, derivatively, non* essential% beliefG Svendsen does 'o on to present such a list, partial thou'h he admits it is !p"$$%" +ut in order to do so he must arbitrarily insert a second concept into the mi)3 Evan'elicalism" Ae says on p"$$, 1bCectively, then, one need only compare the common beliefs within Evan'elicalism to arrive at that list Jof defined beliefsK" At no previous point in this line of ar'umentation has Svendsen used the word Evan'elical or Evan'elicalism" Ae has provided no Custification for labelin' Evan'elicals as those who comprise the elect" Ae has only stated that the elect are those who believe and are saved, but has not at all established what beliefs the elect believe in order to be saved" Ae arbitrarily inserts Evan'elicalism here to introduce a concrete set of beliefs which he can attribute to the elect for the sake of arrivin' at a set of defined doctrines" Lp to this point the actual beliefs of the elect have 'one unnamed, and as we know, there are many competin' sets of beliefs within 8rotestantism" (here are some who would hold to all of the doctrines Svendsen lists on p"$$ but would add others that not all would accept" Certain 8entecostals, for instance, believe that one must speak in ton'ues in order to be saved" 1ther 8rotestants will insist that the Scriptures are not infallible in each and every detail !say, in certain historical or scientific matters%, but will hold to all of the other doctrines listed" (here are then those who would both add to and subtract from Svendsen&s list" And yet these are people whom many Evan'elicals would consider to be saved * that is, to be members of the elect" (here are then competin' systems of belief which claim to be the true set of essential beliefs, systems which Svendsen would disa'ree with" Ais choice of Evan'elicalism as the set of essential beliefs cannot then proceed from the very system by which Svendsen says we are to

determine correct doctrine" ,or there are many different people who claim to have the correct set of essentials" Aow then can we look to the elect when we do not know who they are: Even if it were true that the elect automatically believed the essentials, that wouldn&t solve the problem of how we know who the elect are" (he elect cannot be deceived" ,ine" Food" +ut who are the elect: Aow do we determine who they are: (he answer, it would seem, would have to be that the elect are, as Svendsen stated, the ones who believe and are saved" It is here we 'et to the heart of Svendsen&s circularity" (he elect are the ones who believe and are saved" And the elect automatically believe the correct essentials" +ut they don&t automatically believe these thin's until they are members of the elect" (his be's the 9uestion then3 what must they believe in order to be saved: 0hat are the specific doctrines that one must believe in order to be saved: Aere the circularity becomes manifest, for the beliefs which make one a member of the elect are precisely the ones that we come to automatically know after bein' becomin' electG In other words, when one believes and is saved, one does not Cust believe" 1ne believes something" (here is a content to one&s belief" (his salvific content, 8rotestants 'enerally say, is what constitutes the essentials of the faith" +ut if, as Svendsen states, one must believe in order to become one of the elect, then it cannot be the case that one knows these essentials only after becomin' elect; for these essentials are precisely what one must believe in order to become one of the elect" 0hat do you have to do become one of the elect: +elieve" +ut what do you have to believe: 0hat the elect believe" +ut who are the elect: (hose who believe and are saved" (hus the circle 'oes"

(o say then that Evan'elicals disa'ree only on nonessential beliefs, and that this is evidenced by the fact that they aren&t condemnin' each other to Aell !p"$#% is a

red herrin', for it presupposes what has yet to be established, and which, even if true, could not be established3 Evan'elicalism comprises the elect" ,or even if the elect did automatically believe the essentials, this fact would still not allow them to actually know whether they are or are not elect, since there are others who are Cust as sure of their election and yet hold a different set of essential beliefs" 0hat&s more, this refusal to condemn members of one&s own 'roup to Aell is not a characteristic uni9ue to Evan'elicalism" (he 8entecostals who think we must speak in ton'ues in order to be saved do not condemn each other to Aell, and yet undoubtedly disa'ree amon' themselves on various theolo'ical matters" 4oes this

mean that they are the elect: 4oes refusin' to condemn to Aell those who share one&s essential theolo'ical beliefs, and condemnin' to Aell those who do not, make one&s 'roup the elect: 5o" It simply makes them a typical reli'ious 'roup" (hus we see that in his attempt to construct an alternative method which is both e)ternal to Scripture and capable of providin' some kind of certainty, Svendsen resorts to circular ar'umentation and the arbitrary introduction of various concepts" Ae fails to establish a way around the overly personal nature of 8rotestant ecclesiolo'y" +ut what of the personal foundation of Catholic ecclesiolo'y: Aow is it different from that of the 8rotestant: 'll (ri"ate &oundations 're Not Created %$ual It should be clear at this point that the supportin' evidence Svendsen provides to back up his claim that the Catholic system is functionally useless is wron'" Ae thinks these ar'uments show that Catholicism suffers from the same problems that Catholics attach to 8rotestantism, and for the same reason3 the foundational decision is ultimately personal" +ut we have seen that the relevant supportin' ar'uments are wron', and this should be enou'h to tell us that the foundationally private decision of the Catholic must be markedly different than that of the 8rotestant" (hus far we have demonstrated this by lookin' only at the end products of the two competin' systems" (hat is, we have taken the premises of each system, followed them to their lo'ical conse9uences, and hi'hli'hted the differences at those endpoints" In order to make our criti9ue complete, let us turn now to the be'innin' of those systems and attempt to e)tract what makes the two private foundations fundamentally different" ,or the Catholic and the 8rotestant, the initial private decision starts out the same" +oth make a personal decision to assent to what they believe to be an ultimate authority to whose Cud'ments are final and whose pronouncements they must accept" ,or the 8rotestant, this ultimate authority is Scripture" ,or the Catholic, this ultimate authority is Scripture as interpreted by the Ma'isterium and the Church&s tradition" In both cases, the purpose of submission is the same3 man is to submit himself to the true source of knowled'e, so that he does not determine truth, but rather is determined by it" (he 'oal is to minimi6e the ne'ative conse9uences that result from the weaknesses and imperfections of the individual man" (he difference thou'h is that the 8rotestant system does this far less effectively" (he initial private decision of the 8rotestant does far less to compensate for the weakness of the individual than does that of the Catholic" ,or what the 8rotestant assents to is somethin' which he must still interpret" Ae in all his weakness and imperfection is not taken out of

the picture so to speak, because it is still he who must interpret" All that has chan'ed is that his private decisions are now focused on a particular set of writin's, as opposed to all of the various writin's which he mi'ht have studied in order to arrive at that initial decision" Ais initial decision allows him to focus on this particular set of te)ts now, without havin' to constantly consider that the many other te)ts he may have studied !the Moran, the +ook of Mormon, etc"% mi'ht also in fact be true" Ae is free to focus on the Christian Scriptures with a certainty relative to the certainty with which he arrived at his initial decision" Ais initial decision opens to him a new realm of in9uiry, for he can now study the Scriptures not as one set of writin's that mi'ht possibly be true, alon' with the Moran, the +ook of Mormon, etc" +ut in that new realm, it is still he who must make the decisions" Ae tries to conform his understandin' to what he thinks the Scriptures to be teachin', but ultimately it is he who must determine what does and does not correctly conform to what the Scriptures are sayin'" It is this element which the Catholic&s initial decision frees him from" (he Catholic&s initial decision 'ives him access not simply to a particular set of writin's, but also to an authority who can definitively interpret those writin's" After his initial decision, the Catholic is free to focus on the Scriptures and to adhere to the Church&s interpretation thereof with a certainty relative to the certainty with which he arrived at that decision" (he maCor difference thou'h is that the system the Catholic adheres to 'oes a lon' way towards ne'atin' the ne'ative conse9uences of the individual&s personal weakness and imperfection" Insofar as he is convinced of the truth of the Church, he is freed on subse9uent issues !e"'" the particulars of salvation, nuances of the relation of predestination and free will, etc"% from havin' to make the kind of ultimate decision by which he arrived at his initial decision" (he Catholic system frees its members from the personal restrictions that inevitably accompany that initial decision" It is alon' these lines that the Church&s condemnations of private interpretation must be understood" (he Church does not condemn the process by which people determine which reli'ion they believe to be the correct one" (here is a 'enuine freedom of conscience in these matters, as Natican II makes abundantly clear" 0e apolo'ists sometimes 'et carried away into thinkin' that even on this most fundamental level there is no room for private decision" +ut the teachin' of the Church is that this decision is one each person is free to make * and indeed must make * of their own accord" It is this foundational decision which is always open to the person, and which can never become somethin' done simply at the command of the Church" It is in the realm beyond this initial decision that the authority must be obeyed" (he 8rotestant determines the bible to be the ultimate authority, and must then submit to it" (he Catholic

determines the bible as interpreted by (radition and the Ma'isterium to he his final authority, and must then submit to it" ,or the Catholic to rely ultimately on private interpretation at this point would be to contradict the very assent by which he has arrived at this point" (his is the kind of private interpretation the Church condemns" (he individual who in his initial decision assents to the Church but then proceeds to disre'ard the help that the Church provides in overcomin' his weakness is the one whose private interpretation is condemned, for it is this kind of private interpretation which is not unavoidable, and which perpetuates fra'mentation" Conclusion It is precisely this fra'mentation which plays itself out in 8rotestantism, and which is traceable to the overly personal nature of 8rotestant ecclesiolo'y" Svendsen affirms this connection when he tries to ar'ue that Catholicism results in the same kind of fra'mentation because it too relies on a foundationally private decision" +ut as we have seen, the evidence he presents in support of this assertion is wron', and this is because the private decision of the Catholic, thou'h it has certain basic similarities with that of the 8rotestant, is nevertheless fundamentally different" (he Catholic system provides a basis for unity and clarity which the 8rotestant system simply cannot supply, because it does not sufficiently counterbalance the role of the individual" In all of this thou'h, we Catholics must be careful not to disre'ard the 'enuine lessons that Upon This Slippery Rock has to teach us" 0e are not Custified in claimin' that there are @D,DDD, or even <$,DDD 8rotestant denominations" And more importantly, we must reco'ni6e that our foundational decision is ultimately personal" +ut this, far from makin' the Catholic system functionally useless, simply makes it human" (he Catholic system mediates a position between the e)tremes of the overly subCective 8rotestant position and the overly obCective way in which Catholic ecclesiolo'y is often e)plained and understood by its members" In this way is the Catholic system able to provide us with a level of certainty fittin' for humans3 somethin' which provides surety !insofar as the individual interpreter is not the sole arbiter of truth% but which stops short of absolute certainty !insofar as the process is not wholly obCective and always involves the individual%" It is a pity then that Svendsen misses the 'reatest lesson that his book has to teach us, for when he attempts to defend Evan'elical ecclesiolo'y a'ainst the claim that it occupies this overly personal e)treme, he does so by swin'in' to the other e)treme, and formulatin' an ecclesiolo'y which he thinks provides the believer with absolute certainty" (his should not surprise us, for this is usually how e)tremes work; they tend to be more conducive to one another than to the truthful middle which they distort" It is this truthful middle which Catholicism occupies, and we apolo'ists who often ar'ue too

obCectively ou'ht to thank Svendsen for his help in reali6in' this, even if Svendsen himself loses the import of his own lesson"