Are Good Protestants a Bad Problem for Catholics?

On the Argument from Fruits

In a recent conversation with Fr. Stephen De Young, Gavin Ortlund attempted to problematize Orthodox ecclesial exclusivism (and, by extension, Catholic ecclesial exclusivism) by appealing to the good works and spiritual fruits manifest in Protestant communities. He exclaimed with bewildered exasperation: “I genuinely don’t understand why someone would believe that only the Eastern Orthodox Church is the one true church when the fruits of Christianity and everything I know Christianity to be is so beautifully abundant in other contexts as well.” Ortlund has employed the same argument — the Argument from Fruits, let’s call it — in dialogues with Catholics, as have other Protestant apologists.

In fairness to Ortlund and his fellows, the Argument isn’t particular to Protestantism. Best I can tell, every sect and school, every congregation and tradition, accepts and employs some variation thereof. Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, Hare Krishna, etc. — each points to the admirable character and conduct of its adherents in an effort to vindicate its own claims and cast doubt on the claims of others. So too Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Indeed, the First Vatican Council identified “inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good works” as a legitimate motive of credibility recommending the Catholic religion.

Underlying the Argument is the intuition that truth and goodness must be substantially coordinate: where we find goodness, we expect also to find truth, and vice versa. In the Christian context, this basic intuition is further informed by the teaching that the Spirit engenders good works and spiritual fruits. Consequently, there is an inclination to look upon good works and spiritual fruits as indicia of divine favor, which favor is by fair implication thought to stem from a person or group’s possession of, and consistency with, divine truth.

For a Christian ecclesial universalist like Ortlund, it’s easy to construct a rough syllogism from these background suppositions. Good works and spiritual fruits come from the Spirit; the Spirit is enjoyed by those in Christ; those in Christ comprise the body of Christ, i.e., the church. Ergo, wherever we discover good works and spiritual fruits, we discover the Spirit, and hence Christ, and hence the church. And given that we discern good works and spiritual fruits in every quarter of Christendom, necessarily we must conclude that the church is proportionately general, extending far beyond the juridical borders of any single “institution” (one of Ortlund’s favorite terms, normally used as a mild pejorative).

From a Catholic perspective, the Argument corresponds with a correct instinct as to the necessary conjunction of goodness and truth. However, for several reasons, it’s not a tenable basis for distinguishing true and false religion.

First, those outside the Church and estranged from true religion are capable of cultivating natural virtue, since the imago Dei is not utterly destroyed by sin. The intellect has an ineradicable aptitude for truth, the will an irrepressible tendency toward goodness. Therefore, we should not be surprised to observe a measure of wisdom and rectitude in heretics, schismatics, and infidels, which wisdom and rectitude are explicable in purely natural terms.

Second, the beneficent influence of God touches every soul, because in him we live and move and have our being. All men come forth from God and he calls all men back to himself. Not a single person is outside his salvific design. He wills that all be saved. Consequently, he supplies the grace necessary for this end to be obtained (assuming man’s cooperation). Thus, we should anticipate certain evidences of supernatural activity — heavenly boons and celestial benefits — in the life of each and every person.

Third, seeds of the gospel are widely scattered on account of our race’s original unity and the subsequent diffusion of revelation by the prophets and apostles. Even those religions that are most corrupted by human error and demonic intervention preserve glimmers of truth. How much more the old Protestant sects and the recent deviations therefrom, such as Mormonism! These communities have access to the holy Scriptures, or portions thereof, and they maintain, in degenerate form, certain artifacts of sacred tradition, all of which facilitate a remote participation in true religion and gesture toward Catholic fullness and unity. Accordingly, it’s entirely foreseeable that many non-Catholics, and non-Christians, should apprehend aspects of the truth and conform their behavior to its features.

All to say, men outside the Church remain men, and despite their errors, they are capable of natural virtue and susceptible to the motion of God’s comprehensive love and mercy. For which reason, it would be foolish to attempt to distinguish true and false religion based on (perceived) good works and spiritual fruits.

Additionally, we must note that the Argument rests largely on our Lord’s teaching in Matthew 7:15-20 and its Lucan parallel. However, this passage cannot bear the conceptual weight placed upon it by advocates of the Argument. The subject logion merely encourages Christians to scrutinize the words and deeds of those who purport to speak on God’s behalf, for in many cases such persons are deceivers who wear a cloak of superficial piety to conceal their crooked ideas and perverse intentions.

Far from confirming the Argument, this saying undercuts it (especially taken together with that which follows), for it proves that appearances can be deceiving. Wherefore, we must submit to careful inspection those who proclaim, “Thus sayeth the Lord,” considering the quality and consequences of their words and deeds in sum, and not being prematurely impressed by exhibitions of virtue or displays of power. There’s no reason to think that our Lord meant to communicate a test for determining the bounds of ecclesial communion, which he plainly delineated by instituting in public office the apostles, whose episcopal successors continue to administer the things of God down to the present day.

True religion engenders good works and spiritual fruits; however, false religion does not altogether preclude the same. For man always presses upward toward his transcendent goal, and God sheds the light of grace with extravagant generosity. Hence, good works and spiritual fruits can serve as a motive of credibility, but by themselves they cannot sustain a conclusion as to the truth or falsity of a given creed or cult.

Contra Ortlund, the indisputable fact that some Protestants lead praiseworthy lives does nothing to vindicate Protestantism qua Protestantism, and does little to disturb the doctrine of ecclesial exclusivism, at least as espoused and proposed by the Catholic Church. As St. Augustine said, some visibly inside the Church are invisibly outside it, and some visibly outside the Church are invisibly inside it, and even those both visibly and invisibly outside the Church are not totally bereft of the gifts of God, who loves us all, and wishes that none of us should perish, but have eternal life.