What do you think?
Rate this book
Was the Reformation a Mistake?: Why Catholic Doctrine Is Not Unbiblical
Was the Reformation a mistake?
In its actual historical context, it hardly seems fair to call the Reformation a "mistake." In 1517, the Church was in need of a spiritual and theological reform. The issues raised by Renaissance humanism - and by the profound corruption of the Church's leaders, the Avignon papacy, and the Great Schism in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries - lingered unresolved. What were key theological problems that led to the Reformation?
Theologian Matthew Levering helps readers see these questions from a Catholic perspective. Surveying nine key themes - Scripture, Mary, Eucharist, Monasticism, Justification and Merit, Saints Priesthood, and Scripture - he examines the positions of Martin Luther and makes a case that the Catholic position is biblically defensible once one allows for the variety of biblically warranted modes of interpreting Scripture. At the same time, Levering makes clear that he cannot "prove" the Catholic case.
The book concludes with a spirited response by "mere Protestant" theologian Kevin J. Vanhoozer.
X
In its actual historical context, it hardly seems fair to call the Reformation a "mistake." In 1517, the Church was in need of a spiritual and theological reform. The issues raised by Renaissance humanism - and by the profound corruption of the Church's leaders, the Avignon papacy, and the Great Schism in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries - lingered unresolved. What were key theological problems that led to the Reformation?
Theologian Matthew Levering helps readers see these questions from a Catholic perspective. Surveying nine key themes - Scripture, Mary, Eucharist, Monasticism, Justification and Merit, Saints Priesthood, and Scripture - he examines the positions of Martin Luther and makes a case that the Catholic position is biblically defensible once one allows for the variety of biblically warranted modes of interpreting Scripture. At the same time, Levering makes clear that he cannot "prove" the Catholic case.
The book concludes with a spirited response by "mere Protestant" theologian Kevin J. Vanhoozer.
X
240 pages, Paperback
Published September 26, 2017
23 people are currently reading
157 people want to read
About the author
Matthew Levering
128 books61 followersMatthew Levering (PhD, Boston College) is professor of religious studies at the University of Dayton in Dayton, Ohio. He is the author or editor of numerous books, including Ezra & Nehemiah in the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. He is also coauthor of Holy People, Holy Land and Knowing the Love of Christ.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
October 19, 2017
This is an interesting book, well written and engaging. The Roman Catholic author has a fairly modest aim and deals with it fairly. He addresses himself to nine points of contention between "Protestants" and Roman Catholic, relying heavily on the critique of Rome that Luther leveled in the sixteenth century. His summary assessments of Luther's position are impressively clear and even handed. The topics he deals with are: Scripture, Mary, the Eucharist, the Seven Sacraments, Monasticism, Justification and Merit, Purgatory, Saints, and the Papacy. In each case, he does not attempt to offer a full scale argument or apology for the Roman Catholic position, but simply to demonstrate that the position is "not unbiblical," but depends upon a different approach to the reading of the Scriptures. Much of what he offers in this regard is helpful, edifying, and/or thought provoking, though not all of his points are compelling or convincing. A particular strength of the book is that it includes a cogent "Protestant" response from Kevin J. Vanhoozer, who points out, in particular, that the real issue is not whether Rome reads and makes use of the Bible in its theological enterprise -- which, of course, it does -- but whether the Holy Scriptures (or the Church) are the real locus and source of theological authority and substance. All things considered, the book offers food for thought and an agenda for significant conversation.
March 25, 2025
“Catholic dogma isn’t un-biblical…”
By that standard, we might as well open the church doors to all sorts of foolishness.
I love reading Levering in other contexts. I’ve genuinely enjoyed just about everything he’s written—including this book, to a certain degree. His introduction is relational and humble, and his effort to build a bridge between Protestants and Catholics is significant.
One fascinating aspect of the book is how Roman Catholic pneumatology highlights the Holy Spirit’s work in guiding the magisterium—and thus, the interpretation and application of divine revelation. That’s a theological world Protestants don’t often step into, and Levering provides a clear window into it.
This book serves as a great introduction to the theological universe Roman Catholics occupy—especially how they use many of the same theological words we do, but with very different meanings. Another strength of the book is simply that Levering wrote it. He makes an honest attempt to ground Roman Catholic dogma in Scripture. While his interpretations are, in my view, flawed, it’s still a sincere effort worth engaging.
As I said at the start, the biggest concern I have is the book’s central claim: that Roman Catholic theology is not unbiblical. But that’s a far cry from saying it is biblical. Vanhoozer’s response at the end of the book is helpful here—he flags this precise issue. If God’s Word is divine speech, then it not only reveals who He is and what He’s done, but also what He expects of us. That means interpreting it rightly isn’t just a noble effort—it’s a reverent duty. We must honor God’s Word according to His intended meaning and application.
As is common in Protestant responses to Roman Catholicism, the appeal to the Holy Spirit guiding the Catholic tradition often becomes a stumbling block to meaningful dialogue. When divine authority is said to reside in both Scripture and the Church’s magisterium, it becomes difficult to engage in debate on shared terms.
That said, the book’s greatest benefit may be Vanhoozer’s response article at the end. It functions as a theological “debrief” that helps Protestants process what they’ve just read.
Great intro to RC theology, to a an excellent RC author, and an excellent Protestant response.
By that standard, we might as well open the church doors to all sorts of foolishness.
I love reading Levering in other contexts. I’ve genuinely enjoyed just about everything he’s written—including this book, to a certain degree. His introduction is relational and humble, and his effort to build a bridge between Protestants and Catholics is significant.
One fascinating aspect of the book is how Roman Catholic pneumatology highlights the Holy Spirit’s work in guiding the magisterium—and thus, the interpretation and application of divine revelation. That’s a theological world Protestants don’t often step into, and Levering provides a clear window into it.
This book serves as a great introduction to the theological universe Roman Catholics occupy—especially how they use many of the same theological words we do, but with very different meanings. Another strength of the book is simply that Levering wrote it. He makes an honest attempt to ground Roman Catholic dogma in Scripture. While his interpretations are, in my view, flawed, it’s still a sincere effort worth engaging.
As I said at the start, the biggest concern I have is the book’s central claim: that Roman Catholic theology is not unbiblical. But that’s a far cry from saying it is biblical. Vanhoozer’s response at the end of the book is helpful here—he flags this precise issue. If God’s Word is divine speech, then it not only reveals who He is and what He’s done, but also what He expects of us. That means interpreting it rightly isn’t just a noble effort—it’s a reverent duty. We must honor God’s Word according to His intended meaning and application.
As is common in Protestant responses to Roman Catholicism, the appeal to the Holy Spirit guiding the Catholic tradition often becomes a stumbling block to meaningful dialogue. When divine authority is said to reside in both Scripture and the Church’s magisterium, it becomes difficult to engage in debate on shared terms.
That said, the book’s greatest benefit may be Vanhoozer’s response article at the end. It functions as a theological “debrief” that helps Protestants process what they’ve just read.
Great intro to RC theology, to a an excellent RC author, and an excellent Protestant response.
November 2, 2018
Levering has attempted an inviting and pastoral work here, with a desire to unite and gather. His humility when considering the shortcomings of his own tradition is admirable, and he is quite generous with his consideration of Luther.
Having said that Levering’s summaries and engagements with the Catholic positions are probably too brief, and as a non-catholic reader I would have greatly appreciated a deeper reflection on them (Although he does provide location details for the relevant materials to be further explored in the catechism).
Another issue that I found was that his exegetical reflections are quite acrobatic in places. One example of this being his odd connection between the ark of covenant in Rev 11.19 and Mary, but with no critical argument to support the claim. This practice repeats across each chapter.
As for Vanhoozer’s responses, they are not overly convincing and reactionary at best.
An example of this is where he argues against the idea of having papal leaders as authoritative interpreters of scripture, and yet his alternative seems as though he is simply replacing a Roman with a German.
There are also places where he does not appear open to consider the Catholic points on their own merit (that is, aside from the view of his tradition).
For example, he denies the notion of Peter being the first Pope - which is obviously not shocking - and yet feels the need to go beyond this, suggesting that one should not read into the sections of the Gospels wherein Jesus clearly treats Peter in a distinctive way compared to the rest of the apostles. The former denial makes sense for his tradition, yet the latter one seems odd and unnecessary.
In summary, this book was interesting, and the beginning of a good and clever concept, although I don’t think either contributor was able to bring their point of view to a completely convincing place.
Having said that Levering’s summaries and engagements with the Catholic positions are probably too brief, and as a non-catholic reader I would have greatly appreciated a deeper reflection on them (Although he does provide location details for the relevant materials to be further explored in the catechism).
Another issue that I found was that his exegetical reflections are quite acrobatic in places. One example of this being his odd connection between the ark of covenant in Rev 11.19 and Mary, but with no critical argument to support the claim. This practice repeats across each chapter.
As for Vanhoozer’s responses, they are not overly convincing and reactionary at best.
An example of this is where he argues against the idea of having papal leaders as authoritative interpreters of scripture, and yet his alternative seems as though he is simply replacing a Roman with a German.
There are also places where he does not appear open to consider the Catholic points on their own merit (that is, aside from the view of his tradition).
For example, he denies the notion of Peter being the first Pope - which is obviously not shocking - and yet feels the need to go beyond this, suggesting that one should not read into the sections of the Gospels wherein Jesus clearly treats Peter in a distinctive way compared to the rest of the apostles. The former denial makes sense for his tradition, yet the latter one seems odd and unnecessary.
In summary, this book was interesting, and the beginning of a good and clever concept, although I don’t think either contributor was able to bring their point of view to a completely convincing place.
October 19, 2017
I really enjoyed this , not because Levering is convincing, but because it is a sincere attempt to ground RC beliefs in a scripture by a devout and highly able theologian. As Vanhoozer shows it ultimately does not deliver the goods because there are foundational methodological problems, which Vanhoozer ably exposes.
October 17, 2017
Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/review/RZ7R448...
The publishing industry has been churning out a number of retrospectives on the history, legacy, and future of the Reformation for the 500th anniversary of Luther's posting his 95 Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Cathedral. These books have ranged hagiographic devotionals by Protestants to Catholic criticisms of the idea and legacy of the Reformation. This book is written by a Catholic scholar and does an even-handed job of presenting the Lutheran criticism of specific issues of the Reformation and the Catholic scriptural response. Levering's book is not polemical, except insofar as he marshalls scriptural texts in support of the Catholic position.
Incidentally, and in order to not bury the lede, Levering answers the question framed by the book's title in the negative. He cites Protestant friends and family who, he says, makes it impossible for him to call the Reformation a mistake, although he allows that some doctrinal mistakes were made.
Levering limits his goal of showing that Catholicism is "not unbiblical" in an interesting way. He is not attempting to show that Catholic doctrines are necessarily the only interpretation that can flow from scripture. Rather, he sets as his goal to show that Catholic doctrines are "not unbiblical." The importance of this task, he explains, is that Protestants typically reject Catholic doctrines on the grounds that those doctrines "unbiblical" without ever hearing the Catholic scriptural basis for those doctrines.
The doctrines that Levering addresses in separate chapters are:
1. Scripture
2. Mary
3. The Eucharist
4. The Seven Sacraments
5. Monasticism
6. Justification and Merit
7. Purgatory
8. Saints
9. Papacy
One of the strengths of Levering's approach is that he demonstrates the Thomistic virtue of stating the objections as strongly as the response. After introducing the subject and providing a section of the Catholic Catechism for more information, Levering starts with a section on "Luther's Concerns." In that section, Levering spends pages capturing Luther's arguments, including his rhetoric and tone, and articulating those arguments in their strongest form. I listened to this as an audiobook, and I found these sections to be quite revealing of the Protestant position, or, at least, Luther's position.
For example, I wonder if most Sola Scriptura Protestants would agree with this:
"In Luther’s view, “Scripture makes the straightforward affirmation that the Trinity, the Incarnation and the unpardonable sin are facts. There is nothing obscure or ambiguous about that. You imagine that Scripture tells us how they are what they are; but it does not, nor need we know.” 26 Scripture tells us what we need to believe for salvation— indeed it gives “the plainest proofs of the Trinity in the Godhead and of the humanity of Christ”— but it does not satisfy our curiosity on all matters. 27 Although we can be blinded to what Scripture reveals if we reject the Spirit, nonetheless Scripture itself is perfectly clear and perspicuous, so that in fact “nothing whatsoever is left obscure or ambiguous, but all that is in the Scripture is through the Word brought forth into the clearest light and proclaimed to the whole world.”"
So, Scripture is perspicacious, and where it is not, then, obviously, that information is irrelevant.
Levering's response to Luther is provided in a section entitled "Biblical Reflections." In that section, Levering presents a skeletal argument that consists of citing scriptural texts. Based on my experience with Protestant converts to Catholicism, I suspect that it may be the case that Protestant readers will not have heard these texts. The strength of Levering's approach is that its cumulative effect is to show that the Catholic doctrines do have a biblical basis without arguing that anyone has to accept the Church's interpretation as the exclusive biblical interpretation.
Levering points out the key paradigmatic difference has to do with the locus of scriptural interpretation: Catholics interpret the Bible in the context of liturgy:
"In my view, the underlying ecumenical issue is what counts as biblical evidence for a doctrinal judgment of truth. Ecumenically, then, the crucial thing is to perceive how a Catholic doctrinal judgment arises from Scripture on the basis of biblically warranted modes of biblical reasoning. 9 Catholic doctrine arises from Scripture, but it does so through a liturgically inflected and communal process of “thinking with” Scripture in ways that cannot be reduced to an appeal to biblical texts for irrefutable evidence of the particular reality expressed by the doctrinal judgment. 10 Thus, none of my biblical reflections constitutes a proof that aims to persuade the reader on historical or logical grounds. Even if my highly condensed biblical reflections were not filled with lacunae (as in fact they are), there would still be the need to read the biblical texts within the broader context of the living church’s doctrinal development, the living liturgical community that ponders biblical realities over the course of time."
And:
"The Catholic Church’s biblical reasoning has been formed over the centuries in the process of handing down the gospel, proclaiming it liturgically, preaching it, living it, and resolving doctrinal controversies. In the Christian life of faith and love, biblically warranted reasoning about biblical realities includes liturgical proclamation and interpretation, investigation of the plain sense of Scripture, biblical typologies and typological reasoning, historical-critical study, apostolic authority and the Petrine ministry, canonical exegesis, and church councils. In the present book, I have not been able to display the fuller context of Catholic biblical reasoning, since I have only had space to set forth (rather sparely) some interconnected biblical texts that bear upon the disputed doctrines. For each disputed Catholic doctrine, there are biblical texts that have taught the church in its process of formulating a doctrinal judgment. I have done my best to present these texts in the present book, since my intended audience is Bible-believing Christians who deem the disputed Catholic doctrines to be biblically mistaken."
Levering points out "that the church’s doctrine arises not merely from abstract logic applied to Scripture, but from Scripture as lived out in “the entirety of Christian faith and life,” including the liturgy, prayer, the moral life, and so forth." The Protestant approach appears to that with a proper grammar and dictionary, Scripture can be understood, at least with respect to important isues:
"Does this mean, then, that Luther is actually denying that Scripture can be difficult? On the contrary, Luther knows full well that “many passages in the Scriptures are obscure and hard to elucidate.” 17 But the reason for their difficulty is not due “to the exalted nature of their subject, but to our own linguistic and grammatical ignorance”; and, besides, such difficulty “does not in any way prevent our knowing all the contents of Scripture.” 18 These contents fundamentally are Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son; the triune God; Christ’s suffering on the cross for our sins; and Christ’s resurrection, ascension, and everlasting reign."
Again, I wonder if that is what most Sola Scriptura Protestants really think. I think that most Sola Scriptura Protestants believe that the lexical approach of "scripture interpreting scripture" can go quite a bit further than what Luther considered essential. Further, as time goes on, disputes necessarily arise on areas that were peripheral in Luther's time, and Protestants turn to scripture for answers, but if Luther is right, then the "non-perspicacious" parts of Scripture, recognized to exist by Luther, will not be able to find answers to those issues.
I think that Levering's approach can be quite educational to Protestants and Catholics alike. Perhaps Protestants need to go back ad fontes to the Reformers and compare where they are now with the assumptions of the Reformers.
The response by Kevin J. Vanhoozer was unfortunate. Perhaps because he was writing for Zondervan Publishing, which is an Evangelical publishing company, I got the impression that Levering was approaching this book like he was dealing with a hostile audience. His part of the book therefore goes out of its way to avoid controversy or to present controversial issues in a controversial way. Levering explains at the outset:
"Since this broader context cannot be displayed in my chapters, I wish to make as clear as possible that in offering these biblical reflections, I am not trying to prove Catholic doctrine to Protestants. What I am trying to do is to offer some grounds for challenging the view that the Catholic positions on the topics treated in my nine chapters are “unbiblical,” in the sense of being derived from modes of reasoning not warranted by Scripture and/ or being not rooted in Scripture. Most Protestants today hold that certain Catholic positions on Scripture and its interpretation, Mary, the Eucharist, the seven sacraments, monasticism, justification and merit, purgatory, saints, and the papacy are not biblical and therefore are justifiably church-dividing. In order to deem a position “unbiblical,” of course, one must have in view a set of modes of biblical reasoning warranted by Scripture, since it is by means of biblical reasoning that one deems a position “biblical.”
This is actually an important ecumenical goal. Many Protestants do uniquely write Catholics out of Christianity for being "unbiblical" when the fact is that Catholics do base their doctrines on the Bible, albeit through a different approach to understanding the Scripture.
Vanhoozen seizes on the "not unbiblical" language to argue that "not unbiblical" does not mean biblical. Then, as if he was the home team in this discussion, he tosses out Protestant bromides as if they were self-evident. Thus, on the issue of the papacy, Vanhoozen writes:
"The focus of Levering’s biblical reasoning is the apostle Peter in his capacity “as an instrument of unity in the church” (p. 172). 83 Peter’s confession and Jesus’s response to it—“ You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matt 16: 18)— obviously loom large in Levering’s account. 84 It is a text that has long been tugged in the interpretive war between Protestants and Catholics over the papacy. Interestingly, Levering adds “Rock” after Peter (p. 178), thereby making transparent the connection between Peter and the “rock” on which Jesus will build his church. The problem is that the two words are not identical. Peter’s name in Greek (Petros) could be translated “a loose stone” or “piece of rock,” whereas petra means “a (mass of) rock.” The Gospel of Matthew has used this latter term before, when Jesus says, “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock [petran]” (Matt 7: 24). The suggestion, then, is that the rock is not Peter himself but the truth of Jesus’s teaching that he is the Christ that Peter confesses. One does not build a church upon a loose stone, much less a loose cannon (remember Peter’s denial), but one can build a church on Jesus’s preaching and teaching and on the prophets and apostles that attest it (Eph 2: 20)."
Actually, there was far more than this, but, in any event, Vanhoozen's response is tired and cliched apologetics.
More importantly, why isn't Levering's approach "not unbiblical"? Why isn't it "biblical"? Must all interpretation conform to Protestant answers? What happened to the liberty of a Christian to interpret as his conscience leads him to interpret? We don't get an any answers to these questions, except insofar as the answer is the planted assumption that Catholic answers are "unbiblical."
Likewise, Vanhoozen notes with respect to Purgatory, "Levering wisely refrains from appealing to 2 Maccabees to support the doctrine of purgatory, as Protestants do not acknowledge it as canonical." OK, true, but where is it written that Protestantism defines the parameters of biblical interpretation? If the Catholic bible is true, then wouldn't Protestants have to factor those texts into their "biblical" analysis? And, also, who decided the contents of the Bible originally? The Reformers? Or the Church?
Vanhoozen then offers this observation:
"“Let me not to the marriage of true minds / Admit impediments.” 99 There are few if any impediments from the Protestant side. Roman Catholics who believe the gospel are welcome at Lutheran, Presbyterian, and other Protestant Lord’s Tables. 100 The only real impediments I see are those pertaining to the Roman institution."
Really? If Catholics simply allow Protestants to consume the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ when they think they are consuming a piece of bread, everything will be fine? The fact that the Reformation eliminated books that contain Catholic doctrines is not an impediment? Protestants would permit members who hold to a canon of 73 books? And how would the 66 book canon versus the 73 book canon be determined? By looking at the Bible's inerrant table of content?
I did like Vanhoozen's distinction between "hapax" - once for all - and "mallon" - ongoing. Catholicism does have a mallon spirituality. The Mass is a window onto an event that happened at a discrete moment in human history, and, yet, all Catholics through eternity meet together there at that time, and, thus, we have the "both/and" of ancient, Catholic spirituality, where something can be both once, for all and yet ongoing.
Vanhoozen is less successful in playing off "Catholicism" versus "Rome" because he omits the fact that these "Roman" doctrines are held by the Orthodox Church because the doctrines are Catholic.
All in all, Levering has made a solid contribution to the goal of mutual understanding.
The publishing industry has been churning out a number of retrospectives on the history, legacy, and future of the Reformation for the 500th anniversary of Luther's posting his 95 Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Cathedral. These books have ranged hagiographic devotionals by Protestants to Catholic criticisms of the idea and legacy of the Reformation. This book is written by a Catholic scholar and does an even-handed job of presenting the Lutheran criticism of specific issues of the Reformation and the Catholic scriptural response. Levering's book is not polemical, except insofar as he marshalls scriptural texts in support of the Catholic position.
Incidentally, and in order to not bury the lede, Levering answers the question framed by the book's title in the negative. He cites Protestant friends and family who, he says, makes it impossible for him to call the Reformation a mistake, although he allows that some doctrinal mistakes were made.
Levering limits his goal of showing that Catholicism is "not unbiblical" in an interesting way. He is not attempting to show that Catholic doctrines are necessarily the only interpretation that can flow from scripture. Rather, he sets as his goal to show that Catholic doctrines are "not unbiblical." The importance of this task, he explains, is that Protestants typically reject Catholic doctrines on the grounds that those doctrines "unbiblical" without ever hearing the Catholic scriptural basis for those doctrines.
The doctrines that Levering addresses in separate chapters are:
1. Scripture
2. Mary
3. The Eucharist
4. The Seven Sacraments
5. Monasticism
6. Justification and Merit
7. Purgatory
8. Saints
9. Papacy
One of the strengths of Levering's approach is that he demonstrates the Thomistic virtue of stating the objections as strongly as the response. After introducing the subject and providing a section of the Catholic Catechism for more information, Levering starts with a section on "Luther's Concerns." In that section, Levering spends pages capturing Luther's arguments, including his rhetoric and tone, and articulating those arguments in their strongest form. I listened to this as an audiobook, and I found these sections to be quite revealing of the Protestant position, or, at least, Luther's position.
For example, I wonder if most Sola Scriptura Protestants would agree with this:
"In Luther’s view, “Scripture makes the straightforward affirmation that the Trinity, the Incarnation and the unpardonable sin are facts. There is nothing obscure or ambiguous about that. You imagine that Scripture tells us how they are what they are; but it does not, nor need we know.” 26 Scripture tells us what we need to believe for salvation— indeed it gives “the plainest proofs of the Trinity in the Godhead and of the humanity of Christ”— but it does not satisfy our curiosity on all matters. 27 Although we can be blinded to what Scripture reveals if we reject the Spirit, nonetheless Scripture itself is perfectly clear and perspicuous, so that in fact “nothing whatsoever is left obscure or ambiguous, but all that is in the Scripture is through the Word brought forth into the clearest light and proclaimed to the whole world.”"
So, Scripture is perspicacious, and where it is not, then, obviously, that information is irrelevant.
Levering's response to Luther is provided in a section entitled "Biblical Reflections." In that section, Levering presents a skeletal argument that consists of citing scriptural texts. Based on my experience with Protestant converts to Catholicism, I suspect that it may be the case that Protestant readers will not have heard these texts. The strength of Levering's approach is that its cumulative effect is to show that the Catholic doctrines do have a biblical basis without arguing that anyone has to accept the Church's interpretation as the exclusive biblical interpretation.
Levering points out the key paradigmatic difference has to do with the locus of scriptural interpretation: Catholics interpret the Bible in the context of liturgy:
"In my view, the underlying ecumenical issue is what counts as biblical evidence for a doctrinal judgment of truth. Ecumenically, then, the crucial thing is to perceive how a Catholic doctrinal judgment arises from Scripture on the basis of biblically warranted modes of biblical reasoning. 9 Catholic doctrine arises from Scripture, but it does so through a liturgically inflected and communal process of “thinking with” Scripture in ways that cannot be reduced to an appeal to biblical texts for irrefutable evidence of the particular reality expressed by the doctrinal judgment. 10 Thus, none of my biblical reflections constitutes a proof that aims to persuade the reader on historical or logical grounds. Even if my highly condensed biblical reflections were not filled with lacunae (as in fact they are), there would still be the need to read the biblical texts within the broader context of the living church’s doctrinal development, the living liturgical community that ponders biblical realities over the course of time."
And:
"The Catholic Church’s biblical reasoning has been formed over the centuries in the process of handing down the gospel, proclaiming it liturgically, preaching it, living it, and resolving doctrinal controversies. In the Christian life of faith and love, biblically warranted reasoning about biblical realities includes liturgical proclamation and interpretation, investigation of the plain sense of Scripture, biblical typologies and typological reasoning, historical-critical study, apostolic authority and the Petrine ministry, canonical exegesis, and church councils. In the present book, I have not been able to display the fuller context of Catholic biblical reasoning, since I have only had space to set forth (rather sparely) some interconnected biblical texts that bear upon the disputed doctrines. For each disputed Catholic doctrine, there are biblical texts that have taught the church in its process of formulating a doctrinal judgment. I have done my best to present these texts in the present book, since my intended audience is Bible-believing Christians who deem the disputed Catholic doctrines to be biblically mistaken."
Levering points out "that the church’s doctrine arises not merely from abstract logic applied to Scripture, but from Scripture as lived out in “the entirety of Christian faith and life,” including the liturgy, prayer, the moral life, and so forth." The Protestant approach appears to that with a proper grammar and dictionary, Scripture can be understood, at least with respect to important isues:
"Does this mean, then, that Luther is actually denying that Scripture can be difficult? On the contrary, Luther knows full well that “many passages in the Scriptures are obscure and hard to elucidate.” 17 But the reason for their difficulty is not due “to the exalted nature of their subject, but to our own linguistic and grammatical ignorance”; and, besides, such difficulty “does not in any way prevent our knowing all the contents of Scripture.” 18 These contents fundamentally are Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son; the triune God; Christ’s suffering on the cross for our sins; and Christ’s resurrection, ascension, and everlasting reign."
Again, I wonder if that is what most Sola Scriptura Protestants really think. I think that most Sola Scriptura Protestants believe that the lexical approach of "scripture interpreting scripture" can go quite a bit further than what Luther considered essential. Further, as time goes on, disputes necessarily arise on areas that were peripheral in Luther's time, and Protestants turn to scripture for answers, but if Luther is right, then the "non-perspicacious" parts of Scripture, recognized to exist by Luther, will not be able to find answers to those issues.
I think that Levering's approach can be quite educational to Protestants and Catholics alike. Perhaps Protestants need to go back ad fontes to the Reformers and compare where they are now with the assumptions of the Reformers.
The response by Kevin J. Vanhoozer was unfortunate. Perhaps because he was writing for Zondervan Publishing, which is an Evangelical publishing company, I got the impression that Levering was approaching this book like he was dealing with a hostile audience. His part of the book therefore goes out of its way to avoid controversy or to present controversial issues in a controversial way. Levering explains at the outset:
"Since this broader context cannot be displayed in my chapters, I wish to make as clear as possible that in offering these biblical reflections, I am not trying to prove Catholic doctrine to Protestants. What I am trying to do is to offer some grounds for challenging the view that the Catholic positions on the topics treated in my nine chapters are “unbiblical,” in the sense of being derived from modes of reasoning not warranted by Scripture and/ or being not rooted in Scripture. Most Protestants today hold that certain Catholic positions on Scripture and its interpretation, Mary, the Eucharist, the seven sacraments, monasticism, justification and merit, purgatory, saints, and the papacy are not biblical and therefore are justifiably church-dividing. In order to deem a position “unbiblical,” of course, one must have in view a set of modes of biblical reasoning warranted by Scripture, since it is by means of biblical reasoning that one deems a position “biblical.”
This is actually an important ecumenical goal. Many Protestants do uniquely write Catholics out of Christianity for being "unbiblical" when the fact is that Catholics do base their doctrines on the Bible, albeit through a different approach to understanding the Scripture.
Vanhoozen seizes on the "not unbiblical" language to argue that "not unbiblical" does not mean biblical. Then, as if he was the home team in this discussion, he tosses out Protestant bromides as if they were self-evident. Thus, on the issue of the papacy, Vanhoozen writes:
"The focus of Levering’s biblical reasoning is the apostle Peter in his capacity “as an instrument of unity in the church” (p. 172). 83 Peter’s confession and Jesus’s response to it—“ You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matt 16: 18)— obviously loom large in Levering’s account. 84 It is a text that has long been tugged in the interpretive war between Protestants and Catholics over the papacy. Interestingly, Levering adds “Rock” after Peter (p. 178), thereby making transparent the connection between Peter and the “rock” on which Jesus will build his church. The problem is that the two words are not identical. Peter’s name in Greek (Petros) could be translated “a loose stone” or “piece of rock,” whereas petra means “a (mass of) rock.” The Gospel of Matthew has used this latter term before, when Jesus says, “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock [petran]” (Matt 7: 24). The suggestion, then, is that the rock is not Peter himself but the truth of Jesus’s teaching that he is the Christ that Peter confesses. One does not build a church upon a loose stone, much less a loose cannon (remember Peter’s denial), but one can build a church on Jesus’s preaching and teaching and on the prophets and apostles that attest it (Eph 2: 20)."
Actually, there was far more than this, but, in any event, Vanhoozen's response is tired and cliched apologetics.
More importantly, why isn't Levering's approach "not unbiblical"? Why isn't it "biblical"? Must all interpretation conform to Protestant answers? What happened to the liberty of a Christian to interpret as his conscience leads him to interpret? We don't get an any answers to these questions, except insofar as the answer is the planted assumption that Catholic answers are "unbiblical."
Likewise, Vanhoozen notes with respect to Purgatory, "Levering wisely refrains from appealing to 2 Maccabees to support the doctrine of purgatory, as Protestants do not acknowledge it as canonical." OK, true, but where is it written that Protestantism defines the parameters of biblical interpretation? If the Catholic bible is true, then wouldn't Protestants have to factor those texts into their "biblical" analysis? And, also, who decided the contents of the Bible originally? The Reformers? Or the Church?
Vanhoozen then offers this observation:
"“Let me not to the marriage of true minds / Admit impediments.” 99 There are few if any impediments from the Protestant side. Roman Catholics who believe the gospel are welcome at Lutheran, Presbyterian, and other Protestant Lord’s Tables. 100 The only real impediments I see are those pertaining to the Roman institution."
Really? If Catholics simply allow Protestants to consume the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ when they think they are consuming a piece of bread, everything will be fine? The fact that the Reformation eliminated books that contain Catholic doctrines is not an impediment? Protestants would permit members who hold to a canon of 73 books? And how would the 66 book canon versus the 73 book canon be determined? By looking at the Bible's inerrant table of content?
I did like Vanhoozen's distinction between "hapax" - once for all - and "mallon" - ongoing. Catholicism does have a mallon spirituality. The Mass is a window onto an event that happened at a discrete moment in human history, and, yet, all Catholics through eternity meet together there at that time, and, thus, we have the "both/and" of ancient, Catholic spirituality, where something can be both once, for all and yet ongoing.
Vanhoozen is less successful in playing off "Catholicism" versus "Rome" because he omits the fact that these "Roman" doctrines are held by the Orthodox Church because the doctrines are Catholic.
All in all, Levering has made a solid contribution to the goal of mutual understanding.
October 5, 2020
Very weak. As Kevin Vanhoozer points out in his responsive essay, there’s a distinction between “not unbiblical” and “biblical.” Levering essentially makes the case that Roman doctrines are “not unbiblical” by deploying a litany of tangential reflections on Scripture (as well as the Apocrypha). Biblical doctrines do not arise out of reflections upon irrelevant proof texts. This exercise is not even sufficient to allow for the label of “not unbiblical.” Would Levering say that Islam or Mormonism is “not unbiblical” because of a built-in regard for certain facets of the Bible, no matter how wrongly interpreted? Vanhoozer’s responsive essay ultimately fails to penetrate and explore the core differences between Protestants and Romanists when it comes to the doctrine of Scripture. I believe this response would have fared much better if written by someone like John MacArthur, James White, or RC Sproul (who had not yet gone to be with the Lord when this book was published).
October 5, 2017
On the one hand you have to admire Matthew Levering because he attempts to defend from the Bible alone the Roman Catholic view of scripture, mary, the eucharist, the seven sacraments, monasticism, justification and merit, purgatory, saints and the papacy. If he could do this there wouldn't have been a Reformation. The spirit of his attempt is good. He does not maliciously attack Protestant views. But the substance of his cases is not persuasive. On the other hand Kevin Vanhoozer's response to his presentation is worth the price of the book! I have to agree with Vanhoozer who quotes Jaroslav Pelikan to the effect that the Reformation is a tragic necessity.
April 2, 2021
While I am not fully convinced by Levering’s reasons for the specific issues in this book, I am, however, persuaded by his overall argument: Roman Catholic doctrine is not unbiblical.
To show this, Levering goes to the Scriptures to argue his points. One can affirm that RC teaching is “not unbiblical” without affirming that it is exactly “biblical.” Vanhoozer’s response at the end is an exemplary model for how Protestants should think about Roman Catholicism. Most—maybe not all—Protestants would benefit from reading this book, and thus hopefully seek to become a bit more ecumenical or (small c) catholic in our Protestantism.
To show this, Levering goes to the Scriptures to argue his points. One can affirm that RC teaching is “not unbiblical” without affirming that it is exactly “biblical.” Vanhoozer’s response at the end is an exemplary model for how Protestants should think about Roman Catholicism. Most—maybe not all—Protestants would benefit from reading this book, and thus hopefully seek to become a bit more ecumenical or (small c) catholic in our Protestantism.
December 14, 2017
A lot of books have been written on this, the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. But there is one book that recently caught my eye. A book that was written by a Roman Catholic theologian whom a lot of protestants really like: Matthew Levering (Professor at Mundelein Seminary). Levering, just published a book with one of the foremost evangelical publishers, Zondervan. It’s titled Was the Reformation a Mistake? Why Catholic Doctrine is not Unbliblical. If that doesn’t catch your eye then maybe the fact that it includes a Protestant response by Kevin Vanhoozer will!
Enough about the background of the book. What is this Roman Catholic theologian’s answer? Was the Reformation a mistake? According to Levering – Yes and No.
No, because the Reformation has reminded the Church of things that have been neglected by Roman Catholics, namely, love for Scripture, the authority of God’s word, salvation by God’s grace, gospel, preaching, Bible study, and personal faith and relationship with Christ. (16) Levering is grateful for these thigns. However, in another sense, he does in fact believe the Reformation was a mistake. How was it a mistake? Well he says, the Reformation was built on a mistaken assumption that Catholic views of Scripture, Mary, the Eucharist, Justification, etc. are unbliblical. In light of this he attempts to show that Catholic doctrine is in fact not unbliblical (note he doesn’t say biblical, rather he says not unbiblical).
In order to make his case, he argues that catholic doctrine is based upon biblically warranted modes of reasoning about biblically revealed realities. (21) Essentially this “biblically warranted mode of reasoning” is a way of thinking about the bible and its truths in a communal and liturgical way. Or to put it in a slightly different way,
The reasoning prescribed by the Bible for interpreting biblical texts is hierarchically and liturgically contextualized, in the sense that the Spirit communicates the word of Christ to the people of God who are gathered for worship by “the apostles and elders,” and by those like Timothy whom the apostles (whose testimony to the gospel of Christ remains uniquely authoritative) appointed as their successors. (24)
To put it more plainly, when we think about doctrine, we must come to the text of Scripture and read it through the lens of tradition. Tradition tells us what the text means and what the text is about. To read Scripture outside of this “biblically warranted mode of reasoning” is a wrongheaded way of reading the text.
Given his definition of biblically warranted modes of reasoning, he proceeds to treat the scriptural background of numerous Roman catholic doctrines, including Scripture, Mary, the seven sacraments, justification, purgatory, saints and the papacy. The result is essentially him saying “well, scripture doesn’t exactly teach purgagatory or the papacy, etc.; but through the mode of reasoning we apply to the text, the doctrines are not unbiblical.”
If protestants are not convinced by his conclusions, according to Levering himself, that is okay! He isn’t trying to convince them to accept Catholic doctrine. Rather he simply wants to show them that Catholics aren’t unbiblical in their thinking. I will leave it to you, the reader of this blog, to pick up the book and decide whether you are convinced by him.
However, I do want to throw in my two cents:
1)Not being unbiblical is not enough. We aim to say what scripture explicitly and implicitly teaches, nothing more and nothing less.
And...
2)Tradition is not a second source of revelation – it is a helpful external guide.
Both of these are at least in part two of principles we reflect upon on this 500th anniversary of the Reformation. Anyone who holds to these principles simply won’t be able to buy into Levering’s account, and thus won’t be able to say that Levering’s account of a “not unbiblical” account of Roman Catholic doctrine is adequate.
All in all, despite this criticism, I do have to commend Levering for writing this book. At the very least, it will dispel caricatures that some protestants have about Roman Catholics, namely that they simply make stuff up as they go or that they don’t care about the Bible. That, it seems to me, is a worthwhile result.
Enough about the background of the book. What is this Roman Catholic theologian’s answer? Was the Reformation a mistake? According to Levering – Yes and No.
No, because the Reformation has reminded the Church of things that have been neglected by Roman Catholics, namely, love for Scripture, the authority of God’s word, salvation by God’s grace, gospel, preaching, Bible study, and personal faith and relationship with Christ. (16) Levering is grateful for these thigns. However, in another sense, he does in fact believe the Reformation was a mistake. How was it a mistake? Well he says, the Reformation was built on a mistaken assumption that Catholic views of Scripture, Mary, the Eucharist, Justification, etc. are unbliblical. In light of this he attempts to show that Catholic doctrine is in fact not unbliblical (note he doesn’t say biblical, rather he says not unbiblical).
In order to make his case, he argues that catholic doctrine is based upon biblically warranted modes of reasoning about biblically revealed realities. (21) Essentially this “biblically warranted mode of reasoning” is a way of thinking about the bible and its truths in a communal and liturgical way. Or to put it in a slightly different way,
The reasoning prescribed by the Bible for interpreting biblical texts is hierarchically and liturgically contextualized, in the sense that the Spirit communicates the word of Christ to the people of God who are gathered for worship by “the apostles and elders,” and by those like Timothy whom the apostles (whose testimony to the gospel of Christ remains uniquely authoritative) appointed as their successors. (24)
To put it more plainly, when we think about doctrine, we must come to the text of Scripture and read it through the lens of tradition. Tradition tells us what the text means and what the text is about. To read Scripture outside of this “biblically warranted mode of reasoning” is a wrongheaded way of reading the text.
Given his definition of biblically warranted modes of reasoning, he proceeds to treat the scriptural background of numerous Roman catholic doctrines, including Scripture, Mary, the seven sacraments, justification, purgatory, saints and the papacy. The result is essentially him saying “well, scripture doesn’t exactly teach purgagatory or the papacy, etc.; but through the mode of reasoning we apply to the text, the doctrines are not unbiblical.”
If protestants are not convinced by his conclusions, according to Levering himself, that is okay! He isn’t trying to convince them to accept Catholic doctrine. Rather he simply wants to show them that Catholics aren’t unbiblical in their thinking. I will leave it to you, the reader of this blog, to pick up the book and decide whether you are convinced by him.
However, I do want to throw in my two cents:
1)Not being unbiblical is not enough. We aim to say what scripture explicitly and implicitly teaches, nothing more and nothing less.
And...
2)Tradition is not a second source of revelation – it is a helpful external guide.
Both of these are at least in part two of principles we reflect upon on this 500th anniversary of the Reformation. Anyone who holds to these principles simply won’t be able to buy into Levering’s account, and thus won’t be able to say that Levering’s account of a “not unbiblical” account of Roman Catholic doctrine is adequate.
All in all, despite this criticism, I do have to commend Levering for writing this book. At the very least, it will dispel caricatures that some protestants have about Roman Catholics, namely that they simply make stuff up as they go or that they don’t care about the Bible. That, it seems to me, is a worthwhile result.
December 13, 2020
Two stars for the book, and five for the rebuttal. To his credit, Levering presents the reformers concerns about Catholic theology straight down the middle. I kept hoping for more substance, though. One of the successes of the Reformation was that its champions true relatively straight lines from scripture to theology. Levering, on the other hand, draws circuitous lines, making the connection between the biblical data and his conclusions less straightforward. I kept thinking to myself, "I guess you could see it that way if you agreed with all those assumptions from the start."
Vanhoozer wastes no ink in upending Levering's reasoning. He does what I believe is a masterful job in both pointing out the flaws.
His main critique is that the Catholic Church has elbowed in too much into the relationship between the individual and Christ, playing too much of a heavy hand, one unwarranted by scripture.
Vanhoozer wastes no ink in upending Levering's reasoning. He does what I believe is a masterful job in both pointing out the flaws.
His main critique is that the Catholic Church has elbowed in too much into the relationship between the individual and Christ, playing too much of a heavy hand, one unwarranted by scripture.
October 8, 2023
I'm giving this 4 stars largely because the Catholic reasoning is what I've heard 1,000 times before (which would make me rate it like 3 stars), but Vanhoozer's response was excellent, so I'll give it 4.
Vanhoozer's critiques ring true - Catholic doctrines aren't unbiblical in the sense that they contradict Scripture, but they are supra-biblical, meaning they go beyond what Scripture tells us - or as he cheekily calls it - Sorta Scriptura lol.
I enjoyed his response very much.
Vanhoozer's critiques ring true - Catholic doctrines aren't unbiblical in the sense that they contradict Scripture, but they are supra-biblical, meaning they go beyond what Scripture tells us - or as he cheekily calls it - Sorta Scriptura lol.
I enjoyed his response very much.
December 17, 2017
Thoughtful book. Intellectually rigorous. Explains various Catholic doctrines. Thought it was clear in presenting the rationale for various dogmas that are controversial matters between Catholics and Protestants. Don't agree with his theological conclusions (if I did, I'd be Catholic) but a helpful book.
Read
February 3, 2020The first part of the title doesn’t fit the book at all - it’s like it was forced on the author against his will. The book was pretty good, and I think it got ultimately to the main issue which is how do you interpret the Bible, and whether you limit your interpretation to the grammatical historical sense.
December 26, 2023
An interesting and helpful introduction to modern Catholic exegesis. Many questions and important challenges remain, but Vanhoozer’s disjointed “response” only serves to show how the 16th century Reformation(s) replaced one pope by making everyone a pope. Read the book but skip the response.
October 30, 2019
Some chapters more interesting than others
Read
April 11, 2025Read for PhD seminar
June 27, 2018
The chapters are a mixed bag, some are surprisingly weak. But Levering does raise a really important point requiring careful thought: what counts as biblical evidence for making doctrinal judgments? What sorts of biblical modes of reasoning can be used to find this evidence? Typology?
I think Vanhoozer's response is really good and gets to the heart of the divide: the nature of authority.
I think Vanhoozer's response is really good and gets to the heart of the divide: the nature of authority.
April 28, 2025
This was not an enjoyable read. The gymnastics Matthew Levering used to convince his readers that certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are not "unbiblical" were astounding. The most helpful part of the book was Kevin Vanhoozer's final chapter which helped explain how "Tradition" is really a hermeneutic used in interpreting Scripture for Roman Catholics. After reading the book, I would answer no, the Reformation was not a mistake. It was a needed corrective for all the unbiblical doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. It was unfortunate that the Reformation was needed. History may have been different had Pope Leo X heeded Martin Luther's doctrinal concerns.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews