Francis Beckwith has begun doing interviews on his reversion to the Catholic Church following an extended stay in Evangelicalism, which included a stint as the president of the Evangelical Theological Society.
He has yet to do an interview in a major radio or TV Catholic venue (though those are planned), but recently he granted an interview to Greg Koukl of the Evangelical radio program Stand to Reason.
GET THE INTERVIEW (MP3 DOWNLOAD).
I think Frank did very well under difficult conditions. It was mere weeks after his return to the Church, and the environment was more hostile that expected. In fact, he called Greg on the carpet for presenting a more confrontational interview than he understood would be the case, but the two men are friends and this very much showed through, with both seeking to be charitable and balanced with the other.
I thought Greg definitely engaged in "steamroller" tactics at various points (that is, he threw multiple verses at Frank without letting him have a proper chance to respond), but overall the interview was in the service of truth as the participants saw it.
Be sure to check it out.
More later.
Interesting PodCast. Given the history both men have, I’m really disapointed with the way Greg handled the interview. Greg definitely engaged in steamroller tactics.
Dr. Beckwith is going to be on the Journey Home in a month or so. I noticed that on the EWTN schedule.
Jimmy–you should go on this program too…. đ
Jimmy,
I think an apologist would have been better suited for such a program as the one linked above.
Just my .02
Cearnaigh
As a Catholic that appreciates Protestant contributions to apologetics, Iâve been listening to Stand to Reason for years. I thought Beckwith gave some great answers even though he only recently became a Catholic. Catholics should model their apologetic organizations after Stand to Reason (we would leave out Kouklâs apparent anti-Catholicism though:-) Jimmy might want to be interviewed on Kouklâs show. STR is very influential and has been heavily influenced by many of the leading Christian apologists in the world. For example, the ideas of J.P. Moreland have had a huge influence on the educational approach of STR. I do have to say that I too was disappointed with the way that Greg Koukl handled the interview. Greg seemed like he was going for points instead of trying to find the truth on the issues.
(continued)
I would like to add that usually Greg Koukl does a good job. He simply has a difficult time understand Catholicism.
(continued)
I meant to put: Greg Koukl simply has a difficult time understanding Catholicism.
Koukl just needs to read Catholic teaching and talk to some Catholic apologists. It seems to me that he has some basic misunderstandings of Catholicism. He claims that he became a “follower of Jesus” and thus had to reject Catholicism. This kind of rhetoric is standard anti-Catholicism. Also, his understanding of Catholic teaching on sin is woefully inadequate. I was glad he actually discussed some important issues, but he needs to read a bit.
Greetings,
It seems that Francis Beckwith and James White are doing some informal intellectual sparring in the comments section of the Stand to Reason blog post titled: Where did we get the Bible?
White is an Protestant apologist, Beckwith is not a Catholic apologist, but seems to have taken up that role…
Here is the link: http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=blog_iframe
It’s been interesting so far.
Cearnaigh
Greg seemed like he was going for points instead of trying to find the truth on the issues.
Whether it’s radio or television, that’s what they all do. It’s part of the nature of the beast. In fact in television, at least, there is a director speaking into the earpiece of the interviewer, instructing him/her when to ‘heat it up a bit’, ‘get confrontational’, etc.
He has yet to do an interview in a major radio or TV Catholic venue (though those are planned)
Jimmy Akin,
You two are friends, right?
Why not have him as guest on Catholic Answers Live?
I’m listening to it now…it would be a great interview if the host would stop inturrupting, engage himself in Christian humility, and try to learn something rather than just keep boxing him in with cherry-picked verses.
Beckwith, on “Right Reason”, has mentioned a future radio interview with Catholic Answers Live.
http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2007/07/my_inbox_runnet.html#more
Easu writes, âWhy not have him [Francis Beckwith] as guest on Catholic Answers Live?â It would be great if Beckwith did that!!!
If Iâm correct about this, Beckwith is going to be talking about his new pro-life book Defending Life
A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521691354
on the Stand to Reason show (Greg Kouklâs show) next week. It should be great.
The first thing that occurred to me is that the host presented the Protestant view on salvation as some sort of unified whole. I’m sure that all the Protestants who do aren’t Reformed or hold to a OSAS view would find this surprising.
This interview was terribly embarrassing for Dr. Beckwith. It was painful listening to him stutter about what he believes. He couldn’t answer the most basic of questions from the Word of God about his beliefs and reversion to Rome (i.e. was unsure of where certain obvious passages in Scripture were located); and then Dr. B got a bit defensive at Greg for asking him simple and legitimate questions, claiming “bad form” that Greg was debating him rather than letting him just “share his story.”
Maybe Frank would be more comfortable being interviewed by Spencer Burke at the OOZE or dialoguing with McLaren at the Emergent Village.
This was very sad. He failed to speak biblically; and didn’t speak according to Tridentine claims. I actually felt compassion for Francis. Greg was brilliant AND gracious.
If one is going to defect from Protestant Biblical Christianity to Romanism, one should know why and biblically give an account for such actions… That is reasonable expectation don’t you think?
Sola fide,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
Greg was brilliant AND gracious.
Yeah — he was a gracious and brilliant as Walter Martin was to Fr. Pacwa back in the days when Fr. Pacwa came on his program!
Talk about resorting to sorry tactics!
If one is going to defect from Protestant Biblical Christianity to Romanism, one should know why and biblically give an account for such actions… That is reasonable expectation don’t you think?
By the way, Steve, what’s so “biblical” about Protestant Christianity as compared with so-called “Romanism”?
Also, you seemed to have overlooked Dr. Beckwith’s post on Right Reason concerning his conversion to Catholicism.
“If one is going to defect from Protestant Biblical Christianity to Romanism, one should know why and biblically give an account for such actions… That is reasonable expectation don’t you think?”
No.
One only need “biblically give an account” if one is of the opinion that the Bible is the ONLY source of Truth for Christians, which Catholics (and therefore Dr. Beckwith) reject.
Dr. Beckwith may give any defense he likes, and he need not concern himself with conforming to the cramped and artificial Protestant Sola Scriptura viewpoint. In short, if you don’t think that considerations of history and reason really count, that is your problem.
There is nothing in the Catholic faith contrary to the scriptures, but there are aspects of it not found explicitly in scripture. How does one give a Biblical account of an extra-Biblical truth?
As for not knowing chapter-and-verse where some passage may be found, are you of the opinion that this means we may ignore the evidence of that passage? Interesting. That does sound more like a game than a pursuit of truth.
Steve Camp –
As Beckwith made clear, he wasn’t expecting or prepared for a quickfire debate. Of course he knows why he “defected to Romanism” as you put it (is it really necessary to use such offensive terms?) and has explained eloquently elsewhere. Not that he has to explain himself to anyone anyway.
This coming from a man — Steve Camp — whose own attitude toward Catholic teaching is strikingly similar in spirit to Richard Dawkins’ impatient contempt toward Christian theology: He treats it as a non-subject that one need not bother understanding before condemning.
The anti-Catholic bombast on Steve’s blog is of the type founded entirely on historic armchair polemics with no openness to living dialogue with a lived faith. He pits isolated quotes from Trent and other older sources against isolated quotes from the Catechism and other newer sources, with no interest in any effort to understand the comprehensive teaching that subsumes them both. He condemns JP2 to “perdition” for rejecting “the gospel,” but shows no familiarity with, e.g., the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification.
I used to listen to your music, Steve, back in my Evangelical Protestant days, before I realized that my Protestant Bible teachers were wrong about the Bible and the Catholic Church is right. My wife met you back in her college days, when she was involved in Love in Action. There’s a photo of you somewhere in our house. I can think of a song or two of yours I still like. It makes me sad that your witness is marred by ignorance and hostility to the Body of Christ subsisting in the Catholic Church.
Mr Camp,
I am afraid that you are misunderstanding what went on.
Dr. Beckwith understood that he was there to share his story…not for a debate.
Greg did not give him the chance to respond many times//
It was not an apologetics show….it was not his purpose then and he did not have the time in all cases to respond–only short snipits.
By the way “Romanism” is an anti-catholic slur — please use better language…
To be consistent you could use “Catholic Biblical Christianity” if you like –for that is at least true and a nicer way to address your brothers in Christ.
Kevin
As many seemed to have alluded to already, it seemed more like an “ambush” rather than the planned interview Dr. Beckwith was originally expecting.
Steve Camp writes, âThis interview was terribly embarrassing for Dr. Beckwith. It was painful listening to him stutter about what he believes. He couldn’t answer the most basic of questions from the Word of God about his beliefs and reversion to Romeâ Campâs words are flat out false. Dr. Beckwith did very well in the interview. Since Beckwith is a new Catholic he was hesitant, but Beckwith arguments were better than Kouklâs. Beckwithâs arguments were powerful, convincing, filled with history and profound insight. Beckwithâs hesitant speaking is not a major problem. Dr. Beckwith is doing great things to bring Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy together in very important ways. Steve Camp is flat out incorrect about this. Beckwith is just beginning to great things. The Koukl Interview is the start of those great things. Steve should read some more books on apologetics. If he reads some Norman Geisler, he might learn that his views are embarrassingly incorrect. It is sad that people have to listen to Campâs embarrassing and incorrect views. Try refuting secular humanism, Steve. You would be doing something beneficial. I will pray for you.
In Him,
Kyl
Tim J – Bravo!
(That’s as far as I’ve read so far, just wanted to make sure I didn’t forget to say that.)
FYI, y’all, Frank Beckwith is scheduled to be on Catholic Answers Live September 5th.
Tune in or download!
Steve,
I want to be fair, but…
You write:
“If one is going to defect from Protestant Biblical Christianity to Romanism, one should know why and biblically give an account for such actions… That is reasonable expectation don’t you think?”
The way you posed this question betrays the obvious fact that you think a “biblical account” of such a “defection” from “Protestant ***biblical Christianity***” to “Romanism” is (by definition, it seems) impossible.
It just seems a bit disingenuous to me, but… I am open to correction.
Cearnaigh
My perception is that Koukl is doing what his listener’s would expect him to do – prove Beckwith and in turn, Catholicism, wrong. But, Beckwith was very charitable in trying to make sure that he was not necessarily trying to prove Koukl wrong, but rather defend his belief as rational and Biblical. So, with two different goals there is undoubtedly going to be some friction.
I also believe both were more apt to take a few liberties, because they are friends and sincerely desire to speak the truth to one another. Think of it as listening in to a conversation between two friends who are having some disagreements. They are both attempting to be charitable, but sometimes it comes across a little harsher than they intend.
Jimmy Akin wrote: “he threw multiple verses at Frank without letting him have a proper chance to respond”
What do you mean when you say that Greg didn’t let Frank have a proper chance to respond? What did Greg do to interfere with Frank’s ability to respond? Did he interrupt? Did he change topics without letting Frank respond to something?
I was my understanding that Frank wasn’t prepared to answer some of the questions/arguments. And I understand that was somewhat due to the misunderstanding between the two about the nature of the interview–he wasn’t expecting it. OK. But as far as I could see, Greg didn’t cut short any of his answers.
The host was consistently interrupting Dr. Beckwith. And, he was consistent in assuming the clarity of his own position while neglecting the fact that Dr. Beckwith assumes the same clarity for the position he holds. Dr. Beckwith was far more charitable than I would have been in a similar circumstance. I know the Bible fairly well, and if I were Beckwith, it would have devolved into a Biblical verse death-match. Winner take all. However, I admire Dr. Beckwith for avoiding that type of non-productive conversation – no matter how often the host wished to overwhelm him with the “clear” scripture.
Since Dr. Beckwith is a philosopher, why would he even be expected to rely on sola scriptura?
FYI, y’all, Frank Beckwith is scheduled to be on Catholic Answers Live September 5th.
Hopefully, Jimmy Akin will be conducting the interview.
Tim J – Bravo!
Is this surprising?
Actually, I enjoyed SDG’s response as well; although, I have noticed that SDG has become rather eloquent in his latest comments on the blog.
Still waiting for his post though on his special Washington D.C. visit…
Steve camp,
What truely ius embarrassing is your music.
Esau: When was I not eloquent? đ
Eric: Do not return evil for evil, but overcome evil with good. Just a thought.
I noticed that Steve Camp signed his post “Sole Fide”, a doctrine which is specifically condemned in the Bible (James 2:24). Ah, the irony!
Let me see if I understand the Catholic’s position on this…
The former president of the ETS, a man with doctorates and masters degrees is going on a Protestant apologetics program called “STANDS TO REASON” with an apologist and yet the Protestant is wrong for expecting the man to have his facts straight regarding Catholic doctrine and the reasons for his conversion?
As for Steve’s sign-off message, Protestants do not deny what James 2:24 states, in the context of the rest of James and the rest of Scripture. Unless of course context is unimportant…
Steve Camp,
As others have asked here, be at least polite in your rhetoric. Why use the offensive term “Romanism?” It is like using the n-word in front of an African American. It is a slur.
In the interview (as I posted previously) Koukl said that he left the Church when he became a “follower of Jesus.” This implies that Catholics are not followers of Jesus. Such rhetoric is unfortunate and leads to anger and hatred. I could call all protestants “heretics” but what good would that do? It seems to me that honest rational discourse starts when we accept that the other party is seeking truth and refuse to call them names even when we disagree vehemently with their beliefs.
Glad to hear you don’t believe in Sola Fide.
The former president of the ETS, a man with doctorates and masters degrees is going on a Protestant apologetics program called “STANDS TO REASON” with an apologist and yet the Protestant is wrong for expecting the man to have his facts straight regarding Catholic doctrine and the reasons for his conversion?
M Burke:
People convert to Catholicism for a whole variety of reasons.
You cannot assume that just because Dr. Beckwith was not able to come up with a verse-by-verse defense for his conversion doesn’t make it any less meaningful or valid.
Also, just because he may not have been unable to recite such verses at that moment where he may have felt undue pressure does not actually prove that such verses are, in fact, non-existent.
For example, have an avid apologist like Tim Staples up there, and you’ll have a guy that will practically “machine-gun” biblical verses to you by the magazine!
To reiterate, people convert to Catholicism by taking different roads and through various means.
This may or may not include a verse-by-verse scriptural examination of Catholicism; although, I, myself, do know of those who have and, by so doing, converted to Catholicism.
If you haven’t looked at the thread on “When Did We Get the Bible?” at http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=blog_iframe you are missing something. James White has taken the occasion to stalk Francis Beckwith – with elbows flying he takes shots at everyone from ; he manages to question the integrity of everyone from Tim Staples to James Akin and Karl Keating. Francis shows, however, that he can dish it out as well and he manages to ensnare Mr. White quite artfully.
I’m still hoping to see one of the heavy hitters make a full reply to the jerk from CNN, Nobody Martin, who insulted the Holy Father …
Rick: “Koukl said that he left the Church when he became a “follower of Jesus.” This implies that Catholics are not followers of Jesus.”
Actually, even as you paraphrase his comment, it does not imply what you say. It implies that it is possible to be a Catholic but not a follower of Jesus–and I would be surprised if you had a problem with that proposition. And in the context of the rest of Greg’s comments, it implies that he has significant problems with the gospel as taught by the Roman Catholic Church. (But he argues that explicitly.)
However, I believe you’re mischaracterizing what he said. I can’t check the sound file at the moment to be sure, but IIRC, he was raised Roman Catholic, left the church, spent time as an atheist, and then later became a follower of Jesus.
Even those who do convert based on the early church fathers or on a “verse-by verse scriptural examination of Catholicism” may not be able to pull citations out of their hat. The conversion process takes so much time, and covers so much ground, that the individual is more likely to remember big moments (discovering bishops in the ancient Church, seeing the Euchurist in scripture, etc…) then he will specific verses.
I am a little surprised, however, that a Catholic – to high level Protestant – then back to Catholic would not have a strong “biblical” defense of Catholicism at the ready. After all, the typical Catholic to Protestant conversion is mainly based on scripture (i.e. where is that in the Bible?). One would think that the correction of those misunderstands played a very significant, and thus, rememberable role in his conversion back to Catholicism.
Correction: One would think that the correction of those misunderstand[ings regarding scripture] played a very significant, and thus, rememberable role in his conversion back to Catholicism.
cramped and artificial Protestant Sola Scriptura viewpoint.
You forgot the most important issue: the Protestant Sola Scriptura viewpoint is not only cramped and artificial, it is unbiblical.
Charley:
I can see from where you’re coming from why you might harbor such an opinion.
But based on the many conversions I’ve heard of and even witnessed, each convert’s journey to the Catholic Faith is rather unique even though there may be some common variables that may link their conversions along the way.
For example, if you watch “The Journey Home”, you’ll find there are those converts that are far more adept at handling scripture-based questions from the audience than others regarding the Conversion to the Faith.
Although, I gotta admit, your quandary concerning Dr. Beckwith may well indeed be a valid one; yet, it doesn’t erase the fact that his conversion is nonetheless valid and, to him, a journey so meaningful that he actually did convert to Catholicism.
Boy…
I think James White is going to blow a gasket in a fit of furry!!!
Is funny how Dr. B was smart enough to be elected president of the ETS, since he became Catholic…well he is just a philosopher he is not really a theologian…I wander how many scholarly papers Mr White had ever published by refereed theological publications (I’m talking about serious publications not mom and pop magazines like CRI’s)
I particularly like this quote from a fellow “Christian”
“I could never call a man a “friend” who was leading others to trust in a false hope, leading others away from the truth in Christ. Pretending to confess the truth of the gospel, and then denying that confession, has lasting results.”
I guess that to him the only good Catholics are, converted Catholics…or perhaps dead ones…
Servetus
“defected to Romanism” as you put it (is it really necessary to use such offensive terms?)
How about “popery”? đ
I think the best characterization of the interview comes from Dr. Beckwith himself:
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/08/when-did-we-get.html
“I do want to thank Greg and Melinda for having me on as a guest. I will confess that my performance was less than stellar, largely because I was prepared for one sort of interview and received another. That is not Greg’s or Melinda’s fault. They both are good souls with pure motives, and I love them very much. It is my fault. For I had traveled quite a distance in the past several years, from Protestantism to Catholicism, not realizing that some of my friends were not on the same journey. So, for me, what seemed like a small trek in late April was the conclusion of a spiritual jog that had begun, inadvertently, many years prior. Thus, I saw my friends as only an arms length away, when in fact the distance was greater. And yet, we are so close; so close in fact that we can bridge the distance by our mutual affection and love for Christ, something that theological disputation may not ever be able to bridge this side of heaven.
God bless Stand To Reason.”
Tim,
You are correct… it is a logical possibility. But fundamentalist Protestants use that kind of rhetoric all the time to imply that Catholics are not Christians. (I know many Protestants who are not followers of Christ either. But I would not tell someone: “After I left the Baptist ‘church’ at the age of 16, I became a follower of Christ.” To say such a thing would imply that the Baptists are not Christians.) In addition, Koukl kept refering to the “Roman Catholic Church” instead of the Catholic Church (a more accurate term). It seemed that his presentation was tinged with stereotypical evangelical slurs.
Tim, I admit, I may be wrong on this. I have a distinct aversion to evangelicals. My father was one. He converted to Catholicism and his family promptly disowned him….I have personal baggage here.
I’ve liked Greg’s work very much. I’m about to listen to this right away. Jimmy – you take Greg for a two hour interview to CA Live! Really! What would you say? đ
To be fair, I think Beckwith could have done better. In fact, I think he could have done quite a bit better. He could have talked about how the question isnât imputation per se, but the ground of imputation. Or he could have called Greg on some of his obvious goofs, not the least of which was implying that sola fide implies that no future repentance is necessary. Greg seriously misrepresented the Reformation tradition on that score. Beckwith could have simply said that since Purgatory is the application of the grace of Christ it in no way detracts from Christ as the first and primary ground of our salvation. He could have also stated that while it may be a theological development, so too by the same token in sola fide since that doctrine depended on late medieval scholastic Nominalism as a necessary precondition. This is why the notion of faith as the formal cause of justification doesnât appear until that period. Or he could have spoken about say 2nd Pet 2:1 and other apostasy passages that prima facia indicate that redemption and grace was for some who are lost. I mean Gregâs reading of James 2 was weak. Works canât be the evidence of a genuine faith, (Paul indicates that one can have genuine faith without love (1 Cor 13) since the analogy is soul:body, works:faith-just as the soul makes faith alive, so too works make faith alive. Greg had the causal relation backwards.
I mean really Mr. Camp, do you understand the philosophical Nominalism that grounds the notion of imputation? Do you know what a formal cause is? Do you recognize your own pre-lapsarian anthropology as Pelagian for taking righteousness to be intrinsic to nature? I doubt it. And, are we going to hold most Protestant converts to the same standard? Do most people who leave Rome really grasp the reasons for doing so? No, not really. Koukl was at the brilliant age of 16 when he left. Did he investigate Roman theology? I mean have you spent any serious time in Augustine or Aquinas or Scotus? Donât think I am some Romaphile. I am Orthodox and I have my own beef with Rome but I have a hard time thinking you meet your own standards.
I read with interest the comments by “Steve” who said that Beckwith could not speak Biblically. I did not hear the interview, but I am sure that is just another attempt to make him look bad for returning to Rome. I can tell Steve that I can defend my decision to convert to Catholicism from the Bible. I would welcome his email. The Bible supports the Catholic Church. You just have to read it, which a lot of those who dislike the Catholic Church do not do. Steve?
I got the impression that Dr. Beckwith didn’t want to (and as he mentioned, wasn’t prepared to) have to say explicitly that Catholics and Evangelicals disagree on specific issues. That’s completely understandable, but it made the interview a little confusing. I’m sure that has to be chalked up to the miscommunication about the format.
I’m not sure Steve Camp even listened to the whole interview. Beckwith may have started off a little slow, but the discussion picked up near the end and Beckwith did just fine overall.
To see what kind of arguments Koukl has against Catholicism, see his two statements from his recent 06-17-2007 show:
“There was no Roman Catholic Church until about 350 AD” and “Just read the Book of Acts” and “Any follower of Jesus Christ (evangelicals) can easily claim those first 400 years as their spiritual forebear.” Hello?
Bishops, a ministerial priesthood, apostolic succession, infant baptism and baptismal regeneration, Eucharist Real Presence and sacrifice, penance and confession and sacraments, Theotokos and explicit Mariology, prayers for the dead, prayers with/to the saints, a visible, hierarchical, one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church centered with a primacy in Rome all shows up clearly in the first 400 years. Koukl needs to read more than J.P. Moreland. JND Kelly Early Christian Doctrines would be a start.
Phil P
PhilVaz,
Thanks for your insightful comment, PhilVaz. You gave great information and you seem to be very informed on the issues of contempory apologetics. Although I havenât looked very closely at the webpage that appears to be yours, Iâm going to look at it more. The aforementioned page seems to be a great compilation of the very best apologetic work. I was doing volunteer work for apollos.ws and I found that gigantic collection of William Lane Craig debates on what seems to be your page. I had apollos.ws link the debates and there are now many, many more people that are able to listen/look to one of the finest Christian apologists in the world debate (William Lane Craig). You seem to do an outstanding job teaching the general apologetics of people like William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Francis Beckwith, Gary Habermas, Scott Rae, Alvin Plantinga, Scott Rae, etc. You seem to be an articulate Catholic apologist.
In Him,
Kyl
Hi guys,
Have any of you seen this http://www.bereanbeacon.org/? Any discussion on this site here that you can point me to?
Thanks for the comments Kyl. I really should ask permission when I find these MP3’s on the web, but apparently William Lane Craig doesn’t mind since his webmaster (www.WilliamLaneCraig.com) took my version of some of his debates which I ripped from Real Audio/Video files and put them on his own media page. So yeah, I only put up the best. I would even put up some James White debates but they won’t let me. đ
You can hear the calls to Koukl I am talking about leading up to the Beckwith interview on my audio page.
Phil P
Phil P,
Frank Beckwith interviewed by Greg Koukl on “Stand to Reason” 2007 MP3 (see http://www.STR.org) Is that the one you are talking about? What calls? Who is in the call you are talking about?
Kyl
“Is that the one you are talking about? What calls? Who is in the call you are talking about?”
I added 3 calls from Koukl’s previous shows. (1) A call from a lady asking about Beckwith and talking about “bowing down to idols”; (2) a call asking Koukl how he responds to “We were here first” referring to Catholics, Koukl’s response was “Just read the book of Acts” and “the first Church was in Jerusalem not Rome” and the absolute zinger “the Roman Catholic Church didn’t exist until long after 350 AD”; (3) another call asking about Beckwith’s conversion.
Call (1) was from the Koukl program in early May 2007 shortly after Beckwith’s initial blog post on his reversion, Call (2) and (3) from the 6/17/2007 Koukl program I mentioned. Then I include the interview from Aug 2007.
So I strung together these calls, then added the Beckwith Interview on my audio page as one MP3. I lowered the quality but might improve it.
Phil P
I hear ya’ Steve. Listening to the program I agree, it seems Beckwith was thoroughly unprepared to handle this type of an interview. If the folks here would just “listen” without the bias, I’m sure they would see the obvious. Hey, on another note, this may seem a little cryptic to others: I loved the compilation I purchased about 10 years ago, but the powers that be didn’t include “Only the Very Best.” Needless to say, I was bummed.
Sola Fide,
CM
After reading the comments posted on the Stand To Reason blog and listening to the 2 hr show, I have to say that I am incredibly impressed by Frank’s humility. Itâs clear that he has a deep and thoughtful faith.
If Churchmouse would just read the comments here before accusing others of “bias”, I’m sure he would have seen the obvious, and not embarassed himself by signing off with “Sola Fide”.
“…it seems Beckwith was thoroughly unprepared to handle this type of interview.”
As has been pointed out above, Beckwith had been led to believe that the interview was going to be of a different type.
Reading, again.
Beckwith had been led to believe that the interview was going to be of a different type.
“Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season” and “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”
And your point is?
Jimmy:
Thanks for the dialogue here.
To begin, one personal question for you: are you into country music? Living in Nashville I have several friends in the CMA; and I only mention that because your picture here looks like you’re trying to shop for a country record deal? The Catholic Cowboy? Jimmy A and The Papal Review? Benny and the Tetz? First single: My Akin, Breakinâ Heart? Just curious. :-).
Biblical Christianity is not commiserate with Romanism (that is not a slur, but an accurate label). When Rome denies the sufficiency of Christ’s once for all propitiatory sacrifice; imputed righteousness; justification by faith alone; the veracity and absolute authority of the Word of God, etc. and has not repudiated additions to the Scriptures or the gospel by asserting the false doctrines of: The Fifth Marian Dogma, the Mass; the Treasury of Merit, Purgatory, the sacrament of penance, prayers to the dead, the Immaculate Conception, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, etc., then your theological claim to being orthodox and consistent with biblical Christianity is false and will in fact sound like a bad country song.
Tradition over truth… easy to understand, but damnable to its listeners (Matt. 15:6-9).
I will give Benedict his props though, is he unashamedly Romanist and consistent with the heretical convictions of Tridentine doctrine. The Pope understands we are not the same. He even understands we can’t be a part of the same church. He, unlike others, actually drew some lines in the sand and I for one appreciate it. Though he preaches a false gospel; pastors a false church; and occupies a false office – at least he’s forthright about it and is not the politician John Paul was.
Romanism is not Pelagian; but clearly semi-Pelagian: grace + merit; faith + works; Christ + Rome. “Bend it Like Beckwith” clearly demonstrated that in his interview–though not articulate on explaining either Roman doctrine or biblical truth (because he is more philosopher than theologian) he stumbled his way through. And yes, I listened to it all… twice.
When Rome so prostitutes the gospel of grace by faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, I would think that many of you here would investigate that perversion. This is seriousâweâre talking about the gospel and your eternal salvation (Gal. 1:6-9; Roms. 3:21-26).
This discussion is simple and here is my challenge to you: define how a Romanist can have peace with God? (using Scritpure alone); define the gospel (using Scripture alone); what does it mean to be saved and what must someone do to be saved (using the Scripture alone); and then defend your doctrines (i.e. The Fifth Marian Dogma; purgatory; the Mass; penance; the Treasury of Merit; etc.) (using Scripture alone).
âEggs Benedictâ has made his claims and still upholds Trent—but go to the Word of God and examine carefully Rome’s convictions. I say this not condescendingly, but in my dialogue with Romanists, I find that most have never done so or even bothered to read Trent, VI or VII or the 1994 Catechism. I.e.: The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church declares: “It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.” (Pg. 29, #95)
It is a sincere request.
Jimmy–country music awaits you.
Frank Beckwith come across as a man of faith and I can tell he is a humble person. Unlike James White and Steve Camp who are captive to their reformed tradition of catholic bashing, Beckwith is a true gentleman. Now this White chracter is going to focus his hated on Beckwith.
“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”
Beckwith was indeed prepared to give the reason for his hope–that is, share his narrative and thought processes. Koukl did not allow him to do so, even though he had invited Beckwith to be on the show to do precisely that. That’s what we call “bait and switch,” which means that Koukl did not obey the second half of the verse you failed to publish above: “But do this with gentleness and respect.”
Jesus founded a Church. He did not write a book.
Here’s another serious request: Learn what the Catholic Church (not the Roman Catholic Church, as the Roman Catholic Church is one of 22 Churches that make up the Catholic Church) actually teaches, instead of condemning the Straw Man Church you have been taught to call “The Roman Catholic Church”.
“Romanism” IS a slur. As has been pointed out above, it is the equivalent of certain racial slurs.
Beckwith was indeed prepared to give the reason for his hope… Koukl did not obey the second half of the verse you failed to publish above: “But do this with gentleness and respect.”
According to Beckwith, “I will confess that my performance was less than stellar, largely because I was prepared for one sort of interview and received another. That is not Greg’s or Melinda’s fault. They both are good souls with pure motives, and I love them very much. It is my fault.”
“Rome denies”:
1)”the sufficiency of Christ’s once for all propitiary sacrifice”. We don’t.
2)”imputed righteousless”. Correct. We are made truly righteous, not just given a paint job.
3)”justification by faith alone”. Correct. To repeat my above comment to your post of yesterday: The Bible specifically condemns the dictrine of Sola Fide(James 2:24)
4)”the veracity and absolute authority of the Word of God”(by which, I assume you mean the Bible). We do accept the veracity of sacred scripture. It was our Pope and bishops, acting on their Christ-given authority, who determined which books belonged in the Bible and which didn’t.
I’ll let others correct the rest of your errors.
Jesus Christ will never satisfy the hearts and minds of those He hasn’t saved.
Jesus Christ will never satisfy the hearts and minds of those He hasn’t saved.
That certainly explains why it was actually the Catholic Church that actually put the Bible together by selecting the books that were to form its New Testament Canon (which Protestants to this day still accept — ironically enough) and it was also the Catholic Church that practically spread Christianity throughout the world since the very beginning!
Perhaps you and Steve Camp should start reading this wonderful book called the Bible — in its ENTIRETY, rather than nit-picking verses without understanding their actual context!
Dude, what a trip! The Steve Camp in a Jimmy Akin comment box. Looks like the countdown to the apocalypse is on.
Stevie baby. First, step back and take a breath. Now. Probably half of the people in this thread became Catholic from a Protestant background, by coming to the conclusion that Romanism was eminently more biblical than whatever flavor of Protestantism they had subscribed to.
You list about a million things we are supposed to respond to prove ourselves legit. I will choose one almost at random:
Rome denies the sufficiency of Christ’s once for all propitiatory sacrifice
Actually, not only does the Great Harlot affirm the sufficiency of the sacrifice, she also affirms its “superabundance” (cf. CCC 411).
You’ve got your panties in such a wad that you can’t even see the positions your enemy is holding.
And another, because this is one of my faves:
Romanism is not Pelagian; but clearly semi-Pelagian: grace + merit; faith + works; Christ + Rome.
Romanism is not SP. Here’s how I know. Because it was Romanism that done condemned it. Now, stay with me here. SP is not grace + merit and faith + works. The very council that condemned SP (2nd Orange) affirms both merit and the necessity of works for salvation. SP denied the necessity of grace, period. Which Romanism does not do.
I will say, however, that your candor is refreshing.
Matt, you are right. Dr. Beckwith is scheduled to be on “The Journey Home” Sept 24. 2007.
what must someone do to be saved
In response to the grace of Jesus Christ:
1) Repent (Acts 2:38)
2) Turn in faith to Jesus Christ (Romans 3:28)
3) Be baptized (1 Peter 3:21; Acts 22:16)
4) Work out your salvation (Phil 2:12) with the works God has prepared beforehand (Eph 2:10)
Under part 4, several things could be said:
4a) Receive the bread of life (John 6:53)
4b) If we sin, confess them (1 John 1:9)
4c) If we sin mortally (1 John 5:16), confess them to the successors of the apostles (John 20:23)
4d) Do justifying good works (James 2:24)
4e) Help those in need (Matthew 25:32-46)
4f) Keep the commandments (John 14:15)
4g) Etc
Steps 1 and 2 may be inverted. Steps 4a through 4f may vary depending on the individual.
But I am sure I have completely misinterpreted those verses. Right?
One other thing: Why is it that someone like Beckwith is but a footnote amongst the Catholics (he may have been cited or alluded to in some Catholic publication or whatnot, the majority of Catholics completely oblivious as to who he is), but the moment someone of his stature reverts, all of a sudden, everyone knows who he is, he’s a great, humble guy, and an astute scholar and everyone has something to say about him. I just don’t get it???
Churchmouse:
Do you read anything Catholic?
If you did, you would certainly see how Catholic Theologians, such as even Cardinal Ratzinger himself, refers to the works of various Protestant biblical scholars in his own works.
Of course, I doubt that you actually read such products of the Harlot of Babylon, or whatever else the Catholic Church is (has been) called.
“Jesus Christ will never satisfy the hearts and minds of those He hasn’t saved.”
I’m sorry, I can’t find that verse in my Bible. Can you help me out? I’m just an ignorant Catholic.
While you’re at it , please find me the verse that states the Bible is the “absolute authority”, or even what the Bible IS.
Similarly, I can’t find the passages that give the Four Spiritual Laws and the Sinner’s Prayer. Boy, am I embarressed…
Sorry… “embarrassed”.
“How embarraskin!”
Guess I fergot to eats me spinach… Ugg-ugg-ugg-ugg…!
Yep, pretty much.
Simple Sinner:
âJustification cannot come through the law (see Gal. 2:21; Acts 13:38-39). Each of us-every single human being (see Rom. 3:10-12, 19-20)-has failed to do what God’s law requires of us (Gal. 3:10; 6:13; cf. James 2:10). But to understand what God requires, we must see what Christ provides. In his mercy, God has provided his Son as a twofold substitute for us. Both facets of Christ’s substitution are crucial for our becoming right with God. These facets are grounded in the twin facts that (1) we have failed to keep God’s law perfectly, and so we should die; but (2) Jesus did not failâhe alone has kept God’s law perfectly (see Heb. 4:15) âand so he should not have died. Yet in his mercy God has provided in Christ a great substitutionâa “blessed exchange”âaccording to which Jesus can stand in for us with God, offering his perfect righteousness in place of our failure and his own life’s blood in place of ours. When we receive the mercy God offers us in Christ by faith (see Acts 16:31; 1 Tim. 1:15-16; 1 Pet. 1:8-9), his perfection is imputedâor credited or reckonedâto us and our sinful failure is imputedâor credited or reckonedâto him. And thus Jesus’ undeserved death pays for our sin (see Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:5-6; Rev. 5:9); and God’s demand for us to be perfectly righteous is satisfied by the imputation or crediting of Christ’s perfect righteousness to us. “If justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose” (Gal. 2:21). But “God has done what the law … could not do” (Rom. 8:3)
Have a happy.
“Jesus Christ will never satisfy the hearts and minds of those He hasn’t saved.”
I’m sorry, I can’t find that verse in my Bible. Can you help me out? I’m just an ignorant Catholic.
While you’re at it , please find me the verse that states the Bible is the “absolute authority”, or even what the Bible IS.
Similarly, I can’t find the passages that give the Four Spiritual Laws and the Sinner’s Prayer. Boy, am I embarressed…
Posted by: Tim J. | Aug 8, 2007 10:33:16 AM
As usual, Tim J. nails it!
And your point is?
Posted by: bill912 | Aug 8, 2007 7:28:06 AM
I think the point is you’re evading whether Beckwith was thoroughly unprepared for an interview, or thoroughly unable to explain why he reconverted. Are you able to articulate any standards by which you would judge between the two situations, or are you just determine to engage in spin doctoring no matter what the truth is?
I don’t think that was his point. He didn’t mention me, or evasion, or spin doctoring.
Churchmouse:
Do you read anything Catholic?
Sure did, do, and done, considering I was a Catholic for the first 24 years of my life. I still keep up with the changing face of the Church.
If you did, you would certainly see how Catholic Theologians, such as even Cardinal Ratzinger himself, refers to the works of various Protestant biblical scholars in his own works.
I have no way of knowing if Ratzinger ever referenced Beckwith or even if he knows who Beckwith is. I heard the guy was infallible in matters of faith and morals, I just didn’t know that omniscience came with the territory đ Anyway, the point I was making is directly regarding those on forums/boards such as these. Do I believe that the Catholics here were familiar with Beckwith prior to his reversion. Uhuh.
Of course, I doubt that you actually read such products of the Harlot of Babylon, or whatever else the Catholic Church is (has been) called.
oooh…you must be one of those guys who thinks every non-Catholic responder harbors Chick-ian traits. Rest assured. I read quite a bit of stuff, Catholic and Protestant, and have never associated Rome with the “Harlot.” You shouldn’t be so “hair-triggered.”
oooh…you must be one of those guys who thinks every non-Catholic responder harbors Chick-ian traits.
Not really — just getting a feel for who you are.
If that were actually the case, I would hardly spend my time reading Protestant commentaries and such.
I have no way of knowing if Ratzinger ever referenced Beckwith or even if he knows who Beckwith is. I heard the guy was infallible in matters of faith and morals, I just didn’t know that omniscience came with the territory đ
Not Beckwith per se, but he has referrenced certain Protestant bibilical scholars in his works.
Now, if you find fault with him not having referrenced Beckwith specifically in his work, then you are expecting him to be omniscient in some way that he knows everybody and anyone in the Protestant world.
âJustification cannot come through the law…etc, etc
Angelz,
I presume you were answering my post, seen as Simple Sinner never said anything related to your post, and his one post was above mine. A Catholic would be able to agree with most of what you said, with a couple of caveats.
Caveat 1) is Catholics understand baptism to actually effect our justification (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Rom 6:3, Gal 3:27, 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21 etc), repentance and faith being preparations for the actual justification.*
Caveat 2) is that not only are we reckoned righteous, but Catholics understand us to have actually been “made righteous” (Rom 5:19). The declarative word is actually effective.
As for the rest, preach on.
* And yet Paul says we are justified by faith, right? But Catholics would understand him, in this case, not to be laying out a stick diagram of how to “get saved”, but rather to be emphasing the necessity of Christ over and against the Mosaic Law. Which happened to be a big deal back in his day.
Obviously, Beckwith’s conversion makes some people uncomfortable and they would rather not see it being discussed.
Not really — just getting a feel for who you are.
Huh. I don’t get it. You get a “feel” for folks by assuming things about them???
If that were actually the case, I would hardly spend my time reading Protestant commentaries and such.
What does this have to do with anything?
Not Beckwith per se, but he has referrenced certain Protestant bibilical scholars in his works.
But considering the theme of this blogpost is Beckwith, how is this relevant to anything I said. Again, I am talking about Catholics in forums/boards such as this one.
Now, if you find fault with him not having referrenced Beckwith specifically in his work, then you are expecting him to be omniscient in some way that he knows everybody and anyone in the Protestant world.
You’re losing me fast, Esau. YOU were the one who brought up Ratzinger, remember. I don’t know how any of this is relevant to the thread. My remarks were tongue-in-cheek considering you brought up Ratzinger and, again, considering this is about Beckwith, you strayed off-theme. You surely didn’t counteract anything I said. It’s true. The Catholics who comment such as this one, more than likely, never heard of Beckwith prior to his reversion, but now he is the bomb-diggety who everyone knows.
I am so sad to hear Steve Camp acting like such an ass. (Can I use that word Jimmy?) The problem with folks like Steve Camp is that they never listen to the answer to their accusations. They have no idea whether or not someone might have something to teach them – they sit back arrogantly content to mock what they do not understand.
My honey is not like this (SDG) This is something I love about him – even as a Protestant, he was never satisfied with the pat Protestant accusations. He was a seeker and a lover of truth. He did not name-call. He took people seriously. He respected them. He listened to their answers. He remains this way. So does Jimmy. Both of them could clobber their theological opponents with 3/4 of their brain behind their backs. But they are filled with charity, because they love Truth more than they love looking like they are clever.
Steve Camp can make fun of Catholics all he likes, but he does not have the courage to listen with any degree of intellectual humility. It makes me sad.
The Catholics who comment such as this one, more than likely, never heard of Beckwith prior to his reversion, but now he is the bomb-diggety who everyone knows.
In other words, you’re expecting Catholics to be “omniscient” in the manner you had already alluded to previously in that they’re expected to know everybody that is anyone in the Protestant world?
Do you know everybody that’s anybody in the Catholic world?
Huh. I don’t get it. You get a “feel” for folks by assuming things about them???
No — I get a “feel” by how they respond.
One other thing: Why is it that someone like Beckwith is but a footnote amongst the Catholics (he may have been cited or alluded to in some Catholic publication or whatnot, the majority of Catholics completely oblivious as to who he is), but the moment someone of his stature reverts, all of a sudden, everyone knows who he is, he’s a great, humble guy, and an astute scholar and everyone has something to say about him. I just don’t get it???
I think I read that Mr. Beckwith was known in the pro-life community, which contains many Catholics. I think the reason his conversion has been so big in Catholic circles is because the ETS made such a big deal out if it. The only reason everyday Catholics heard about it was because of the din Protestants were making.
So my question in return is: Why is it that someone like Beckwith is but a footnote amongst the Protestants (he may have been cited or alluded to in some ETS publication or whatnot, the majority of Protestants completely are oblivious as to who he is), but the moment someone of his stature reverts, all of a sudden, everyone knows who he is, he’s a lost, disoriented guy, and a misguided scholar and everyone has something to say about him. I just don’t get it???
Forget it, Esau. You evidently didn’t get what I originally said and now are confusing it. It’s all gone pass you.
Sola Fide,
CM
Speaking of not getting what was said, he did it again.
Sola Fide, bill912, Sola Fide! ;^)
So my question in return is: Why is it that someone like Beckwith is but a footnote amongst the Protestants (he may have been cited or alluded to in some ETS publication or whatnot, the majority of Protestants completely are oblivious as to who he is), but the moment someone of his stature reverts, all of a sudden, everyone knows who he is, he’s a lost, disoriented guy, and a misguided scholar and everyone has something to say about him. I just don’t get it???
Brian, I don’t think you’re parsing it correctly. Beckwith was well-known in Protestantism as the head of the ETS. He was more than a mere “footnote.” No one claims that he is a “lost” and “disoriented” guy. So your quest to make a parallel, falters badly. Again, it is forums such as these which culture a type of behavior where one exults over a reversion without any idea of who just reverted. It just provides a medium to jump on the bandwagon. One can see what I mean just by reading the quality of the posts here.
Sola Fide,
CM
Yes, Sola Fide, Bill, Sola Fide. I don’t see what you’re making a big deal about. Might I can suggest that you quit being so tedious.
Sola Fide,
CM
Beckwith was well-known in Protestantism as the head of the ETS.
How many Protestants knew what the ETS was before Beckwith converted? Half? A quarter? A fifth? I’m married to one, I don’t know anyone in her whole family (coming from varying denominations) who knows what the ETS is.
“I don’t see what you’re making a big deal about.”
Obviously.
Brian, that is a false comparison. Your wife isn’t indicative of the recognition of who is who in Protestant circles. Those who are very familiar within Protestant circles are familiar with Beckwith. On the other hand, those familiar with all things Catholic aren’t. Anyway, considering that my point was directed to those “bandwagon” jumpers on boards such as this one, the point remains.
Sola Fide,
CM
And what about the tediousness of your posts, Bill. I guess they are just as obvious.
Sola Fide!
CM
I will say this so far… you Catholics are extremely fun. I’m having a great time with you. Some of your retorts here are priceless–thanks for passing me through the “gauntlet of Akin” – giving me a right of passage here by anointing my participation on this blog with your humor, criticisms and candor. I am honored.
But there is no need for anyone to get their rosary in a knot over this…
One clarifying paragraph and a few statements from Trent that unquestionably flies in the face of sound biblical doctrine.
THE PARAGRAPH: The Council of Trent was a Catholic council held from 1545-1563 in an attempt to destroy the progress of the Protestant Reformation. Trent hurled 125 anathemas (eternal damnation) against Bible-believing Christians. These proclamations and anathemas were fleshed out in the murderous persecutions vented upon Bible-believing Christians by Rome, and the solemn fact is that the Council of Trent has never been annulled. The Vatican II Council of the mid-1960s referred to Trent dozens of times, quoted Trent’s proclamations as authority, and reaffirmed Trent on every hand. The New Catholic Catechism (1994) cites Trent no less than 99 times. There is not the slightest hint that the proclamations of the Council of Trent have been abrogated by Rome. At the opening of the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII stated, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent.” Every cardinal, bishop and priest who participated in the Vatican II Council signed a document affirming Trent.â
With that said, I offer the following for your scrutiny, examination, discernment, and biblical analysis:
TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS:
“If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 3).
Scripture says:
“whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed” -Romans 3:25
“Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” -Hebrews 2:17
“and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” -1 John 2:2
“In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” -1 John 4:10
What say ye followers of Rome, Popes, Cardinals and Bishops?
Campius Stephanus
2 Cor. 4:5-7
There are Protestants and there are Protestants. People virtually unknown in some circles are very famous in others.
In any case, any conversion to Catholicism is noteworthy, all the more so when it is a leader of some non-Catholic group. Whether most Catholics were aware of this man beforehand or not (and of course most Catholics still havn’t heard of him or his reversion) when they hear that a prominant Protestant leader has converted or reverted it is cause for rejoicing.
Steve Camp: You clearly are under a misimpression of what “anathema” means in ecclesiastical documents. It doesn’t remotely mean what you think it does.
GET THE STORY.
“But there is no need for anyone to get their(sic) rosary tied in a knot over this…”
He’s just dripping with Charity, isn’t he?
Steve Camp,
In what way are the scripture passages you quoted opposed to the quotation from the Council of Trent? Are you aware that we believe the Eucharistic sacrifice to be the very same all-sufficient sacrifice that Christ, the one mediator between God and Man, our High Priest, made on the Cross for the salvation of all who would accept Him?
Steve, I would say that I don’t see a contradiction. Perhaps, in your vehement dislike for the Church, you are unable to see this, but the statements of Trent and the verses you quoted are in accord. It is precisely because Catholics believe that, at the Mass, Christ is really and truly present that we believe it is a propitiatory sacrifice. Jesus is held up as the propitiation of our sins, offered to the Eternal Father. Though you do not share our belief in His Eucharistic presence, it is perfectly consistent. If Catholics believe that Jesus Christ and His sacrifice at the Crucifixion is the propitiation of our sins, and Catholics believe that at the Mass, Jesus is present and offers himself eternally to the Father, then the Mass partakes in that same propitiatory sacrifice of Christ. Simple syllogism.
Yes, Steve, the Council of Trent still stands. Thus, the canon you quoted still stands. The canon you quoted states that the sacrifice of the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. And the New Testament states that the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ is our propitiation.
1) Do you think we in this combox were unaware of this?
2) Do you think the Romish Conspiracy Plot is unaware of this?
Hint: no. We are aware. I won’t pause to answer how benighted Bible-hating Romanists actually know what the New Testament says. But will rather state that there is absolutely no contradiction between the two statements. Christ is our propitiation. Which is precisely why the Mass is propitiatory.
I note that you by-passed what everyone else said to you. Why so evasive when people actually counter your rubbish?
James White website:”Over at the STR blog, the number of comments have doubled fairly quickly. And since I linked to the blog this morning, a number of other folks have showed up, and, as normal, led by some of my regular RC Internet stalkers like David Waltz, the “you are so mean!” ad-hominem has taken over, ending the usefulness of the thread”
Interesting James White accuses people of ad-hominen then calls David Waltz one of his regular “internet stalkers”, the hypocrisy of James White is incredible but once again he is to blind to see it. If anyone looked at the STR blog you will see that Protestant and Catholic alike are aghast at James White’s treatment of Beckwith.
You know what gets me about the whole thing? To me, it pretty much looks like a buddy invited him over for some tea and a chat, and when he got there, he found out it was really supposed to be something akin to an intervention or public humiliation where they ambushed him time after time, denying him a fair chance to talk.
If he had gone in expecting a theological ambush, he would have prepared differently than what he was obviously lead to believe the conversation to be. For instance, a polite and respectful conversation.
Around my place, I have a term for that kind of behavior to your guests. It’s called being a jackass to them.
And yet, somehow, it’s Beckwith’s fault for not being ready for the ambush. No worries, I doubt he’ll be mislead again in that way. Shame you have to assume Protestants will only want to hear you talk if they can insult your feelings on Christianity whilest you must accept theirs.
That represents a miniscule number of our separated brethren. They’re just loud.
Steve Camp is to Larry Norman as Neil Diamond is to Bob Dylan.
Steve Camp is to Larry Norman as Neil Diamond is to Bob Dylan.
Ah, come on, Thomas.
I used to enjoy Mr. Diamond’s music in one point of my life when I was very, very young!
Hot August Night at the Greek!
Campi, evidently, you’ve invoked the inner Beavis and Buttheads amongst some of the posters here. And some even have the gall to talk about “charity”??? Let’s just take the high road and leave with a proverbial shaking off the dust, my brother.
Peace,
CM
Hot August Nights.
I still have the double album. Hmm, maybe it’s time to get the CD version.
Campi, evidently, you’ve invoked the inner Beavis and Buttheads amongst some of the posters here.
Interesting ad hominem
“Sola Fide”,
Pope-ry
Hot August Nights.
I still have the double album. Hmm, maybe it’s time to get the CD version.
Hey, I’ve got that album, too!!!!
(well, actually, my parents do)
“…the inner Beavis and Buttheads amongst some of the posters here. And some even have the gall to talk about ‘charity’???”
You can’t make this stuff up.
You know, these guys signing their posts with Sola Fide might be onto something. We should all pick a pet heresy to sign off with. It’s edgy.
ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 110 A.D.)
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to Romans 7:3)
Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to Philadelphians 4:1)
They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)
ST. JUSTIN THE MARTYR (c. 100 – 165 A.D.)
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.
For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology 66)
Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]…It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho 41)
ORIGEN (c. 185 – 254 A.D.)
We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread BECOMES BY PRAYER A SACRED BODY, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it. (Against Celsus 8:33)
You see how the ALTARS are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated BY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST. (Homilies on Josue 2:1)
But if that text (Lev 24:5-9) is taken to refer to the greatness of what is mystically symbolized, then there is a ‘commemoration’ which has an EFFECT OF GREAT PROPITIATORY VALUE. If you apply it to that ‘Bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world,’ that shewbread which ‘God has offered to us as a means of reconciliation, in virtue of faith, ransoming us with his blood,’ and if you look to that commemoration of which the Lord says, ‘Do this in commemoration of me,’ then you will find that this is the unique commemoration WHICH MAKES GOD PROPITIOUS TO MEN. (Homilies on Leviticus 9)
ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 200 – 258 A.D.)
He Himself warns us, saying, “UNLESS YOU EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, YOU SHALL NOT HAVE LIFE IN YOU.” Therefore do we ask that our Bread, WHICH IS CHRIST, be given to us daily, so that we who abide and live in Christ may not withdraw from His sanctification and from His Body. (The Lord’s Prayer 18)
Also in the priest Melchisedech we see THE SACRAMENT OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE LORD prefigured…The order certainly is that which comes from his [Mel’s] sacrifice and which comes down from it: because Mel was a priest of the Most High God; because he offered bread; and because he blessed Abraham. And who is more a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who, WHEN HE OFFERED SACRIFICE TO GOD THE FATHER, OFFERED THE VERY SAME WHICH MELCHISEDECH HAD OFFERED, NAMELY BREAD AND WINE, WHICH IS IN FACT HIS BODY AND BLOOD! (Letters 63:4)
If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is Himself the High Priest of God the Father; AND IF HE OFFERED HIMSELF AS A SACRIFICE TO THE FATHER; AND IF HE COMMANDED THAT THIS BE DONE IN COMMEMORATION OF HIMSELF — then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, TRULY FUNCTIONS IN PLACE OF CHRIST. (Letters 63:14)
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (c. 350 A.D.)
Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual songs, we call upon the benevolent God to send out the Holy Spirit upon the gifts which have been laid out: that He may make the bread the Body of Christ, and the wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Spirit touches, that is sanctified and changed. (23 [Mystagogic 5], 7)
Then, upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that PROPITIATORY victim we call upon God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and OFFER THIS SACRIFICE FOR ALL WHO ARE IN NEED.
Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep; for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this HOLY AND MOST SOLEMN SACRIFICE IS LAID OUT.
For I know that there are many who are saying this: ‘If a soul departs from this world with sins, what does it profit it to be remembered in the prayer?’…[we] grant a remission of their penalties…we too offer prayers to Him for those who have fallen asleep though they be sinners. We do not plait a crown, but OFFER UP CHRIST WHO HAS BEEN SACRIFICED FOR OUR SINS; AND WE THEREBY PROPITIATE THE BENEVOLENT GOD FOR THEM AS WELL AS FOR OURSELVES. (23 [Mystagogic 5], 8, 9, 10)
Oh there’s much more. You’ll find a good summary of these guys at the Council of Trent, session 13 and 22.
Phil P
“…the inner Beavis and Buttheads amongst some of the posters here. And some even have the gall to talk about ‘charity’???”
You can’t make this stuff up.
Posted by: bill912 | Aug 8, 2007 2:35:48 PM
bill912,
I guess you didn’t visit the “Stand to Reason” blog yet.
One of the commenters claimed that “the RCC is a front for the Kingdom of Satan”!
Link:
The RCC is a front for the Kingdom of Satan
If anybody is TRULY interested in knowing the Truth, they would investigate what the Catholic Church actually teaches and the fact that the Catholic Church is the ancient Church from which Christianity and even the Bible came about. It is the very Church established by Christ Himself!
They should at least visit Catholic.com at the very least to see exactly what the Catholic Church is all about if they don’t want to take the time to even read the Church’s Catechism.
Library Links:
CHURCH & PAPACY
SCRIPTURE & TRADITION
MARY & SAINTS
SACRAMENTS
Howdy Steve,
As a Bible guy (as I hope we all are), you are probably aware that several of the Bible’s passages are out of sequential order, appear to contradict each other, or are just confusing.
For example, on the issue of justification is it works:
A. James 2:24: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
vs.
B. Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
vs.
C. Matthew 7:21: âNot everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.â
vs.
C. 1 Peter 3:22: “Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
vs.
D. Matthew 19:16-17: “And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life? And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
We all interpret those passages differently, based on our own traditions or on the advice of experts that we trust. However, I think we can all agree that our best chance at getting to the true meaning is to look at how the earliest Christians interpreted them. This prevents us from having to reinvent the Trinity and other settled theological matters.
Also, this “historical” tradition allows us to reject several newer interpretations, even if they seem more literal.
For example, Mormans based their âbaptism for the deadâ on the following passages:
1 Peter 4:6: “Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?”
1 Corinthians 15:29: “For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit” (1 Peter 4:6.).
Basically, our goals should be trying to establish what the authors meant to convey when they wrote a particular passage. So, when John records Jesus as saying “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” what did early Christians have to say? Around 110 AD, St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote: “Be careful to observe [only] one Eucharist; for there is only one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup of union with his Blood, one altar of sacrifice, as [there is] one bishop with the presbyters and my fellow-servants the deacons.” Philadelphians.
Now maybe early church fathers like Ignatius got it wrong. After all, their writings are not scripture. However, if given the choice between second generation âApostlesâ and disgruntled 16th century monks, Iâll side with the apostles any day of the week (and twice on Sunday).
Well, Esau, it would require some effort to look up catholic.com, and even more effort to go to a bookstore or library to pick up a copy of The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Quick my-bad here. I’ve responded to snarkiness with snarkiness. I’m sorry. I know I avoid these threads for a reason. And I will do so from now on. Apologies to all. Especially to Steve Camp.
Steve C,
As I mentioned above, I was helped by your ministry in my past, and I gladly acknowledge a debt of gratitude to you. I still regard you as a brother in Christ, regardless whether or not you extend to me the same fraternal recognition.
I’m glad you’re here and interacting with Jimmy’s readers. I’m glad you’re asking questions. You’ve referred to the “gauntlet of Akin”; FWIW, I hope you’ve also recognized some grace and charity at work here, as well as some tough talking, and I hope you’re gracious enough to acknowledge it. (FWIW, you did come in with both guns blazing.)
You claimed above that “Romanism” is “not a slur, but an accurate label.” Not so. Language can be “accurate” and still be a slur, such as “darkie” or “dot-head” (both “accurate” as far as they go). The fact is, “Romanist” is a term with origins in hostile and prejudicial usage, a term coined in anti-Catholic settings and used among anti-Catholics with anti-Catholic intent. Here’s some homework: Try looking up “Romanist” in some online dictionaries and see how often phrases like “usually offensive” or “used disparagingly” appear.
You also addressed us as “followers of Rome, Popes, Cardinals and Bishops.” This, too, is certainly not inaccurate, although it’s worth pointing out that as Catholic Christians the object of our faith is none of these, but Jesus Christ. As a Catholic Christian, I live and die for Jesus Christ my Savior — not for Rome, popes, cardinals or bishops.
Jesus alone is all my faith and all my hope. Everything else I believe, from angels and the final resurrection to apostolic succession and the papacy, whether scripture or tradition, whether councils or papal definitions, I believe solely for the sake of Jesus Christ and, so I believe, in obedience to Him.
You’ve asked a question about what Catholics believe. FWIW, I will answer it. I hope you really want to know the answer. I hope that you are open to discovering that what you may have heard or understood Catholics believe, even from sources you trusted, may not be the same as how the Church actually interprets and clarifies its own teaching.
The Bible teaches — and the Catholic Church unhesitatingly affirms — that Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross is the sole, sufficient and indeed super-sufficient sacrifice that accomplishes our salvation.
The Catholic Church also affirms the propitiatory and sacrificial character of the Eucharistic celebration of the Mass. From this, you conclude (perhaps understandably, though it’s not what the Church teaches) that the Mass represents another sacrifice added to the work of the Cross, thereby implying (so it seems to you) some defect or insufficiency on the part of the sacrifice of the Cross, thereby repudiating the sufficiency of the Cross.
So it seems to you: but conclusions of this sort about the implicit consequences of other peoples’ beliefs, arrived at from outside that faith, can easily go awry. For example, as Trinitarian Christians, our shared belief in the Triune God seems to Muslims and Jews a stark repudiation of the basic truth of monotheism, that God is one. To them, it’s as plain as the nose on your face that we deny God’s oneness, and everything we say to the contrary seems mere subterfuge. Nevertheless, they are wrong: We are monotheists, we do not deny but believe that God is One, but we know the One God to be more than non-Trinitarians believe Him to be.
In the same way, to you it seems plain that we Catholics “must” deny the sufficiency of the Cross, because we believe in the sacrifice of the Mass. Yet this is not our faith as we understand it, just as to believe in the Trinity is not to deny God’s oneness. On the contrary, if there were any defect in the sacrifice of the Cross, we could not look to the sacrifice of the Mass to make amends, for the same defect would apply. Conversely, everything we believe is present in the sacrifice of the Mass is nothing other than the fruits and merits of the one definitive, decisive sacrifice, made present and applied to us.
The sacrifice of the Cross is the unique, decisive sacrifice; the Mass neither adds to nor detracts from this one sacrifice, but only makes present and applies the merit of what Jesus accomplished once for all. It is not another, separate act of atonement; it isn’t even another sacrifice, but the same sacrifice made present.
In the words of John Paul II:
Now. You’re certainly free to disbelieve the truth of this teaching, as I’m sure you do. You are free to believe that the Eucharistic celebration does not in fact make present the merits of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross, that there is no need for them to be made present in that fashion, for God gives us access to the merits of Christ’s sacrifice by other means (e.g., “by faith alone”).
Nevertheless, this is what we as Catholics believe — this, and not something else — and it is a plain fact that we do not believe that the sacrifice of the Mass in any way contradicts the sufficiency of the sacrifice of the Cross, or implies any defect or lack in that one sacrifice.
To say otherwise — to impute to Catholics denial of the sufficiency of the Cross — is exactly like Muslims or Jews imputing to Trinitarians denial of the oneness of God. Whatever you think, whatever you say, our beliefs mean what we understand them to mean, not what you might think they should mean.
FWIW, that’s the answer to your question. Who has ears to hear, let him hear.
SDG,
Once again I applaud not only your answer but the charity in which it was given.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
SDG cited (Saint) Pope John Paul II’s words:
“When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, the memorial of her Lordâs death and resurrection, this central event of salvation becomes really present and âthe work of our redemption is carried out.â This sacrifice is so decisive for the salvation of the human race that Jesus Christ offered it and returned to the Father only after he had left us a means of sharing in it as if we had been present there. Each member of the faithful can thus take part in it and inexhaustibly gain its fruits. This is the faith from which generations of Christians down the ages have lived.
The Church constantly draws her life from the redeeming sacrifice; she approaches it not only through faith-filled remembrance, but also through a real contact, since this sacrifice is made present ever anew, sacramentally perpetuated, in every community that offers it at the hands of the consecrated minister.”
Mal 1:11:
11 For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.
Also, READ THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS for goodness sake.
It cannot be disputed that the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass was celebrated on down through the Ages and ever prominent in the early church!
THE PARAGRAPH: The Council of Trent was a Catholic council held from 1545-1563 in an attempt to destroy the progress of the Protestant Reformation. Trent hurled 125 anathemas (eternal damnation) against Bible-believing Christians.
bla bla bla, plug it into a search engine and
excuse me, I know the web is a crazy thing yet isn’t
pulling a legnthy passage and failing to site its sorce, sort of representing it as your own paragraph (“One clarifying paragraph”) not only poor scholarship but…
PLAGARISM.
Oh yes, the source.
September 12, 1996 David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service wayoflife.org
“Trent hurled 125 anathemas (eternal damnation) against Bible-believing Christians…”
PPP-p-p-p-f-f-f!!!
Coffee out my nose on that one.
I thought this was included in my post. My bad and please forgive me…
SOURCE: compiled by David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061 – Scripture applications compiled by Steve Camp; additional notes by Steve Camp
And it’s not plagarism; is Pelagianism đ
Campi
Jenny,
The Council of Trent is often called the Counter-Reformation. It was called to counter the errors of the Reformation. And yes, the Reformation contains several heresies.
Trent hurled 125 anathemas (eternal damnation) against Bible-believing Christians.
No. Please read Jimmy’s link on anathemas.
Ya know, I had no idea who Steve Camp was before today… still don’t, really.
If I had been in danger of developing any sort of respect for him, though, that was quickly torpedoed by the “Eggs Benedict” thing… stuck in the tenth grade, are we?
The strained veneer of jaunty good humor over the loathing is especially tiresome.
Steve,
Just want to say that your music meant a lot to me a number of years back; calligraphied the lyrics to “Consider the Cost” and posted them in my kitchen overlooking the beautiful steeple of the parish I would enter a dozen years later … ah, the memories. Sad as I am, Tim is of correct; after being exposed to your anti-Catholic rants on your blog, I was very dishearted.
Perhaps you may never understand, accept, believe, nor embrace that many of us who love Jesus and have “given all that we are for all that He is” đ in obedience to God the Father entered the Catholic Church … well at least I hope that this jaunt will allow you the opportunity to love your enemies, even if they are your brothers and sisters in our Great and Glorious Lord.
Pax Christi,
Jenny
Glad to see you’re still reading, Steve C. Hope you find my post above worth chewing on; I’ll be interested to see if you have any thoughts in reply.
If the question of the Sacrifice of the Mass is still under consideration, I have a video going up on God Tube (which I was making earlier today on an unrelated note) which I hope can help with it a bit. I’ll post the link when it’s up.
I need one of the OSAS â Bible Only guys to explain why Jesus taught (Matthew 18:15-18) that if someone is having an issue, a crisis of faith maybe, or a disagreement with a friend (ala Dr Frank and Greg), one is to turn to âthe churchâ, not a church and not, interestingly enough, the Scriptures (Bible) to settle the matter.
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matthew 18:15-18
Also notice what Jesus teaches us to do with those that refuses to listen to the church, let them be anathema. At least that is how the Holy Spirit has revealed this Bible passage to mean.
RFTW
SDG,
Wow, your post on the Mass was both brilliant and beautiful. Brought tears to my eyes as I recognize anout how precious this Gift really is. It is truly a sign of a rich interior life when, even after someone has trashed what is most precious to you, you are still able to respond with such grace and charity. You are a Christ-like example to comboxers everywhere.
SDG
Thank you for your comments here. I am surprised by the number of responses to some of my questions and concerns about the teachings of Rome. I am delighted to be a part of this discussion.
It would be impossible for me to address every comment here due to time constraints and the nature of any blog. However, let me at least begin by addressing the theme of one of your statements.
You said, “The sacrifice of the Cross is the unique, decisive sacrifice; the Mass neither adds to nor detracts from this one sacrifice, but only makes present and applies the merit of what Jesus accomplished once for all. It is not another, separate act of atonement; it isn’t even another sacrifice, but the same sacrifice made present.”
That is the underlying concern of most of Romeâs skewed doctrines. They believe their extra-biblical practices actually âapply meritâŚâ You even empathized with me on this point as well. This really goes to the heart and soul of the issue.
The Mass is propitiatory and “applies the merit of what Jesus accomplished.” This would be a clear departure from the Word of God. Christ’s meritorious, substitutionary, propitiatory work on the cross has been fully applied by grace through faith to all whom believe and the Father has chosen by His sovereign electing love unto salvation. There is no merit that Rome can muster that can add to the complete imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ and the propitiation of the Father (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 2:17; Roms. 3:21-26). To suggest the Mass merits propitiation to the believer diminishes the sole work of Jesus Christ (Heb. 2:9-18). Christ has fully propitiated the Father. That is a finished work. For Rome to claim that the Mass is actually a propitiatory sacrifice that merits what Jesus has accomplished would be heretical teaching. It squarely goes against the sufficiency of Christ and His Word. No Pontiff has authority over the Word of God.
You mentioned a few different times in your comment that you place your faith only in what Jesus Christ has accomplished. I must take you at your confession of faith. BUT then you contradict that confession by claiming the Mass merits the effects of propitiation and in fact IS a propitiatory continued sacrifice.
What merit, SDG, is there apart from what the believer in Christ has already fully and completely been granted that the Mass must further warrant?
Is not Jesus sufficient?
Is not the Father fully propitiated in Christ?
His anger assuaged and His wrath satisfied?
His justice and holiness vindicated?
The guilt and penalty of our sin (past, present and future sins–all of them) fully dealt with on the cross of Jesus Christ?
What is lacking?
What has been left undone?
How is the Fatherâs wrath still applicable to the redeemed in Christ Jesus?
But yet Rome would claim there is work unaccomplished and left unfinished. So they invent doctrines to accommodate: The Treasury of Merit is necessary because Christ’s imputed righteousness is found incomplete. Purgatory is necessary for there still remains suffering–a purging–for our sins. Add to this list the sacrament of penance; the mediatorial work of Mary; prayers for the dead; etc. All of them attack the sufficiency of the Lord Jesus Christ alone and what He alone has accomplished for us to be justified.
THAT is the key issue here. Is Christ not enough? Is He not the resurrected Lord God over all? Is He not our only High Priest, the only Head of the Church, the sole Captain of Salvation and our Sanctification? We are, as Paul said, “complete in Him…” (cp, Col. 2:9-10; Heb. 1:1-4; 1 Peter 1:2-8).
So apart from all the bits of humor that has been bantered around here (I particularly enjoyed the Neil Diamond parody and the “Campi, evidently, you’ve invoked the inner Beavis and Buttheads amongst some of the posters here” is classic)–But all kidding aside, this is a very serious and important discussion, is it not?
Because someone has got it really wrong here man. And either past Popes are crying out right now from torment in Hades; or the Puritan divines are agonizing in perdition–from the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth. There is no middle ground. There is no compromise here. It is dangerous to play politics with God and make His gospel a play thing determined by the roll of the theological dice.
These two gospels cannot coexist (Gal. 1:6-9).
For one is not another gospel at all, but is false and worthy only of eternal damnation making their converts twice the sons of hell that they are already. One adds to Christ’s finished work and renders the cross of Christ of no effect. One presupposes there is merit to still be applied, purging of sins to occur, and righteousness to be imputed that is the result of Rome’s decree and the good works stock piled in the Treasury to be dispensed upon those deemed worthy by the Church who have been grated release from Purgatory and now made acceptable to enter Heaven; and one that is by grace through faith in what is already been accomplished in Jesus Christ our Lord alone.
I would encourage the Catholics here (I use that term out of respect for you) on this thread to read through the book of Hebrews this evening or even Romans 3-5. Both of these passages clearly represent that we have a Sabbath rest in Christ; that Abraham was justified not by works, but by faith aloneâhe believed God. James 2:24 demonstrate âworksâ as the fruit of true faith; true regeneration–not the root of genuine saving faith (Eph. 2:8-9). Someone had posted earlier Matt. 7:21-23 in “doing the will of the Father” to support Rome’s claim to being justified by the semi-Pelagian teaching of faith + works.
Not so.
Again, if we love the Lord; been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, granted godly sorrow for repentance and confession to Jesus Christ as Lord, by faith having the full righteousness of Christ (2 Cor. 5:21) imputed to us; we will obey Him and do His will. Again, doing the will of the Father merits nothing as the means for salvation. But is only the grace-produced fruit of authentic salvation (“a good tree will produce good fruit…”)
Surely obedience and good works must accompany saving faith as the fruit of genuine transformation. “Why do you call me Lord, Lord and do not do what I tell you?” (Luke 6:46). “If you love Me; keep my commandments.” (John 14:15). A hypocritical, insincere faith bears no fruit; just as man-made religion based upon a system of works righteousness tries through works to merit faith and grace as to be saved. Both are different gospels; both damn; both are doctrines of demons. They do not; they cannot produce an infused righteousness which over span of ones life justifies the believer before God.
Salvation is of the Lord and Jesus Christ is our justification!
The Mass is a perversion of grace and adds nothing to Christ which in the daily course of the believers walk with God is impotent to do anything to impute further merit to any Christian.
I am sincerely praying for you all – especially Jimmy; for teachers will receive a stronger judgment; and I fear for him (Heb. 10:29; James 3:1).
I hope this is a good place to start. I will try to get to most of these posts (in common theme only) at some point this week.
Until then, I remain
Yours for the Master’s use,
Steve
Acts 20:24 âBut I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, so that I may finish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God.”
“O Christian, never be proud of things that are so transient, injurious, and uncertain as the riches of this evil world! But set your heart on the true and durable riches of grace in Christ Jesus.” -ISAAC AMBROSE
Mr.Camp,
Your comments are a case in point. You confuse Augustinian synergy with the neo-semi-pelagianism of the late scholasticism of Biel, to which Luther was originally reacting. Augustine very clearly includes our co-operation in our justification and this is why even Trent condemns the notion that even the first act or motion of faith is done apart from grace. That was the issue and not the idea of whether or not co-operation in justification was semi-pelagian. The Reformation became worried and convinced that any co-operation given their nominalist taxonomy of actions, where actions were concrete particulars, amounted to a compromise with sola gratia. But Augustine didnât think so (he didnât believe in iimputed righteousness or that faith was the sole formal cause of justification either) and so clearly promoted synergy in his view of justification. That is fairly uncontensed in Augustinian scholarsip, both Protestant and Catholic. Trent is faithful to Augustineâs view on that score and the Reformation is a new development. That is, given a nominalist framework it is simply impossible to see my acts as every being Godâs because the over riding genus of activity has a rather fictional metaphysical standing and so it has to be one or the other entirely. It canât be done via me, given the Manichean anthropology of the Reformed and so it has to be entirely by God such that my actions are mere effects of divine action.
Of course, youâd need to be both a philosopher and a theologian to understand the issues at stake between the parties. Luther is quite clear as is Calvin, Bucer and others about invoking philosophical concepts like formal cause in explicating their theological concept. In this they faithfully follow the Roman and Augustinian project of letting philosophy give the conceptual content to their theology, let alone the assumptions to their hermeneutical practices, which in fact do not float free of a faulty Christology. http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/jul_grisham/CH.Grisham.theodore.mopsuestia.pdf
On the other side, it seems clear that you have missed the obvious Pelagianism in Reformed anthropology since you like most probably confuse an effect of Pelagianism with it, that is, you think Pelgianism was a thesis about works when in fact per Augustineâs debate with Julian at the end of his life, it was a thesis that took nature to be intrinsically righteous, which is in fact the Reformed view on pre-lapsarian Adam. How ironic that those who cry Pelagian the loudest are in fact Pelagians themselves. The only way to correct this problem was for the Reformed to say that human nature has been intrinsically altered, which is rather strange to think given that the Reformed argue that it is impossible for created agents to overturn Godâs will, and yet they seem to do so in relation to Godâs will for human nature. This also betrays a subtle confusion on the part of the Reformed of person and nature since it depends on the assumption that the will is personal/hypostatic. If this were true, monothelitism or its less known name, monoenergism or monergism would be true. Monergism is fundamentally a Christological thesis which results in anthropological predestinarianism. This is why a Chalcedonian Christology with its dyothelitism is incompatible with Reformed soteriology. What is more, on anthropological grounds if the will were hypostatic as the Reformed view of the fall assumes, human nature would change innumerable times, making the incarnation of Christ in taking up our common nature whole and entire impossible.
I am not Catholic but Orthodox and so I donât have to meet the same burden as the challenge you give to the Catholics here, which is a nice way of saying that your objections to unique Roman practices bakes no bread with my position and hence doesn’t imply the truth of Protestantism. But I would challenge you to prove using the Protestant canon alone, where the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is clearly taught. Or to prove with sufficient evidence and reason to ground your absolute commitment that the canon you subscribe to is unchangeable via inductive methods. Why isnât the canon reformable or revisable on your view? Does anything on your view survive possible revision? How can your principles secure from future revision or falsification the Scriptures themselves? Is there anything in your view which doesnât depend on fallible reason and hence is not up for grabs? It seems that semper reformada amounts to always revising and this I think shows that Protestantism is a religion of reason, that it is a development out of late medieval humanism and as such a historical artifact of the period with a bad case of Freudian projection.
Steve Camp,
You really enjoy writing it seems. SDG gave the actual teaching of the Church knowing you would not accept it. I hope that you will at least acknowledge what is the actual teaching of the Church even if you deny it.
May I ask two questions? How do you reconcile your response to SDG especially about what is lacking with St. Paul’s understanding? And what authority do you give yourself to ensure you are correct in your understanding?
Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. Colossians.1:24
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I am not Catholic but Orthodox and so I donât have to meet the same burden as the challenge you give to the Catholics here
Wait a minute… it is WE CATHOLICS who have to meet the BURDEN OF PROOF???
How about this:
Have PROTESTANTS meet the BURDEN OF PROOF of PROVING that their beliefs (e.g., Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide) and practices (e.g., altar calls) correspond to the GENUINE GOSPEL of Christ!
How about that!?
I TIRE of all the B.S. people are throwing out here, making PROTESTANTISM some sort of GOLD STANDARD when in fact it is the CATHOLIC CHURCH that existed FROM THE VERY BEGINNING and, thus, its Sacraments (The Holy Eucharist, Penance, Holy Orders, etc.) were evident even in the early church — the most prominent being the Eucharist!
Dr. Beckwith had even mentioned this in his comments on the STR blog.
Can any Protestant explain to me why the early church practiced and believed in such “Catholic” things and why it wasn’t until 1500 years later that all of a sudden this “innovation” called Protestantism began to exist?
Where is evidence that such Protestant beliefs were even evident in the early church? If the early Church was, in fact, “Protestant”; what of the Sacraments that these early Christians firmly believed in and their “Catholic” interpretations of Scripture and Tradition?
Others here will merely dismiss my comments as uncharitable rants —
Well, be “charitable” to me — show me where I’m wrong.
Did the early church merely think that it was so cool and hip to believe bread was the body of a guy that supposedly rose from the dead?
Is that why the church fathers believed in this and the early church unanimously held such “Catholic” beliefs?
Could it be that perhaps those whom the Apostles taught personally, those to whom they passed down TRADITION and the FAITH — as TAUGHT TO THE APOSTLES BY CHRIST HIMSELF — were actually retards and did not really comprehend what the Apostles themselves actually taught them?
Then, perhaps, the early church was doomed at the very beginning it seems since all of the early church believed in silly things such as the Real Presence of the Eucharist (among other “Catholic” beliefs popularly held by the early christians) that the poor misguided early church went on believing until that great man, Martin Luther, after 1500 years, showed them the errors of their ways!
No wonder Martin Luther wanted to go to the extent of deliberately changing words of Scripture such as the passage in Romans to FORCE it to say that man is saved by “Faith alone” and even removing books from the New Testament such as James, Hebrews, Revelations, among others.
Martin Luther knew better than even those to whom the Apostles personally handed down the Faith!
I have to admit that I stopped reading the comments when the trolls started having fun. There was a time when I mercilessly vanquished trolls but alas, I am no longer given to such displays.
Listening to the interview now, I have to say that Koukl’s interview is TERRIBLE. He constantly interrupts even when he agrees! He changes the topic constantly, continually tries to force his misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine as the final interpretation, fires off rapid-fire quotes (interrupting, of course), repeatedly reveals his utter lack of Catholic education (“CCD, that’s Catholic Christian Doctrine, right?”). He confuses basic concepts like apostolic succession and the primacy of the Seat of Peter, indulgences being efficacious on the temporal effects of sin vice the actual time, and absolutely refuses to listen when it comes to justification.
I have had this happen so many times in real life: somebody decides that because I am Catholic, I am too stupid to explain my own beliefs and need them force-fed to me.
On top of it all, Beckwith remains calm and charitable. I for one would not let Koukl get away with his “follower of Christ” remarks.
If you follow Christ, then you follow His Church!
Thanks for your reply, Steve C. FWIW, despite the serious obstacles between us, I appreciate your willingness to “take me at my confession of faith,” as you put it.
Whether Roman doctrine is extra-biblical is one question; whether it repudiates the sufficiency of the Cross as you originally alleged is another. We can’t answer all questions at once; you asked about the sufficiency of the Cross, and I answered you.
Look. Jesus’ death on the Cross is sufficient to redeem the whole world an infinity of times. But not everyone actually receives that grace. It has to be communicated or applied to us. Ways and occasions of receiving grace are myriad and diverse. Praying the sinner’s prayer is a way of receiving grace. So is devout reading of scripture. So is repentance after we fall. So are works of charity done in grace. So are the sovereign choices of God in which He gives us grace simply because He wishes to.
When I go before the Blessed Sacrament to receive my Lord, all my hope and trust is in the merits of the Cross, here given to me to eat and drink. What does the Eucharist offer to Catholics? Nothing but the sufficiency of the Cross. To everything you say about the Cross, the Church says, “Yea and amen. Here it is. Eat and drink.”
This is where you go wrong, where you refuse even to understand what Catholic teaching is, rather than to disagree with that teaching rightly understood. Like a Muslim attacking the Trinity, like Christopher Hitchens attacking Christianity, you insist on squeezing your opponent’s belief into your predefined categories rather than even grappling with the teaching as actually believed.
Rome never claimed to “muster” any merit to “add to” the complete and sufficient merits of Christ. That is your idea, not Rome’s. The Council of Trent taught that the “meritorious cause” of our justification is “His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father” (VI,VII). That is the ultimate basis for any and all merit there is.
We agree that there is no further merit to be mustered additional to this. But you will not accept that we agree. You insist on claiming otherwise in spite of the facts, like a Muslim who just keeps saying “The Christian doctrine of the Triune God blasphemously distorts and diminishes the pure unity and oneness of God.”
On the contrary, the Mass merits propitiation precisely because it is the sole work of Jesus Christ on the Cross, nothing else. It diminishes nothing; rather it makes present.
The Church agrees, incidentally. Of the Church’s teaching office, entrusted by Jesus Christ with the task of authentically interpreting the work of God, Dei Verbum teaches:
None. If you understood what I wrote, you would understand that.
Were it otherwise, the Mass would avail me nothing. It is because Jesus is sufficient that I go to Mass.
Yes, as taught by the Council of Trent.
What does “dealt with” mean? Does it mean that repentance is unnecessary? Certainly, for all the sins I may commit in the future, I have no hope but the cross of Jesus Christ. That doesn’t mean that we don’t have to repent. It doesn’t mean we don’t need ongoing grace.
Inocencio has already noted that St. Paul makes reference to “filling up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions” (Col 1:24). What do you make of that? I hasten to add that we agree with you that nothing St. Paul does or we do adds to the completion of the Cross. Yet clearly something remains to be done.
Who said it was? The Mass offers the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to the Father on behalf of the whole world, you know, not just those present. The Mass gives grace and life to all who receive it, but there’s no need to turn aside God’s wrath from those who already in grace.
Just as Trinitarians would claim that God is not truly one — only in the imaginations of those who attack the beliefs in question. Rome herself does not claim any such thing; on the contrary, Rome claims the opposite, as you have been shown.
If Christ’s imputed righteousness were incomplete, the treasury of merit would avail nothing. The treasury of merit is nothing other than the righteousness of Christ as given by Christ and appropriated by His saints.
Steve, do you still have sin in you, or not? Does this sometimes cause you to suffer, or not? Does it still burn like a fire? Does it still pound like thunder within your breast? Why are you still suffering for your sins since we both agree that Jesus paid the full price? Will you one day be purged of such sin, or not?
On the contrary, all of them depend entirely on the sufficiency of the Lord Jesus Christ alone. Were He not sufficient, penance, Mary and prayers for the dead would accomplish nothing.
I wouldn’t be surprised if both were true. There could be and perhaps probably are both popes and Puritan divines in hell. But I expect there are probably Puritan divines in heaven too, and it goes without saying that I believe there are popes in heaven.
In a sense, I agree with you. The false gospel that you falsely impute to the Catholic Church cannot coexist with the true gospel of grace that Catholics believe in its fullness and that you believe substantially, though with errors.
Thanks for giving us the courtesy of our own name for ourselves — really.
The Bible never once says what you say it says, that Abraham was justified by faith alone. You know and I know that those words do not appear anywhere in the Bible. In fact, James says precisely the opposite: “You see that Abraham was justified by works and not by faith alone.” If a Catholic said those words, you’d damn him as a heretic. If you were consistent, you’d follow Luther and toss the book of James out of the NT canon.
Um, the semi-Pelagian heresy did not teach “faith + works.” It taught grace + works (or works + grace). Not the same thing. And of course you refuse to deal with the awkward fact that it was Rome that condemned and still condemns semi-Pelagianism as a heresy.
Remember, too, that the measure you measure with will be measured back to you.
My initial reaction to Steve’s comments was that the boorishness alone was off-putting. But that was perhaps worth it to read the responses, clear, to the point and so beautifully said. Kudos to you guys!
“What is lacking?
What has been left undone? ”
I was going to adrress these questions by suggesting you take it up with the Apostle Paul, but I see Innocencio has beaten me to it.
None the less;
“Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.”
Colossians.1:24
Nothing lacking in Christ’s sacrifice, but a great deal lacking in the application of its graces. We must take up OUR cross, or we will not be saved. Belief is not enough.
The demons believe.
Christ’s meritorious, substitutionary, propitiatory work on the cross has been fully applied by grace through faith to all whom believe and the Father has chosen by His sovereign electing love unto salvation.
If it is fully applied by belief, why must we eat His flesh and drink His blood or have no life in us?
Inocencio
You quoted this verse in response to my questions: “what is lacking; what is left undone?”
“Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.” -Colossians 1:24
I am speaking on the subject of propitiation and the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross, where, God grants to His elect chosen before the foundation of the world saving faith, so that by regeneration of the Holy Spirit we make confession of Jesus Christ as Lord; being clothed with His complete, perfect righteousness. Christ was raised for our justification and there is nothing lacking—we are complete in Him.
Paul’s words to the Colossians is not speaking here of something different. He is speaking of persecution. If Jesus were still with us on earth in the flesh today, the world would be persecuting Him. We as His body, then, are filling up what is lacking in Christ’s affliction; meaning, we take the blows for the One who took the blows for us.
Two different things.
SDG
You said, “Remember, too, that the measure you measure with will be measured back to you.”
This is not my measure; I was simply quoting James 3:1. Any teacher of the Word of God will be measured accordingly–that is not my self-imposed standard on Jimmy. Secondly, I did not mean it in regards to him as being an accepted teacher of the Bible, but that what he asserts, and Beckwith as well, is not in conjunction solely with the Word of God in regards to a Roman view of the gospel and represents in this discussion “another gospel” based not upon what Jesus Christ alone has accomplished, but rests on a cooperative effort of grace + merit; faith + works. That is what I fear for him. The RCC and those who teach its doctrines, represent a different gospel (Gal. 1:6-9).
You further said, “The Bible never once says what you say it says, that Abraham was justified by faith alone.”
On the contrary.
This is the point of the fourth chapter of Romans. The Apostle says, “Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. Rom. 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? âABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.â Rom. 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. Rom. 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, Rom. 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: Rom. 4:7 âBLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. Rom. 4:8 âBLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.â
This is abundantly clear that Abraham was not justified by works, but by faith–he believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. No flesh is justified by keeping the law; no good works can save or aid in salvation; the writer of Hebrews even refers to these religious works as “dead works.”
SDG: if you really believe that your salvation is solely of the Lord Jesus Christ plus or minus nothing, then how could you hold on to what Rome teaches in regards to The Fifth Marian Dogma, the Treasury of Merit, Purgatory, the sacrament of penance, etc., etc., etc.? I know that the Second Synod of Orange in 529, condemned semi-Pelagianism; but in practice, it is alive and well today. It is the Galatian heresy at full throttle.
Even John Tetzel’s and the Pope’s fundraising scheme of “the selling of indulgences” to build St. Peters promised something that at it’s very core was completely foreign to Scripture–would you not agree?
If Christ is your “all in all”, then you would, bound by biblical command, have to reject Rome’s additions to Scripture and the gospel to embrace the Lord Jesus Christ alone in salvation. But Rome’s synergistic views continue to corrupt the gospel of grace by faith in the sole finished work of Christ alone.
Grace and peace,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
“…the Pope’s fundraising scheme of ‘the sellign of indulgences’ to build St. Peters…”
Not that old canard again.
“Paul’s words to the Colossians is not speaking here of something different” should read: “Paul’s words to the Colossians is speaking here of something different.” My typo–Steve.
Mary
You said, “If it is fully applied by belief, why must we eat His flesh and drink His blood or have no life in us?”
Excellent question! Communion is a remembrance–not an actual “eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking of His blood.” This is another skewed teaching of the RCC that the elements are somehow miraculously changed into the literal flesh an blood of Christ.
It is a symbol commemorating our Lord’s death, burial and resurrection for our salvation. We do this not to assure or receive life in us; but as Jesus said, “to remember Me.” That’s all. Salvation is of the Lord. And baptism, communion add nothing to Christ and His finished work on the cross. Mary, trust solely in Christ Jesus as Lord for your salvation – plus or minus nothing. You are saved by grace through faith in Him and not by works lest anyone should boast (Eph. 2:8-9).
I hope this helps clarify a bit more.
Trust in Christ alone,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5
So where does the Bible say that Abraham was justified by faith ALONE? I don’t see that in the above quote. I do see it in James 2:24, where the man-made doctrine of justification by faith alone is condemned.
[round-of-applause]Bravo, SDG![/applause]
If anyone continues to misunderstand the Church’s teachings in this area after reading Steven’s brilliant treatment of the matter, then he willfully chooses to misunderstand.
(At least, Steven’s comments should drive such a person to adopt a more open attitude and delve deeper into Church documents to discover the truth.)
For my part, here is what I can say: I am a cradle-Catholic; however, sadly, I didn’t receive a very good catechesis during the late 70s and early 80s. What I did have were some very holy people (esp. my grandmother and parish priests) who modeled for me the faith in practice.
Despite the lack of deep catechetical formation, here’s what I definitely knew growing up: the only reason that I might make it to heaven is that Jesus Christ died for my sins, opened the gates of heaven for mankind, and through His sacrifice all the graces necessary for our salvation flow.
***Imperfect analogy alert*** The graces flow somewhat like electricity flows through my house. Right now, there are outlets in my house that are waiting for me to plug in an appliance. I know – that is, I have faith – that when I plug in an appliance, electricty will be there to make it work. Nevertheless, I must plug in the appliance to utilize the available electricity.
Snap!
The same point could be made from other Steve Camp lyrics. How about this one:
“I know some day I will be free
The weight of sin shall be released
But for now He covers me.”
Using Steve Camp’s logic in this commment box, we might ask: Some day you will be free? What has been left undone? What is lacking? Is not Jesus’ completed work sufficient? The burden of all your sins — past, present and future — fully dealt with on the cross?
Why aren’t you free now?
In John 6, people understood Jesus to be speaking literally when He said that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. They found it a “hard saying”. When people misunderstood Jesus, He corrected their misunderstanding. When people understood Him correctly, but found His words shocking, He repeated Himself, as He did several times in John 6. Some of His disciples, taking Him literally, left Him(the only place in scripture where anyone left Jesus for doctinal reasons) and He let them go. If they misunderstood Him, He, Who claimed to be the Truth, would have been morally obligated to correct their misunderstanding.
I just want to add that I can’t believe that I’m actually having this conversation with Steve Camp. Some of his songs – esp the above-mentioned, were very meaningful to me as a young Evangelical. I think they helped to mature me in my faith – this idea of a Christian, loving God and lamenting the separation . . . Now I’m defending his own songs to him? Weird.
There was a way that “to eat the flesh and drink the blood” of someone was used as a metaphor among the Jews of our Lord’s time (and is still, I believe, used among Arabs today): To “eat the flesh and drink the blood” meant to revile someone. So, if Jesus were speaking metaphorically, He would have been saying: “He who reviles Me has eternal life.”
Esau,
Please re-read what I wrote, I meant burden of proof in reference to the distinctives held be Catholics that Steve Camp listed. As an Orthodox Christian, I don’t hold those views. Hence Catholics bear some burden to show good reason why one should believe such things.
“If Christ is your “all in all”, then you would, bound by biblical command, have to reject Rome’s additions to Scripture”
Why? Does “Christ” = “Scripture”? It is Christ who established the Church, and the Church that wrote the Bible. This is indisputable. The scriptures grew out of the Church, and not the other way around.
Steve,
First, you would need to show that while Rome condemned semi-pelagianism that it in fact adheres to it in practice. Asking questions how other parts of its theology are consistent with it doesnât amount to a demonstration of the point but only shows how you canât conceptually put them together. Moreover, Augustine held to synergy in justification too and it would be a very strange thing to convict the doctor of grace of semi-pelagianism. So, do you think Augustine was a semi-pelagian too? Augustine in fact considers the idea that Paul might mean an imputed righteousness and rejects it, since his metaphysical realism is guiding his hermeneutical practices (just as your Nominalism guides yours). (Of course, to grasp the role of Nominalism in Reformation thought, you’d probably have to be a philosopher.) Was Augustine a heretic and a bafoon in that he not only missed, but rejected the clear teaching of Scripture on the matter? How likely is that?
As for the Eucharist, the idea of a mere memorial has ancient historical roots. Of course those roots are in Gnosticism as is plainly evident in polemics by Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of Peter and Paul and Ireneaus. As sources like Ignatius make clear, the Eucharist was thought to be far more than a mere memorial from the earliest days among Christians. (One doesnât die from a bad memory.) Moreover, the vast majority of the Reformation tradition rejected the memorial view. Is Calvin a heretic too? How about Bullinger or Bucer? Cranmer or Jewel? You are setting up a standard of orthodoxy that condemns your fellow Calvinists as heretics, not to mention the Lutherans, Anglicans, Tyndale and the Lollards.
Here is another sola scriptura challenge. I figure I would post it since you ignored my other comments. Where does Scripture teach the Protestant doctrine that God is metaphysically simple? That comes from Platonism actually. Just read Plotinus’ Ennead 6, tractates 7-9. Or, can you show by Scripture alone the doctrine that the Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Father and the Son? I’d really like to see you justify these core Protestant doctrines in theology proper from Scripture alone.
Mary
You said, “If it is fully applied by belief, why must we eat His flesh and drink His blood or have no life in us?”
Excellent question! Communion is a remembrance–not an actual “eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking of His blood.” This is another skewed teaching of the RCC that the elements are somehow miraculously changed into the literal flesh an blood of Christ.
When I was in college I took a class where we studied the cultures of the countries of Eastern Europe. One of the points of the course that stuck with me is that the memory of these people goes back for centuries. To them the victories and defeats of their ancient ancestors happened only yesterday and are, in a sense, still happening today. This is a concept us Americans, with our short history, have a difficult time understanding.
Recently, as I returned to the Church and have been learning my faith for several years I’ve realized that I too have this ability to remember. It’s not just memorizing dates and facts. Something more, something difficult to describe, happens – it’s a living memory that makes the past present. Catholics have this unbroken memory going back to the Church Fathers and Apostles. We mysteriously live with those who have gone before us. We especially do this through the Mass. The Mass makes Calvary present throughout all of history. That is how we live out Christ’s command “Do this in remembrance of me.” This remembrance in no way contradicts the Real Presents of Jesus’ flesh and blood. Instead it compliments it. He is present and so is His Bride, the Church Triumphant.
Steve Camp,
I repeat:
“And what authority do you give yourself to ensure you are correct in your understanding?”
This is very important as you pointed out earlier. We need to have a correct understanding, it has eternal consequences.
We can easily quote the Sacred Scriptures to each other, as Satan did in the desert to Christ Himself, and also twist them to our own destruction, as St. Peter warns especially about St. Paul’s writings.
As a husband and a father of seven so far I take my responsibility to guide my family very seriously.
We obviously disagree on the meaning of the Sacred Scriptures and the question has to be answered; who has the authority to interpret the Sacred Scriptures?
I think you are sinning by persecuting the Bride of Christ and you think I am sinning by following false teaching. Who do we go to decide? Who are we obligated to hear even if we might not completely understand the answer? Are we left without a foundation for Truth?
I hope for and look forward to a response.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I am now channeling Keith Green, and he has something to say to Steve Camp:
“The difference between the sheep and the goats is what they did and didn’t DO.”
Channeling over.
The problem with Steve’s exegesis of Romans 4 is that it is Pelagian: There’s nothing about grace in Paul’s description of Abraham’s justification. All it says is that Abraham was reckoned righteous by his faith. But both Reformed and Catholic theology teach that faith is impossible without God’s grace. Of course, Steve could bring in other passages from the Bible to include grace. But that’s when the problems begin. For then the Catholic can show that the same grace present at conversion is provided by the Lord throughout one’s entire Christian walk for the purpose of changing our characters. (Phil 2; James 2). We can reject that grace and fall away. But that’s precisely what Adam did and he was in a perfect state of grace. It’s not that Adam failed to do a work. What he failed to do was to walk in the grace God gave him by being obedient to His one commandment. “To obey is better than sacrifice,” as Keith Green once paraphrased from Scripture.
Esau,
Please re-read what I wrote, I meant burden of proof in reference to the distinctives held be Catholics that Steve Camp listed. As an Orthodox Christian, I don’t hold those views. Hence Catholics bear some burden to show good reason why one should believe such things.
Perry,
I just wanted for once for Protestants to bear the burden of proof this time around.
In many of the debates I’ve observed, it often seems that Catholics are the ones who must meet the burden when, in fact, given the novel nature of Protestantism as compared to the historical evidence for both Orthodox and Catholic; they should be the ones who should be faced with the responsibility of meeting the burden of proof.
Incidentally, I actually enjoy your blog as well.
Quite frankly, I am quite thankful that you’ve decided to voice your comments on this thread as well.
Yet, I doubt that they will be addressed.
Just in case there might be another Perry lurking on the blog, the above comments were for Mr. Perry Robinson.
SuzanneG
I am very honored by your encouraging words in relation to my songs. Thank you. And it is a joy to be dialoguing with you on these issues.
You said, “Purgatory is necessary for there still remains suffering–a purging–for our sins.
I disagree. The suffering for the penalty of our sins was fully exacted in the once for al sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross (Isaiah 53). God’s eternal wrath that burns against the sin and the sinner was thrust on Jesus at Calvary as our divine substitute. Every sin, that would ever be committed by everyone that would ever believe, He took–He bore. Propitiate means to satisfy; to avert anger. On the cross, Jesus not only took the guilt, penalty and sin of the elect; but He drank the cup of wrath on behalf of those whom the Father had given to Him from all eternity past (2 Tim. 1:9; John 6:35-44; John 17). Because He suffered, I don’t have to–I have a Sabbath rest in Christ (Heb. 4:9). Isn’t that good news? No purgatory; no future suffering for your sins for if you belong to Him, He has fully bore the pain and wrath against those sins and against you–the sinner.
You said, “Steve, do you still have sin in you, or not? Does this sometimes cause you to suffer, or not? Does it still burn like a fire? Does it still pound like thunder within your breast? Why are you still suffering for your sins since we both agree that Jesus paid the full price? Will you one day be purged of such sin, or not?”
Of course I do– I sin every day. So do you. I am a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17) incarcerated in unredeemed flesh (Roms. 8:23). As the Apostle Paul said of himself, “the thing I want to do, I fail to do; and the thing I don’t want to do, I do… O wretched man am I.” I identify with Paul. As the old saying goes: I have died once to the penalty of sin; I die daily to the power of sin; but one day I will be free from the presence of sin.”
You said, The same point could be made from other Steve Camp lyrics. How about this one:
“I know some day I will be free
The weight of sin shall be released
But for now He covers me.”
That goes to the glorification of the saints. Yes, we are already free from the penalty of sin and its wages—death. That is why, “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:4-9). It is not to be in a fictitious place called purgatory. There is no more suffering necessary for the sins of elect. If you are unregenerate and reject the gospel, there will be an eternity of suffering under God’s holy wrath in the flames of Hell forever. And no amount of suffering can purge anyone of their sins.
Here is a quote from catholic.com on purgatory: “When a Catholic requests a memorial Mass for the deadâthat is, a Mass said for the benefit of someone in purgatoryâit is customary to give the parish priest a stipend, on the principles that the laborer is worth his hire (Luke 10:7) and that those who preside at the altar share the altarâs offerings (1 Cor. 9:13â14). In the United States, a stipend is commonly around five dollars; but the indigent do not have to pay anything. A few people, of course, freely offer more. This money goes to the parish priest, and priests are only allowed to receive one such stipend per day. No one gets rich on five dollars a day, and certainly not the Church, which does not receive the money anyway.”
Only five bucks to get out of Purgatory early? What a deal–you’re still paying John Tetzel. For the price of a Happy meal you can release loved ones from their future suffering. And this is found where in the Bible? Don’t let them pull the Papal wool over your eyes Suzanne. This would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.
You further said. “Using Steve Camp’s logic in this commment box, we might ask: Some dy you will be free? What has been left undone? What is lacking? Is not Jesus’ completed work sufficient? The burden of all your sins — past, present and future — fully dealt with on the cross?
Why aren’t you free now?
Yes I am–“whom the Son sets free is free indeed” Amen? But I await to be free from this world, the flesh and the devil and to be in glory with the Lord. Don’t you? We are free solely through the merit and work of Jesus Christ alone. But we are still in this world; we are not glorified… yet. But we are free, but not from the presence of sin.
Purgatory is a myth Suzanne; a delusional fiction concocted by Pontiffs and Magisteriums since the days of Pope Gregory the Great, who reigned from A.D. 590â604 (most attribute to him the origin of purgatory). The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines purgatory as a “purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven,” This is it. The purification and holiness we have is by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ through faith in imputation of His perfect righteousness. Think of that for a moment: if you truly know the Lord, you have been clothed with His perfect righteousness; you have been made “fit for the inheritance” as Paul says. That is a reality now to be fully realized in glory. As Jude says, “we will stand in the presence of His glory, blameless and with great joy.” And that is all by the grace of the Lord.
There is a place of suffering after death; but there will be no purging of sins. Purgatory is another attack on the sufficiency of Jesus Christ and man’s best imagination to purify himself for his sins rather than fully trust in the Lord for his salvation. Grace is hard to live by, because it robs man of his own efforts and glory.
Grace and peace to you,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
Channeling Keith Green…
He was my friend and I miss him dearly. Keith’s theology was unfortunately heavily based on Finney. But Keith’s a Calvinist now :-).
IN Matthew 25 the Lord again is judging by the fruit of real regeneration… not creating another way through a synergistic works righteousness with grace by faith.
Steve
“works righteousness”
Please try to understand: The Catholic Church does NOT teach “works righteousness”. Never has.
Steve, your answers are full of contradictions…
“whom the Son sets free is free indeed” Amen? But…”
It is the “but” that we are discussing, and for which you seem to offer no explanation.
If
“Only five bucks to get out of Purgatory early?”
Are you really that simple minded? What is offered on behalf of the person’s soul is the Sacrifice of the Mass, the worth of which can’t be reckoned in human terms… not “five bucks”.
“Purgatory is a myth”
No, “Once Saved, Always Saved” is a myth. A lie from the pits of Hell. Not only un-biblical, but ANTI-biblical, and the ruin of souls.
“Yes, we are already free from the penalty of sin and its wages—death…”
Then why do we still die?
“There is no more suffering necessary for the sins of elect.”
Again, totally anti-Biblical. It is an unimaginable grace – a divine gift – that we are ALLOWED to suffer for our sins. We are allowed – through the grace of God – to be a contributor and participant in our own salvation. Kind of like when my Dad used to let me “help” him fix the car.
We are not merely declared righteous. What God speaks, His word accomplishes… we are really MADE righteous, and we participate in that process.
OFF!
If Purgatory is a myth, then why do the Jews ever since prayed the Mourner’s Qaddish?
And how do you reconcile the “Once Saved, Always Saved” mentality with the passages in Scripture:
1. Matthew 25: 31-46
31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty.
32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him: and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.
34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in:
36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.
37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry and fed thee: thirsty and gave thee drink?
38 Or when did we see thee a stranger and took thee in? Or naked and covered thee?
39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison and came to thee?
40 And the king answering shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink.
43 I was a stranger and you took me not in: naked and you covered me not: sick and in prison and you did not visit me.
44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to thee?
45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen: I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
2. Mt 7:21:
21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
3. 1 Cor 6:9:
9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers:
— Keep in mind that when St. Paul was speaking to his audience, these were actually CHRISTIANS!
If there was ever the “Once Saved, Always Saved” doctrine, then why would St. Paul yet admonish fellow Christians in this manner when in fact they would’ve been already saved and wouldn’t need to care about such things since they’d be going straight to Heaven, right?
I know. I was referring rather to your expressions of fear for his soul. It is a fearful thing to express fear for the soul of a believer who stands or falls to the Master he claims. To do so is already a kind of provisional judgment — not one we can never make, I admit, but one that we should make in fear and trembling.
Why do you not fear to repeatedly ascribe to others beliefs (grace + merit) which they have never affirmed and indeed deny and reject? Is that not a form of false witness?
I can tell you till I’m blue in the face that all merit is Christ’s and all merit is grace, that in rewarding our good works God merely crowns the works of His own hands. I can show you that this is Catholic teaching. I can’t make you listen, if you don’t want to.
The question is not whether Abraham was justified by faith. We agree on that. The question is whether he was justified by faith alone.
Romans 4 never says “faith alone.” The word “alone” does not appear in Romans 4 (although Luther added it to his own translation of Romans). In fact, the phrase “faith alone” — the slogan embodying formal principle of the Reformation — appears nowhere in the entire Bible, except in James 2 — where it is expressly denied.
Steve Camp: “Abraham was justified by faith alone.”
St. Paul: “Abraham was justified by faith” (not “faith alone”).
St. James: “Abraham was justified by works and NOT by faith alone.”
Catholic soteriology: Justification by faith (but not by faith “alone”).
One of these things is not like the other. One of these things doesn’t belong.
You are mistaken in thinking that “good works” are the same as “dead works.” The NT often says that “works of the law” (or “dead works”) avail nothing for salvation; it never says this of “good works.” You will search the NT in vain for any such statement about “good works.”
Good works are works done in the grace of Christ; they are not dead works of the law, works done in attempted fulfillment of the Torah of Moses. Works of the law avail nothing; works done in the grace of Christ are rewarded by God in keeping with His will and promises.
From Romans 2:
Note well the motive St. Paul ascribes to the just man persisting in good works: By his patience in good works he is precisely seeking glory and honor and immortality. It is not just that he already has eternal life and is merely being good because that is now his nature as a child of God. No! In his good works the justified man seeks eternal life.
And God does not damn him to hell for believing a false gospel! We have already seen in Romans 1 that the just man lives by faith. He has been justified by faith, yet by patience in well-doing he seeks eternal life. And God renders to him according to his works: not with eternal perdition, but with eternal life.
Steve, those are valid questions, and I’m happy to answer them. The larger point, though, is that they do have answers. From the Catholic perspective, you are essentially in a similar position to a non-Trinitarian saying “If you really believe that God is One, then how could you hold onto what Trinitarianism teaches in regards to the filiation of the Son, the spiration of the Spirit, etc., etc.?” To the questioner, it looks like a contradiction, because he doesn’t yet understand the larger faith subsuming both truths. To the believer who understands, there is no contradiction. I’m happy to try to answer your questions if you really want to know the answers.
In principle, I don’t disagree, actually. Lots of people today, including many Catholics, do hold some form of Pelagian error. I think we should be careful, though, about assuming this to be the case just because someone doesn’t express his faith the way that we would expect. And certainly the official teaching of the Catholic Church remains as adamantly opposed to Pelagian or semi-Pelagianism as ever.
May I recommend to you the Protestant historian Will Durant’s treatment of this subject (The Story of Civilization)? Short answer, the Church condemned the selling of indulgences, so of course I agree it’s foreign to scripture — OTOH, first we need to establish what indulgences are. (Hint: it’s got nothing to do with obtaining forgiveness or salvation. I bet you thought it did.)
Christ is my all in all, and for His sake alone I believe both in the scriptures He inspired and in the teaching authority of the Church he founded to interpret and proclaim those scriptures.
Steve. You really, really need to stop telling us what you think Rome teaches and be humbly willing to learn something about what it is patently obvious you don’t know.
Some people have their own little box which they call “The Roman Catholic Church”. They have trouble understanding anything which does not fit in their box. Some of them ignore the teachings of the real Catholic Church; some deny that the Church teaches what it does.
SDG & Steve Camp:
The question is not whether Abraham was justified by faith. We agree on that.
Was this really the case?????
Consider both James 2:24 and Paulâs teaching on justification in Romans 3 and 4 together.
In Romans 4:3, when Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 it says: âAbraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousnessâ.
Itâs not referring just to the very beginning of Abrahamâs salvation experience because itâs taken from Genesis 15. It would almost require us to believe that Abraham in Genesis 12, 13 and 14 wasnât saved, wasnât justified.
In Genesis 12, of course, he leaves his kindred, he leaves his homeland; he follows God; he accepts the Promise by Faith; he goes to the Promised Land.
In Genesis 13 and 14, he fights against armies that have captured his nephew; he tithes to Melchizedek; heâs blessed by Melchizedek; he shows himself to be an opponent of the evil in Sodom.
Heâs done so much before you get to Genesis 15:6, that I think youâre hard-pressed to see Paul twisting a text out of context and suggesting that up until Genesis 15, Abraham had not been regenerated, that he did not have a saving faith, that he didnât have a personal relationship with God. I think that Genesis 15:6 is actually highlighting his justified status as a growing son of God on the basis of the fact that from before Genesis 15, going back to Genesis 12, 13 and 14, he is Godâs son.
SDG & Steve Camp:
The question is not whether Abraham was justified by faith. We agree on that.
Was this really the case?????
Consider both James 2:24 and Paulâs teaching on justification in Romans 3 and 4 together.
In Romans 4:3, when Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 it says: âAbraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousnessâ.
Itâs not referring just to the very beginning of Abrahamâs salvation experience because itâs taken from Genesis 15. It would almost require us to believe that Abraham in Genesis 12, 13 and 14 wasnât saved, wasnât justified.
In Genesis 12, of course, he leaves his kindred, he leaves his homeland; he follows God; he accepts the Promise by Faith; he goes to the Promised Land.
In Genesis 13 and 14, he fights against armies that have captured his nephew; he tithes to Melchizedek; heâs blessed by Melchizedek; he shows himself to be an opponent of the evil in Sodom.
Heâs done so much before you get to Genesis 15:6, that I think youâre hard-pressed to see Paul twisting a text out of context and suggesting that up until Genesis 15, Abraham had not been regenerated, that he did not have a saving faith, that he didnât have a personal relationship with God. I think that Genesis 15:6 is actually highlighting his justified status as a growing son of God on the basis of the fact that from before Genesis 15, going back to Genesis 12, 13 and 14, he is Godâs son.
Some people have their own little box which they call “The Roman Catholic Church”. They have trouble understanding anything which does not fit in their box. Some of them ignore the teachings of the real Catholic Church; some deny that the Church teaches what it does.
Unfortunately, many of these people call are Catholics.
Esau: Of course Abraham had saving faith prior to Genesis 15. Hebrews 11, the great faith chapter, tells us so: “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he looked forward to the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.”
When Abraham believed God unto justification in Genesis 15, this was not his initial justification or regeneration from death to life. It was ongoing justification, growth in grace and righteousness. Abraham already had faith and justification in Gen 12-14, but when he believed God in Gen 15, God reckoned it to him as righteousness, and Abraham went from grace to grace, gaining an increase in justification.
That doesn’t change the clear fact that St. Paul (and St. James too) teach that Abraham was justified by faith — but not by faith alone.
SDG,
You summed up this whole discussion with patience, charity and humor! I thank you and am thankful I was not drinking coffee when I read your post or I would be cleaning my computer screen right now.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
How very intriguing to see those who mock the clear, biblical concept of faith alone (see Romans 3:21 – 28) use James 2:24 as their “sola reference”.
That’s the equivalent of the Arminians taking John 3:16 as their favorite pat answer. đ
Question: if then the Catholic view makes faith + works a necessary precondition for justification, how does any Catholic ever know when they’ve done enough works to be justified?
As their “sola reference”?
There are many, many other passages in Scripture.
Perhaps you should go to my Aug 9, 2007 9:40:43 AM Post which cites other verses in that regard.
Consider this:
The Catholic Teaching is that Justification is a past act, a present activity and also a future reality. Because justification can be accurately reduced to the idea â itâs complex but simple â the idea of divine sonship.
At the moment a person is born into a natural family, that person is a child of his family. But, that person is expected and required to grow up. If, at the age of 2, a person is still filling his diapers, thereâs no problem with that. That person would be trained not to. But, at the age of 22, if that person refuses to grow up, and that person was not growing beyond his childish ways, something would be seriously wrong.
So, justification and sonship is a process because sonship itself is a dynamic, lived process whereby we mature into Christian perfection. We conform ourselves to the image of the first-born among many brethren, as Romans 8 says.
Rick (from Aug. 7, 5:44 PM)–
You write:
But I would not tell someone: “After I left the Baptist ‘church’ at the age of 16, I became a follower of Christ.” To say such a thing would imply that the Baptists are not Christians.) In addition, Koukl kept refering to the “Roman Catholic Church” instead of the Catholic Church (a more accurate term). It seemed that his presentation was tinged with stereotypical evangelical slurs.
I think I can help you understand, here.
One reason many of us Protestants refer to the “Roman Catholic Church” is because we do not believe that that denomination is coextensive with the universal Church. “Catholic” does mean “universal,” and we Protestants use that term in church, like in the Apostle’s Creed. We add “Roman-” to avoid confusion between “Catholic” (as a name) and “catholic” (as a description), as well as to assert that we do not believe that denomination is the one Church. Only a branch of it. We Methodists describe ourselves, as well, as part of the “catholic church,” you see. “Catholic Church” can only be considered more accurate than “Roman Catholic Church” if you accept its claims, which we do not.
Furthermore, please realize that you, yourself, are doing something similar from the other direction when you write about “the Baptist ‘church.'” Putting “church” in scare quotes denies the status that Baptists claim for their denomination. You don’t believe them, of course, but neither do we believe your denomination’s claims to exclusive universality.
Both what you wrote and what Greg said involve assumptions not shared by the other side. Both of you will consider yourselves fair and accurate on this point, but the other will disagree with your assumptions.
You need to try to understand better before you critique. Your question isn’t entirely unlike asking “How can anyone ever know when they’ve had enough healthy exercise to be alive?” (since by “justified” you surely mean initial justification).
The Catholic view does not “make faith + works a necessary precondition for justification.” In fact, most of us were justified long before we had any faith or works — when we were baptized, born anew of water and Spirit.
Those who are not yet regenerate can have neither faith nor good works in the full supernatural sense. Therefore, as Trent teaches, they can do nothing to merit the grace of justification, which is a free gift of grace. Only after receiving the grace of justification and becoming a new creation can we begin to exercise supernatural faith and do good works of grace in a way that is pleasing to God, growing from grace to grace.
This increase in grace is itself the fruit of grace. Catholic soteriology calls it ongoing justification. It isn’t a question of “How much must I do?” God has made you His child; love and serve Him, and avoid serious sin. “Faith + works” is not correct. “Faith working in love” (Gal 5:6) would surely be a less inadequate formula.
Those who commit serious sin fall from grace. To be restored, they must repent and receive God’s forgiveness to be restored to grace. This forgiveness is freely given, merited not by us but by Jesus Christ. Again, there is no question of “doing enough.” We can never “do enough,” and God doesn’t ask us to.
Cindy,
I’m afraid you have a misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching on justification, which is perfectly understandable given that many Catholics do not even understand it. There are so many folks who do not understand it criticizing the Church’s teaching that it can be very hard to avoid being given a false impression.
The Church does not teacch that faith and works are necessary preconditions for justification. You don’t have to do a certain number of works and meet a quota or anything like that. In Catholicism, justification is entirely a gift of God’s Grace. Man cannot even have an ounce of faith without God giving it to him through Grace. Justification consists in man having three things, all gifts of God: Faith, Hope, and Love. This shouldn’t be too controversial. After all, St. Paul explicitly says that a person with faith but no love is no better off whatsoever. Now neither faith nor works earn any of these things: they are all free gifts of God given by God’s Grace. Man doesn’t even have to accept these things from God. He’s not even capable of doing that, in one sense. All man has to do is refrain from putting up an obstacle.
In other words, when man is dead in his sins, God starts to – freely of His own will – give man Faith, Hope, and Love. If man – who is passive in justification – does nothing, God – who is active in justification – will put these things in to man and he is justified. If man fights God’s Grace on the other hand, then he will not be justified.
Works themselves come in to play after justification. They do two things. First, they keep man justified because in certain cases it would be a total rejection of God’s Grace to fail to do a work. This does not mean man has a quota to meet. It is not the sort of thing where man has to keep up the good works or God will take away justification. It just means that some times, failing to do a particular work would be a grievous sin. The good work of resisting the urge to murder someone would be an example.
The second thing works do is increase justification. Remember that Catholics believe justification is a real inner change in the person. Once a person is justified, and is put into a right relationship with God by God – freely of His own doing – then God will reward him for doing good things. This is just a more refiend version of what I understand to be the universally accepted Protestant concept that God rewards the good works of the justified with greater glories in Heaven.
There are two problems with this.
First, “Roman Catholic Church” properly refers only to the Latin communion of the Catholic Church, one of 22 different communions all in union with the successor to St. Peter. There are Maronite Catholics, Melkite Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Armenian Catholics and many others, all in communion with the successor to St. Peter — but they are NOT “Roman Catholic,” since they don’t belong to the Latin rite.
Secondly, it is just not feasible to refrain from extending to other communions the courtesy of their own name for themselves because of the theological implications of the language. We all call Jehovah’s Witnesses that even though we all agree they aren’t really witnesses of Jehovah. I have no trouble calling Episcopalians and Presybterians by their own self-designations, even though I don’t believe that the Episcopalians have a valid episcopacy or that the Presbyterians have what the NT means by presbyters.
Then there are the words “catholic,” “orthodox” and “evangelical.” All of us would lay claim to the root meanings of these words: I consider myself both orthodox and evangelical as well as catholic, and so would you, and so would Terry Mattingly (who is Orthodox). And there is at least something to be said for all these claims (though some claims are better than others).
All the same, when we need to be able to distinguish one group from another, and usually the most helpful and courteous expedient is to allow other people their chosen self-designation. I’m happy to call you “Evangelical” and Terry Mattingly “Orthodox” without feeling that this in any way compromises my claim to be both orthodox and evangelical. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect the same courtesy from non-Catholic Christians with respect to the Catholic Church (not the Roman Catholic Church, please).
Well said, Esau. You put it as well as Jimmy did in his book, “The Salvation Controversy”.
(nod) Kudos to Shane also (and Inocencio — thanks for the props!).
First, “Roman Catholic Church” properly refers only to the Latin communion of the Catholic Church, one of 22 different communions all in union with the successor to St. Peter.
In other words, they’re all in union with a Roman figure.
Well said, Esau. You put it as well as Jimmy did in his book, “The Salvation Controversy”.
Actually, I learned that from Scott Hahn.
That’s ever so slightly like saying that because Ireland is part of the British Isles, Irish people are British. Try that in an Irish pub sometime (be ready to duck).
Maronite Catholics are in communion with a Roman figure, yes. That doesn’t make them Roman Catholic, as they’ll be quick to tell you.
Shane:
Works themselves come in to play after justification. They do two things. First, they keep man justified because in certain cases it would be a total rejection of God’s Grace to fail to do a work. This does not mean man has a quota to meet. It is not the sort of thing where man has to keep up the good works or God will take away justification. It just means that some times, failing to do a particular work would be a grievous sin. The good work of resisting the urge to murder someone would be an example.
I don’t agree with this.
It seems here that failing to do a certain work merely results in a grievous sin but that a person can still gain Heaven due to initial justification.
However, what then of Matthew 25: 31-46?
1. Matthew 25: 31-46
31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty.
32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him: and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.
34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in:
36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.
37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry and fed thee: thirsty and gave thee drink?
38 Or when did we see thee a stranger and took thee in? Or naked and covered thee?
39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison and came to thee?
40 And the king answering shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink.
43 I was a stranger and you took me not in: naked and you covered me not: sick and in prison and you did not visit me.
44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to thee?
45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen: I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
And what of other verses that say:
Mt 24:13:
13 But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.
Also, what of the previously cited verses:
2. Mt 7:21:
21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
3. 1 Cor 6:9:
9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers:
Esau: Earlier you misunderstood me, now I think you’re misunderstanding Shane. “Grievous sin” is essentially synonymous with grave or mortal sin; it’s never “mere.” Shane isn’t saying that those who commit grievous sins of omission go to heaven anyway due to their initial justification. Not sure where you’re reading that.
Esau, I apologize for being so thickheaded but I’m not sure what your disagreement is! đ
My point was that there are times when we must do good works to maintain our justification, but that it is not because God requires a certain amount per day or something or he’ll take away tour justification. It is, rather, because in certain situations it would be a mortal sin to refrain from a good work. For example, it is a good work to go to Mass on Sunday. If a person deliberately chooses not to do this, that is a mortal sin and justification is lost. If I were walking down the street and saw a man all alone bleeding to death from an accident, it would be a good work to try to get him help, and more than likely it would be a mortal sin if I simply ignored him because I was in a rush.
I wasn’t saying a person would still receive salvation because of initial justification, if that is what you thought.
SDG:
Grievous sin” is essentially synonymous with grave or mortal sin; it’s never “mere.”
That’s given OUR “Catholic” understanding of it.
However, from the Protestant church I came from, a “grievous sin” was something a believer would be held accountable for when he comes face-to-face with God.
In that context, although it would be considered a “grievous sin”, a believer could still go to Heaven.
Shane,
The reason why I took issue with your comment:
Works themselves come in to play after justification. They do two things. First, they keep man justified because in certain cases it would be a total rejection of God’s Grace to fail to do a work. This does not mean man has a quota to meet. It is not the sort of thing where man has to keep up the good works or God will take away justification. It just means that some times, failing to do a particular work would be a grievous sin. The good work of resisting the urge to murder someone would be an example.
… is because a person, for example, coming from my church would look at what you had said here and interpret it as I have mentioned in my recent comment above.
A “grievous sin” in their eyes would be a serious sin which a sinner would be held highly accountable for, but it would not be the “mortal sin” as Catholics believe and understand it.
But… Shane was explaining Catholic soteriology, specifically how “in certain cases it would be a total rejection of God’s Grace to fail to do a work.” In context, I think it would be clear to Protestant readers that “grievous sin” here means the same as mortal sin.
That is why I had said about your remark:
“It seems here that failing to do a certain work merely results in a grievous sin but that a person can still gain Heaven due to initial justification.”
…given my background with the folks at my church in mind and how they’d interpret it.
Esau, I have to make an aside here. This concept of being held “highly accountable” but not losing salvation is intriguing. How did your fellow churchians understand that one could get held highly accountable without being punished?
Esau, it doesn’t look like you disagreed with Shane’s substantial point, only that you were concerned a word might be misunderstood. Point clarified. Let’s move on.
In context, I think it would be clear to Protestant readers that “grievous sin” here means the same as mortal sin.
SDG,
You’re assuming that they’re even acquainted with the concept of “mortal sin”.
“Mortal Sin” has no meaning from the church I came from.
It’s something alien; not even a part of their lexicon.
Yet, they do believe in the concept of “grievous sin” (i.e., “serious sin”); but in their view, that, itself, does not separate one from God and condemns them to Hell.
That is why I did not agree with how Shane worded his comments.
Not that the actual idea he was conveying given a “Catholic” understanding was incorrect; it’s simply how it was said and how those, like those from my Protestant church, would have interpreted it.
First, “Roman Catholic Church” properly refers only to the Latin communion of the Catholic Church, one of 22 different communions all in union with the successor to St. Peter.
In other words, they’re all in union with a Roman figure.
Are you implying that by being in communion with Rome means that these churches have lost their “personality” which makes them distinct from the Latin church and merely become absorbed into it? If you are, wouldn’t such logic mean that Christians lose their personality by being in communion with Christ? I’ve always felt that the opposite happens.
Maronite Catholics are in communion with a Roman figure, yes. That doesn’t make them Roman Catholic, as they’ll be quick to tell you.
They can say what they want, but they’re still practicing a flavor of Romanism.
Cindy,
On the Catholic schema, it is not so much the quantity of works that is important but their quality. Are they done by the love of God and other virtues, faith and hope, that have been poured into us? (Rom 5:5) If so, then thy qualitatively fulfill the law. (Rom 13:10ff).
As to the harping going on about Rom 4 and James 2. Here are some thoughts. While Catholicism holds that when Abraham was vindicated by God, he had only the virtue of faith, it in no way follows that other virtues would never be included in his future state, given that faith qua virtue is a state and not mere a fiduciary mental relation. That is, there is a conceptual difference in reading Romans 4 as indicating that when Arbraham was justified having only the internal virtue of faith, to moving to the concept, that his justification always and only is by that virtue. That is a simple logical mistake.
It is always strange that the standard Reformed glossing of James 2 of works that serve as an effect of faith, with the latter as a cause gets the causal order that James gives backwards. The analogy that James gives is, soul is to body as works are to faith. (v. 26) Works then arenât here the effect of faith, they are makes or causes the faith to be genuine, as Paul indicates in 1 Cor 13, faith that can move mountains that lacks love is incomplete. The causal relation is works cause faith to be genuine and not faith genuinely causes good works.
Campâs anti-sacramentalism really worries me though and here is why. He seems to think that no created object can serve as a mediating or God-bearing role between God and man. This is why the relation has to be a mental relation, extrinsic and direct, the assumption being that extrinsic relations are direct, stipulative and consequently canât fail or be wrong, which is in fact false, but I digress. If this were true, it implies that the Incarnation and the deification of the humanity of Christ on Mt. Tabor, not to mention the Resurrection, which communicates divine properties like immortality (1 Cor 15) to Christâs humanity are impossible. It then implies a Nestorian Christology (or Arian) where the divine and human are united by an extrinsic volitional relationship. (Eric Mascal and Charles Journet make this point in numerous places) This is the same old pagan belief that matter is dead and opposed to deity, which is why in Arianism, Christ serves a merely functional role and hence canât be God. Reformed Christology is fundamentally Arian (and Nestorian) in this respect for what Christ is, is functionally irrelevant to his economical activities which is why the righteousness that he grants us on that schema is a created effect and not Godâs genuine glory and righteousness. Just like in Nestorianism the human is related to the divine in a subordinated role, determined absolutely by will, as a mere instrument, which is why in Reformed Christology Christ is the prototype of predestination. Campâs problem with sacramentalism is not the contents of the bible, but a nascent Platonism which posits an opposition between the Good deity and the material world, which cannot bear him. Gee, looks like Manicheanism all over again. Is it any wonder that 17-18th century Protestantism produced Arianism all over again in Socianism and Unitarianism? No.
Shane said: “For example, it is a good work to go to Mass on Sunday. If a person deliberately chooses not to do this, that is a mortal sin and justification is lost.”
SDG said: “Shane was explaining Catholic soteriology, specifically how “in certain cases it would be a total rejection of God’s Grace to fail to do a work.”
Point clarified. Let’s move on.
Let’s not…
Are you saying that you believe that justification can be lost? That you can so reject grace once having obtained salvation through faith in Jesus Christ by failing to do a work and lose your salvation? Is this correct?
Steve
Col. 1:9-14
PS – btw, would you please show me the courtesy of answering these questions with your full brian and not just with 3/4 of your brain behind your back… :-). Thank you.
SDG,
Esau, it doesn’t look like you disagreed with Shane’s substantial point, only that you were concerned a word might be misunderstood. Point clarified. Let’s move on.
I didn’t see your comments here until now.
Yes, they way Shane worded it is what I took issue with.
Shane,
Esau, I have to make an aside here. This concept of being held “highly accountable” but not losing salvation is intriguing. How did your fellow churchians understand that one could get held highly accountable without being punished?
THANKS FOR ASKING!!!!
Actually, this, perhaps, was one of the things that “planted the seed” so-to-speak.
The minister that was preaching this was often citing:
Rom 10:9:
9 For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
and
Rom 10:10:
10 For, with the heart, we believe unto justice: but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.
It was nice (and even “convenient”) hearing it at a time when I thoroughly despised the Catholic Church for what I believed was a hypocritical, not to mention, man-made institution and all the “evil” historical baggage that came with it.
Are you saying that you believe that justification can be lost?
Steve Camp,
Please explain how it isn’t given:
1. Matthew 25: 31-46
31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty.
32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him: and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.
34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in:
36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.
37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry and fed thee: thirsty and gave thee drink?
38 Or when did we see thee a stranger and took thee in? Or naked and covered thee?
39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison and came to thee?
40 And the king answering shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink.
43 I was a stranger and you took me not in: naked and you covered me not: sick and in prison and you did not visit me.
44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to thee?
45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen: I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
And what of other verses that say:
Mt 24:13:
13 But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.
Also, what of the previously cited verses:
2. Mt 7:21:
21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
3. 1 Cor 6:9:
9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers
Esau:
Thank you. I’ve read your posts.
Shane:
“I’m afraid you have a misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching on justification, which is perfectly understandable given that many Catholics do not even understand it. There are so many folks who do not understand it criticizing the Church’s teaching that it can be very hard to avoid being given a false impression.”
No – no misunderstanding. From everything I see here and have read elsewhere and from firsthand experience, catholic teaching on justification is NOT through the sufficiency of Christ alone;
It’s Christ plus one’s good works.
Here is what the Word of God says about the
imputation of Christ’s righteousness to those who believe in him:
2 Corinthians 5:21 “For our sake [God] made [Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
“Our sins were imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us. He bore our sins; we are clothed in his righteousness… Christ bearing our sins did not make him morally a sinner… nor does Christ’s righteousness become subjectively ours, it is not the moral quality of our souls… Our sins were the judicial ground of the sufferings of Christ, so that they were a satisfaction of justice; and his righteousness is the judicial ground of our acceptance with God.”
Charles Hodge (with gratitude to the wonderful article on the Imputation of Christ seen at
Steve Camp’s stellar blog called Camponthis)
SDG – just curious – what church denomination
were you in when you were an evangelical?
Steve Camp,
I still hope for a response to my second question which I repeated in my Aug 9, 2007 8:55:39 AM comment.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Steve Camp,
Here, how about I lessen the list of verses to just:
Mt 7:21:
21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
And just what is the Will of the Father?
Let’s look at 1 John 2:
1 My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just.
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
3 And by this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He who saith that he knoweth him and keepeth not his commandments is a liar: and the truth is not in him.
5 But he that keepeth his word, in him in very deed the charity of God is perfected. And by this we know that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also to walk even as he walked.
Are you saying that you believe that justification can be lost? That you can so reject grace once having obtained salvation through faith in Jesus Christ by failing to do a work and lose your salvation? Is this correct?
One doesn’t reject grace by failing to do a work.
One doesn’t lose salvation by failing to do a work.
One fails to do works because he rejects grace.
One loses salvation by rejecting grace.
With some caveats, yes. In keeping with all recorded Christian belief for centuries after Christ, I do believe that through grave sin a true believer can be “severed from Christ” and “fallen away from grace” (Gal 5:4). A long time ago our host Jimmy debated James White on this subject; here are his notes from the debate.
(Caveat: “Failing to do a good work” sounds a little passive; mortal sin always involves a fully responsible moral choice, though that choice may be a choice not to act, e.g., Shane’s example of refusing to save a dying person for a gravely culpable reason. This may be convergent with Brian Walden’s comments above.)
Ha! My darling bride’s confidence in my abilities notwithstanding, your request is eminently fair and just, and I’ll do my best, though I make no promises. At any rate I can safely say that whatever portion of my brain not involved in this discussion will be otherwise profitably engaged, and not simply tied behind my back. đ
SDG,
Your comment:
…through grave sin a true believer can be “severed from Christ” and “fallen away from grace” (Gal 5:4).
…reminded me of the following passage:
Jn 15:6:
6 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch and shall wither: and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire: and he burneth.
Esau: Yep, that’s another one. Jimmy’s notes do a good job of marshaling the most relevant scriptures.
Cindy,
I don’t think 2 Cor 5:21 offers any proof of forensic imputation. First, the language is not one of accrediting sinful but of making. We are to be made God’s righteousness, not accredited so. If the passage had accreditation in mind, it would not be referring to something yet to be but something already legally true.
2ndly, the meaning of the passage is that the Father had the Son become incarnate and take upon himself our corrupted human nature, even though Christ as a divine Person never performed any sinful act.
Secondly, following the teaching of Augustine, the sufficiency of grace doesn’t imply the exclusion of works or human activity because God is not opposed to his creation. Rather what it requires is that grace is the ground and basis of works and is continually present in them so that in fact they fulfill the law. Take a look at Romans 5:5 and 13:8-10. God’s love in us fulfills the law. Hence good works are produced in us, by us, but also by Christ, which is why I get moral credit for them but also why they please God. It is both genuinely my work and Christ’s work in one act, and it is this Realist schema that the Reformed Nominalism cannot permit since acts for them are concrete particulars and not something which permits plurality. That is why Augustine teaches that we merit our justification by grace. Now, if that is salvation by grace plus works, then Augustine certainly didn’t get the gospel right. Is that what you are saying?
It is both genuinely my work and Christ’s work in one act, and it is this Realist schema that the Reformed Nominalism cannot permit since acts for them are concrete particulars and not something which permits plurality.
Perry Robinson:
You’ve captured it in a nutshell!!!
My family has 400-year-old Calvinist roots going back to the early Reformation in Friesland. My father was an ordained pastor in the Dutch Reformed tradition (first CRC, then RCA). (My father is now Catholic too. My wife Suzanne was raised American Baptist. My sister has embraced the Catholic faith, and my brother, for years a very hard-core Calvinist (he taught at a small Calvinist classical school), has lately undergone a substantial softening. My mother went Eastern Orthodox, but I’m not ruling anything out there.)
Later, I was involved for a number of years in a very evangelical Episcopalian church in a very heterodox diocese (Newark). The spirituality was very similar to what I knew, but I got a taste of worship in liturgy and sacrament that opened new doors for me. I also spent time in an Assemblies of God church (two-time state champions in Bible Quiz đ ), an anonymous Baptist “Bible church” congregation, and others.
Esau,
Gee, and I am not even Catholic! HA! In any case, thanks for the compliments re: my blog. I am glad to know someone finds it profitable. For what it is worth, while I have my own serious objections to Rome, far deeper than soteriological side shows, I don’t think Camp understands the issues and he doesn’t seem to grasp Augustine’s teaching at all. If he were correct then Augustine would be a heretic right up there with Trent, yet he doesn’t seem willing to own his implications and say Augustine was a heretic and taught a false gospel.As far as I can see there are no exculpatory factors in play. Augustine knew greek sufficiently well later in life, though he never liked it. And he considers the idea of forensic imputation, but rejects it. Why isn’t he a heretic just like Trent then?
Camp’s idea seems to be that the rules of exegesis float free of any theological or philosophical committments and are just kind of “out there” needing no justification whatsoever. The fact is that this is not so and why the Church condemned in an Ecumenical Council (2nd Constantinople 553) the grammatical-historical method in nascent form, because it implied a nestorian Christology. In any case, natural languages don’t function strictly on rules, as any teenager using slang will demonstrate. Meaning is social which is why it outruns syntactical symbols (letters). To think that there is some necessary connection via some unalterable rule of meaning (semantical content) to a symbol betrays a very positivistic and refuted notion of language. But of course, he’d have to be a philosopher to know that. đ
SDG–
I know what you’re intending by framing the distinction as being between “Roman Catholic,” “Marionite,” “Byzantine Catholic,” etc. But it’s a matter of how you word the divisions, and they can be done just as validly by using “Roman Catholic” to mean any that is subject to the Pope (the Vatican being within Rome; that’s why the “Roman” adjective), and then distinguishing “Latin Rite,” “Byzantine Rite,” or however that’s put.
Obviously, when it’s a matter of interdenominational discussions, there can be some confusion, but don’t assume that because we use different terminology that we’re unaware of the different rites within your denomination. Many of us know about these, and we still use “Roman Catholic” to describe all who are subject to the Pope in Rome.
I’d be interested to hear back from some of y’all on that idea that we Protestants should not be at all offended by the Pope’s recent document reasserting that the Protestant churches are not actually churches. (Rick’s gotten right into line by referring to the “Baptist ‘church.'”) Because this is simply how the [Roman] Catholic Church uses the term, and we can’t be offended that their classification scheme is different from ours, or that their theology tells them this is so.
If that’s y’all’s attitude, then it would be only fair to accept without complaint our use of “Roman Catholic Church,” so that we can distinguish more clearly and in line with our principles the meaning of “catholic” and “Roman Catholic.”
By the way, in the interest of ecumenical fellowship, I’d like to say that James White annoys me (a Methodist) about as much as some of the more strident Catholic apologists do (the current blog is not one of those). I have a sinking feeling that apologetics tends to attract that sort of personality, or it encourages it.
This opinion of him is shared by a number of other Protestant bloggers I read. Y’all are in good company on this one.
Tim,
Well to be fair, when I was an Anglican, we didn’t consider Baptists, Presbyterians and Lutherans true churches either. And to be fair, the Lutherans don’t consider baptits or presbyterians true churches. And the Presbyterians historically haven’t considered the baptist assemblies to be true churches either. And the baptists haven’t considered any of the above true churches. Every group, including Protestant ones has their own criteria as to what constitutes a true church and each group cites instances of failure. Rome’s view is hardly controversial, its just that most Protestants don’t know how fragmented they in fact are and that their traditions have and do in large part maintain the falsity of other bodies as churches. So I say, why have a cow over what Rome says when the Lutherans and Anglicans say the same about the Presbys and Baptists and they in turn reciprocate? Why not clean up your own mutual exclusions first? So as a non-Catholic and a non-Protestant, I can’t see what the big huff is about, except as a manifestation of ignorance regarding historic protestant theology.
…I can’t see what the big huff is about, except as a manifestation of ignorance regarding historic protestant theology.
Preach it, brother!
Perry Robinson hit another good point here, too!
As even Phillip Cary, an Anglican, did once say:
“In general, my portrait of Luther goes like this. I think the difference between Luther and Calvin is that Luther is a sacramental thinker in a deeper sense than Calvin is (I donât anticipate many disagreements about that in this crowd) but this means that in certain very important respects he is more medieval and more Catholic than Calvin is (OK, now you can begin to get uneasy) and so far as I can tell, this also means he is in some ways less Protestant than the Lutheran Confessions are (and I suppose thatâs where you may want to disagree).”
Perry–
I’m a lifelong Methodist, and we don’t have those kinds of exclusionary attitudes, so I’ve been blissfully unaware of those ugly fights until around now. But I have friends and acquaintances who are preachers in different denominations (and one who’s a friar), and I’ve never heard that attitude expressed by any of them.
There are certainly disagreements over, say, appropriate forms of church government, and I know that there is a branch of Lutheranism that looks at itself as preserving The Church (and some-not all-within the Anglican Church who believe in the necessity of Apostolic succession in a particular way), but aside from this, I doubt you’ll find many official declarations of other denominations as not being “true churches.” That phrasing and its meaning are alien to most Protestant denominations’ discussions.
But as for “how fragmented” Protestant denominations are, they’re actually in broad agreement on the important things. And the Catholics and Orthodox agree with us on the even more central aspects of Christianity. Its a shame some people would rather pick fights than recognize their fellow brothers in Christ, however much they may disagree on specifics.
Tim,
I am not as up on Methodism so I’ll give you whatever you want on that score. But if you look at historic Anglican theology for example, they don’t consider the Presbyterians to be true Churches. This comes out pretty clearly in their theological works when they write concerning the marks of the church. The same is true of the Presbys and Baptists and Lutherans. When I was Reformed and Anglican, this talk was fairly common even with the LCMS Lutherans. None of the Anglican formularies permit communion with or recognition of non-episcopal ordinations, regardless of whatever theory, such as a sacerdotalist one, may be poured into the practice. That is one way they achieved unity without specific theological agreement. The practice is what mattered.
What the mainliners say now is another story as they have gone the way of all flesh, but historically this was so, which is why they have never had any substantial intercommunion, which is the mark of unity. You eat with your family and I won’t share my cup with non-family members.
As an Orthodox Christian, I have no trouble recognizing others as genuine Christians but that is a separate issue. And no, I don’t think we share greater unity in areas like Christology and the Trinity, though a superficial and textbook reading of those doctrines may sometimes make it appear so. Differences on baptism or the eucharist or church gov’t from my perspective are due to differences in Triadology and Christology for example. We don’t share the former and so we don’t share the latter, and this extends even to Rome. Moreover, Protestants don’t agree on baptism, the eucharist, church gov’t or soteriology, and hence fail each others descriptions of what the marks of the church are-rightly divide the word, rightly administer the sacraments and rightly administer church discipline. Those areas in fact are what have constituted the marks of the church for most of the reformation bodies. So i think the broad agreement is surface level only. And this is because the same terms are filled with incommensurable content. Both baptists and Lutherans believe in baptism for the remission of sins, but the meanings are mutually exclusive-usage of common terms does not imply agreement of meaning. It is just like when an atheist and a christian agree that murder is wrong, and yet they are in fact talking past each other for what constitutes murder is radically different not to mention the justification of the moral judgment as to why it is wrong. They simply aren’t comparable.
If there was widepsread agreement Protestant bodies would recognize mutual church discipline rulings, some admittedly do among the reformed bodies, and there would be intercommunion and substantial theological convergence, but none of that has taken place for the last 500 years. I am not trying to be polemical or rude, but just to present things as I see them, however wrong I may be.
I butted into this discussion, for as weak as I thought Beckwith’s answers were, Camp and others don’t know what they are talking about-they have to be…oh…philosophers or church historians or theologians. It is interesting that he throws down the gauntlet of challenges for scriptural proof for key doctrines but when challenged to justify major Protestant doctrines concerning God, namely simplicity, from the Bible he won’t take it up. The reason is very simple, he can’t and he can’t because the doctrine derives from Platonism. True, if you wish to engage in a synthetic project of bringing faith and philosophy together as Augustine does, you can read passages filling them in with the philosophical content, but you’d never get the idea from observing the rules of grammar and such in the text alone. So i wonder, will Steve dump key doctrines about God because they can’t be justified by Scripture or will he follow the tradition of the Protestant scholastics as handed on to them by Catholic Scholasticism?
Wanna take some bets?
You said, “If it is fully applied by belief, why must we eat His flesh and drink His blood or have no life in us?”
Excellent question! Communion is a remembrance–not an actual “eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking of His blood.” This is another skewed teaching of the RCC that the elements are somehow miraculously changed into the literal flesh an blood of Christ.
Have you NO shame?
If it is such an excellent question, at least attempt to answer it. You asserted that faith is sufficient, I point out that you must eat the Body and Blood, and you hare off on claims of whether it’s a sacrifice. Answer the question. Tell why you have to eat the Body and Blood if faith is all sufficient.
In addition, you have hared off on a falsehood. Besides Jesus’s own words, referred to between your post and this one, Paul warns that if you eat or drink unworthily you will be guilty of the body and blood of Jesus. How can you be guilty of something that isn’t even there?
As for the “remembrance” that is a flat out false antithesis. Sacrifices can be memorials, and memorials can be sacrifices. Given that Jesus said you must eat His body and drink His blood — both in John 6 and the Last Supper — given that Paul warns you about the Real Presence — what grounds do you give for claiming that it is merely a remembrance?
How very intriguing to see those who mock the clear, biblical concept of faith alone (see Romans 3:21 – 28) use James 2:24 as their “sola reference”.
Romans never uses the phrase “faith alone”. Never. The only usage of the phrase “faith alone” is in James. Naturally we must use it as the reference. If you hold to “faith alone” you should be citing it too; what could be more important that the only place in the entire Bible to use it?
Steve C:
Unredeemed flesh? Unredeemed? Do you mean to say… something remains undone? Something is still incomplete?
Well, of course. But how can this be? Did Jesus die and rise to redeem your soul only? Did he not die and rise also for your body? Since his work is perfect and complete, how can it be that anything is undone or incomplete?
It seems there is a paradox here. We are free, and yet awaiting freedom. Redeemed, and yet awaiting our redemption. Christ’s work is perfect, complete and sufficient, yet our reception of that complete sufficiency is itself not yet final and complete.
We are not now what we will be one day in glory. Something remains to be done. Is this something in addition to Christ’s completed work? No, all our redemption, from start to finish, what has been done and what yet remains to be done, is all contingent upon Christ’s completed work. You mentioned the glorification of the saints. Is the glorification of the saints something added to Christ’s completed work? No, it is itself the unfolding of Christ’s completed work.
How does Christ bring to completion that which is already complete with respect to his work on the Cross? In myriad and diverse ways. By speaking to us through His eternal word. By strengthening us through the fellowship of brothers and sisters in Christ, and by their prayers and intercessions for us. By the guidance He gives us in ways chosen by and known to Himself. By the good deeds He has prepared for us to walk in. By the sorrow and contrition we feel when we fall into sin, and are then recalled to our first and true Love. By the crosses we take up daily as we follow our Lord; by the sufferings that conform us into his image.
Do these ways or means of grace and sanctification add to the completed work of Christ, or imply any insufficiency thereof? Not at all.
You allow for this paradox, this free-and-yet-awaiting-freedom, redeemed-and-yet-awaiting-redemption, when it comes to such means of grace as Bible reading, Christian fellowship, prayer, repentance and the like. But when it comes to such Catholic beliefs as the sacraments, the Eucharistic sacrifice, the prayers of the saints in Heaven, and purgatory, it’s not enough that you disagree or consider these beliefs unbiblical — no, you must also pit them against the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice, even though it means forgetting half the paradox you admit in other respects.
When it comes to Catholic teaching, suddenly we are supposed to be so redeemed that there is nothing more to be done, and to say otherwise is to attack the cross of Christ. Yet when you turn back to your own Christian walk, you apply a quite different standard. It will not stand. Either our completed redemption allows us to look to further redemption in this life and the next, again always contingent upon the work of Christ alone, or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, then let us not ask God for anything at all, for to do so is to attack the Cross. But if it does, then let us have no more straw-man attacks on the sacraments, the Eucharist, the prayers of the saints and purgatory.
Because He suffered, you don’t have to? Yet St. Paul tells us that we are “heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him” (Rom 8:17). It is not that He suffered so that we don’t have to. He suffered that we may suffer with Him. If we don’t suffer with him, we are not God’s children.
Hebrews 12:5-14 is worth citing at length:
God still punishes and disciplines us — his sons, those who are in Christ? How can this be! Christ’s work is perfect and complete; He suffered so that we don’t have to! But no. God punishes and disciplines every son He receives.
Note well verse 14: “Strive for… the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” Certainly holiness is a work of God and a gift of grace, but does that mean that we do nothing to obtain it, or that if we do we have fallen into semi-Pelagianism? No, the sacred writer tells us to strive for holiness — the holiness “without which no one will see the Lord.” If you want to see the Lord, you’d better strive for holiness. If that’s semi-Pelagianism, we’d better throw out Hebrews from the canon.
Cindy,
Did you read my post? Everything I said is Catholic teaching. The idea that you suggested – that we must add to Christ’s work with our own – is condemned by the Catholic Church.
As I said, according to Catholic teaching, a person cannot do anything before God on his own. All anyone can do is permit God to do something in him without resisting it. Catholics reject even the idea that a person can have faith on his own. Faith in God is completely and wholly a work of God that God creates in us when we do not fight Him. According to Catholic teaching, any good work done apart from Christ is meaningless to God. More importantly for our discussion, Catholic teaching holds that any good work done with Christ is literally Christ Himself doing the good work in the person. The person doesn’t do it himself, he only chooses not to put up an obstacle to God.
Cindy, I have Catholic friends who have not ever dealt with Protestantism for whom the idea you are speaking about would totally confuse them. They have had nothing but authentic Catholic teaching, and so to mention even the concept of adding good works to Christ’s just confuses them. They have learned that for the Christian every moment is literally just another moment of God trying to do things through a person – whether have faith, do a work, pray, or anything else – and that person either letting Him or not letting Him. The concept of man doing good works before God on his own simply confuses these people. Their understanding of Grace is too Catholic for that to make any sense.
That’s how foreign the idea you are suggesting is to Catholic teaching.
SDG, that was such a colossal point that I will post it again;
“…fellow heirs with Christ, PROVIDED WE SUFFER with him IN ORDER that we may also be glorified with him”
“Provided we suffer”.
Here are some other Bible passages related to salvation, just for those who may have thought it a simple, once-for-all event;
“Matthew 10:22
All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Acts 2:21
And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
1 Corinthians 15:2
By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.
1 Peter 3:21
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you alsoânot the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Matthew 16:25
For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.
1 Timothy 4:16
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.
James 2:14
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?
2 Corinthians 7:10
Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation…
Philipians 2:12
Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyedânot only in my presence, but now much more in my absenceâcontinue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling…
Notice Paul does not say “be assured of your salvation in boldness and confidence”. We are to be absolutely assured of Our Redeemer, but not of our own redemption, lest we presume and test God by our pride.
Perry–
Ahh, I see. You’re restricting yourself to “historic” claims of exclusivity. OK, yes, there was such a period in the Anglican past, when that idea came up (it was not in early Anglicanism, I think), but you seem to admit most of them don’t make that claim today. Half my family’s Episcopalian, and my uncle’s an Episcopal priest, so I’ll have to ask them how much of this is considered accepted (much less, “official”) ecclesiology today. I agree–I doubt much of it holds any sway now.
Churches go through periods in which some ideas come up, and then they fade away. If you want to ask whether a particular idea has *ever* come up in a church, I’m sure you’ll be able to find just about anything you want. When you then ask how many in that church believe it today…that’s a very different question. And if you ask if it’s *official* ecclesiology/theology/whatever, then that’s a third, distinct question.
My wife’s ex-Rumanian Orthodox, now Presbyterian Church in America, one of the strongly conservative & Calvinist branches. One of our closest friends is the lay minister (with whom I have had a lot of detailed theology discussions and debates), and we’re friends with the minister, as well. I’m pretty sure there’s no official or even popularly held belief amongst them that the Methodists or Baptists or whomever are “not true churches.” (We might disagree on a small number of points on theology, and there have been heated debates, but the idea of not being a “church” doesn’t enter into it.)
Go to the larger Presbyterian Church USA, and I’m even more sure you won’t find that as official or popularly held belief.
And again, the very dichotomy of “true church”/”not true church” is a concept or debate that strikes my ear as very odd and unlike normal Protestant categories. Not saying it can’t ever have happened, somewhere. But I doubt it’s got much traction.
—
But this is all a side issue. As I said, our usage of “Roman” to describe “Catholic” (capitalized) is simply to distinguish its usage from “catholic” (lower-case). As we use it, “Roman” does not at all mean “Latin rite.” It simply means subject to the Pope, whatever the rite used is (Latin, Byzantine, etc.). We do not accept that the [Roman] Catholic Church is coextensive with the universal Church (though it is certainly the biggest fraction of the Church), so we add the adjective.
And I’m suggesting people not to get hot and bothered over it, especially if they want to tell us not to get upset over the Pope saying we’re “not true churches” but “ecclesial communities.” Which mostly has gotten me giggling. I’m waiting for a Catholic spokesman to say something about the “United Methodist Ecclesial Community,” next time we have some ecumenical meeting! đ
—
Again, though: always good to remind people on both sides that we’re all Christians here, brothers in Christ.
The Church that Jesus Christ established was built upon a rock as its foundation, who was a fallible person just like every child of Adam and Eve. This person had a name change, by Jesus himself, and at the same time a singular authority was imparted. This authority was the power to bind and loss sins of individuals both on earth and in heaven. This authority is truly only a Divine Power, thus it is right that we should present our sins to Jesus, if you except that Jesus is I AM. But Jesus â God â imparted this singular authority onto His Rock, the foundation of His Church. This authority is shown, by Jesus, to be imparted on others, thus demonstrating that this authority can and should be passed on to those that are in union with His Rock.
In union with His Rock is being in union with Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, and the second, third, ⌠. What does being in union with Peter signify? Refer to Simonâs answer to the question that Jesus asks of all people: âWho do you say that I AM?â If one can answer in union with Simon: âYou are the Christ, the Son of the Living God!â and mean it and live it then one is justified in being called a servant of Jesus, a Christian and member of His Church.
Have I gone astray in my reasoning? How can anyone make sense of the rest of the New Testament, particularly Paulâs letters, if we can understand Jesusâ foundational teachings.
Please show me if I am misleading myself.
RFTW
SDG:
Comparing the suffering of Jesus with our daily trials or the discipline of the Lord is not at all what I was referring to.
The context here is the discussion on Purgatory–a teaching you uphold for the purification of the saints before they enter heaven due to sins yet “unanswered” for. Here is the conmparison: Jesus Christ so fully suffered on Calvary’s tree once for all, for all the sins of the elect, that the elect don’t have to suffer in Purgatory for the purification of some sins.
I thought this was obvious… (and you promised me that your full brain would be engaged). :-).
In this world we will have trials and tribulations; we are not glorified yet (though Paul speaks of it as a future reality already accomplished for us (Roms. 8:28-31); there is no other work to be done for our glorification to take place. In RCC theology, that is not the case. The work according to Rome, is truly left incomplete–Christ is not completely sufficient in your worldview.
But going back a few comments earlier, you do hold to a justified/unjustified position based upon your obedience or failure to obey. Your justification is synergistic; not monergistic. You helped to obtain it; ergo, you can lose it. Salvation is a cooperative act in RCC theology, not solely resting on the sufficient, finished work of Christ alone.
That is the glaring difference between our two gospels. One is based on grace alone by faith alone on Christ alone with the evidence of good works, holy living, sanctification, even the discipline of the Father when we are not honoring Him, etc.; the other is based upon what Christ has accomplished AND extra-biblical practices that progressively make you justified where upon death further purification for your sins still needs to occur with an additional righteousness to the righteousness of Jesus must be obtained and applied for you to enter glory.
That is a false gospel my friend.
RCC beliefs represent the blend of grace + works + merit + faith = salvation.
I think I have finished my stay here on this thread. I do appreciate you greatly in this discussion; and apart from your wife’s inflated view of your mental capacity; her calling me an ass (bastard would have been more appropriate—ass is to feminine and polite a term) I have enjoyed my time here.
Any of you are welcome at my blog to further discuss these things if you so desire. You will be treated with respect, but stressed biblically on what you hold as doctrine. Nonetheless, welcome.
I will continue to sincerely pray for you and would ask that you reconsider the biblical gospel in light of Roman convictions. The book of Galatians really is the epistle that sums up my concerns for RCC.
In His sufficient grace,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
Tim,
I restricted myself to historic claims, especially with Anglicanism because Anglicanism doesnât hold to much of anything distinctly Christian any longer. You can deny any or all of the major doctrines of God, including Godâs existence and be in fine standing in the Episcopal Church or even the CofE for that matter. While many things are on paper, they really donât subscribe to them. I was raised in the Episcopal church and severed in various capacities at the diocesan and provincial levels so I know of what I speak. So the adherence to Apostolic Succession and Episcopacy was held to be a necessary mark of the church until about the 1950âs. That isnât some nether period in the past like when Henry 8th was king. So no, most of them donât make the claim today but most of them donât think belief in Jesus as the way of salvation or the Trinity, resurrection or virgin birth is required either. Of course when it comes to preserving funds the Episcopal church will invoke it to keep liberal Presbyterians and others from accessing their funds via a denial of their orders as legitimate and bar full intercommunion, which is what happened not too long ago.
In any case, I was speaking of official teachings and not the views of uninformed lay people or dissenting clergy. IN the PCA, yes it is still on the books. Of course the PCUSA is pretty much the same as the mainline Episcopal church-they are so liberal as to be functionally Unitarian. I mean when you can have discussions about renaming the Trinity in terms of âMother, Child and Wombâ, Elvis has left the Christian building. The same goes for ELCA.
And the discussion of a true church is fairly standard part of Protestant theology for the last 500 years. It is covered in all of the major systematics of the respective traditions under the marks of the church. The fact that most of the mainline bodies have recently denied their historic teachings on the basis of an abondonement of Christianity altogether hardly serves as counter evidence.
As for the term Catholic, well I am not interested so much in how people use it, but what its original meaning was and on that score I think both Rome and Protestants are mistaken. But of course that is just to say that I am Orthodox.
Steve Camp,
I repeat, again:
“And what authority do you give yourself to ensure you are correct in your understanding?”
This is very important as you pointed out earlier. We need to have a correct understanding, it has eternal consequences.
We can easily quote the Sacred Scriptures to each other, as Satan did in the desert to Christ Himself, and also twist them to our own destruction, as St. Peter warns especially about St. Paul’s writings.
As a husband and a father of seven so far I take my responsibility to guide my family very seriously.
We obviously disagree on the meaning of the Sacred Scriptures and the question has to be answered; who has the authority to interpret the Sacred Scriptures?
I think you are sinning by persecuting the Bride of Christ and you think I am sinning by following false teaching. Who do we go to decide? Who are we obligated to hear even if we might not completely understand the answer? Are we left without a foundation for Truth?
I still hope for and look forward to a response.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Hi, Perry–
Well, I’m willing to stand corrected if you’re right. We’re having supper tonight with our friend the lay preacher (PCA). I’ll ask him about this. Just so I can narrow down the question to him, is there a particular denomination you think the PCA says is “not a true church,” or is it supposedly everybody else?
I’m still unsure what would even be meant by “not a true church” from a Protestant perspective. The terminology seems much more Catholic or Orthodox. Can you explain your understanding of what the PCA means by it, or how they word it?
It might just be that I’m not understanding your claim properly.
And as to whether this is or isn’t standard Protestant theology or ecclesiology of half a milennium (sp?), I can assure you that it at least does not exist in the tenets of the Methodist church, whose doctrine is a nice, short list of 24-25 points, and they haven’t changed at all since they were settled on in 1808 (I think, for the church in America).
What “true Gospel” states that the Bible is the sole rule of faith?
Perry–
One more thing on the Anglican church: I was saying that it arose at some point in the past but wasn’t always so. I believe the 17th century, especially, saw a lot of rejection of this concept within the Anglican church. I was guessing this was a 19th or maybe 18th-century idea, primarily. I’m surprised it existed “on the books” until the 20th century, but as you say, it’s no longer there.
So you’re arguing that Protestants *should* be more acrimonious with each other than they are, and that they *should* use as justification for this acrimony some decrees that they have removed and which they don’t believe in today.
Huh. đ
Once again, I suggest that it’s a good thing we (the vast majority of us Protestants) *don’t* act this way. That we get along so well (even with the disagreements that exist). And that we don’t (most of us) go looking for fights over things like ecclesiology, which is so unimportant to Christianity (in my opinion).
Tim H.
And that we don’t (most of us) go looking for fights over things like ecclesiology, which is so unimportant to Christianity (in my opinion).
If an understanding of the Church is so unimportant in your opinion why do you think Christ founded a Church?
Why would He state if your brother sins against you and you can’t reconcile take it to the Church?
Wouldn’t it be important to know where that Church is and who has the God-given authority to bind and loose? Especially since that authority can retain or forgive sins.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio
I am a father to five kids and I take it very seriously too.
The authority I appeal to and speak from is the Word of God rightly divided (2 Tim. 1:15; Acts 17:9-11; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Psalm 19:7-11; Jude 3; 2 Peter 1:3-4; John 17:17). I am sorry that your final authority lies not in Scripture, but in the flawed and skewed shoulders of Popes and Magisteriums.
Read the Bible for yourself Inocencio; it’s 2007. Through the courage and heroic efforts of Martin Luther, you too can actually own your own copy of the Bible (much to the chagrin of the Papacy); and you do not have to be seduced by the aberrant teachings of any Pope any longer. It’s called Reformation!
Just make sure your version is the Word of God (the one with 66 books only – ESV or NASB are very good). You don’t want to be guilty of adding to Scripture and having to spend more time in Purgatory than is absolutely necessary for a purposed act of failing to do good. :-). But then again, for five bucks, you can get out early. In fact, can I pay it forward? I’ll send you the five bucks–my Christmas gift to you.
There, grace in action–or would that be works?
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
Gal. 1:6-9
Steve Camp,
The Sacred Scriptures make it clear that Our Blessed Lord established His Church [Matt. 16:18-19] as a teaching hierarchy to speak to the world in His name and with His authority [Matt. 18:17-18]. His Church is teach men whatsoever He had taught [Matt 28:18-20].
Our Blessed Lord placed on all men the obligation of listening to and obeying His Church [Luke 10:16; Mark 16:15-16]. He promised to be with His Church to the end of time [Matt. 28:20]. He sent the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of infallible truth [John 16:13] upon the Apostles and their successors to guide them in their teaching mission [John 14:26].
Our Blessed Lord Himself wrote nothing, other than in the dust. He commanded the Apostles not to write but to teach and preach [Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15]. Christ disciples and all Christians were obligated to hear His Church [Luke 10:16] not to read the still non-existent or at best incomplete New Testament Scriptures.
His teaching Church, which even teaches the angels in heaven [Eph. 3:10], and is the pillar and bulwark of truth [1 Tim 3:15] was in existence long before a single line of the New Testament was written. The Apostles evangelized different peoples, not by presenting to them a copy of the New Testament (which did not yet exist), but by preaching the Gospel, the oral message (Sacred Tradition [2 Thes. 2:15: John 21:25]) of Christ to them. Thousands of men became Christians [Acts 2:41] and adhered to the whole truth of God [Acts 2:42] before they read a single book of the New Testament.
It was the leaders of the teaching Church Christ established who, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote the books of the New Testament and declared which books of the Old Testament were canonical. It was His Church [1 Tim 3:15] which collected and preserved these books and distinguished them from spurious books which others might have considered Scripture. It was from His Church that the Protestants of the sixteenth century (and you) took their Bible and also their belief in its divine inspiration.
I have read the Sacred Scriptures cover to cover side by side with the Catechism of the Catholic Church over a 10 month period. I still read and study it daily.
My final authority is the one established by Christ Himself. And I am sorry that you refuse to hear those whom He sent with His authority.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Dear Shane:
You said, âAll anyone can do is permit God to do something in him without resisting it.
And
âFaith in God is completely and wholly a work of God that God creates in us when we do not fight Him.â
And
“that person either letting Him or not letting Him.â
So, itâs up to us to decide whether God is able to work? His work is dependent on whether we âfightâ Him or not? Really?
If it were true that we get to choose whether or not we will âletâ God work in us, then it would follow that we are in control of God.
But we both know that is not so.
We know that God is Sovereign (1Timothy 6:15) and can overcome all resistance when he wills.
“He does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand!” (Daniel 4:35). When God undertakes to fulfill his sovereign purpose, no one can successfully resist him.
Here is what God says about Himself:
âand God saidâŚAnd it was so.â Genesis 1
Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleasesâ Psalm 115:3
âWhatever the LORD pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all the deeps.â Ps.135:6
ââŚin the presence of GodâŚwho gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not existâ Romans 4:17
“For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.” Philippians 2:13
The LORD reigns, Shane. Make your defense solely from the infallible Word of God rather than the idolatrous, man-centered teachings and traditions of men.
Soli Deo Gloria!
Cindy
Cindy,
I am glad to continue this discussion with you. It is enjoyable to talk with a sister in Christ about the Gospel. I am also pleased to discuss the Scriptures, they are one of my favorite things to tallk about.
I would simply respond to your comments by pointing out that the Scriptures clearly teach that we can “fight” with God. In the book of Acts (7:51), Stephen says that a certain group of people – as well their fathers – resist the Holy Spirit.
Inocencio–
It’s not that the Church doesn’t exist, but most of us Protestants, I think, have a view that very little (if any) of its structure is divinely required to be of one certain form, or that its rituals must be as specific as high church types claim. So debates over “a true church” vs. “not a true church” on those grounds strike us as asking the wrong question. Same for asking “where it can be found.” And we certainly disagree with the idea that one denomination today can claim to be coextensive with the Church.
I’d rather not go off onto a whole debate on this at the moment. Feel free to disagree; I’m just answering how we see it, and I’m quite aware that Catholics & Orthodox & a few others have different opinions.
I’d like to reiterate that most of us don’t get into fights over ecclesiology, and it’s unwise to encourage us to.
Dear Mary,
James 2:24 was written to Christians, not unbelievers. Faith that works is the issue, not eternal salvation. It is a call to believers to put their faith into action. When we read vs.24 in the context of the chapter, we see that it is telling us that faith alone, if it is not manifesting itself by works, is idle and useless. It is dead in that it is showing no signs of life. As James 2:17 says, âSo that faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.â Our faith needs to show itself in our lives. James is talking about the fruit of our justification, or works being the proof of our faith.
The Lord Jesus Himself insisted on a theology of lordship that involved obedience, not mere lip-service. Here is what He said to those who attached themselves to Him in name only:
“Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46).
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21).
That is in perfect harmony with what James says: “Prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves” (1:22)
And also with what we find in 1 John 2:4, “If you say you have come to know Him, yet you do not keep His commandments, then the truth is not in you and you are a liar.”
The Bible states clearly that there is only one way of going to Heaven. It is by faith alone in Jesus Christ. See John 14:6, Acts 16:31, Romans 3:20-25, 4:5, Galatians 2:16, Ephesians. 2:8-9.
Faith in Christ secures for the believer freedom from condemnation, (Romans 8:1); justification before God, (Romans 10:3-9); a participation in the life that is in Christ,(John 14:19; Rom. 6:4-10; Eph. 4:15,16, etc.); âpeace with Godâ (Rom. 5:1); and sanctification (Acts 26:18; Gal. 5:6; Acts 15:9).
Hope this helps.
Cindy
No. James 2:24 states: “A man is not justified by faith alone.”
I know. It’s what I was referring to. It’s not always about you, you know. đ Sometimes the other person has a point to make, too.
In this case, my point was that your objection to purgatory, the Mass, the sacraments etc. on the grounds that “Jesus’ work is complete, nothing remains undone, etc.,” if followed consistently, would similarly exclude any and all occasions of grace and growth in the life of the Spirit, from prayer, Bible reading and Christian fellowship to sorrow for sins and taking up our crosses to follow Jesus. By the same token, if you acknowledge that the completeness of redemption still leaves room for ongoing sanctification through such means as prayer, fellowship and carrying our crosses, you haven’t made the case why ongoing sanctification through such means as the sacraments, the Mass or purgatory should be something “added” to the completed work of the Cross.
When it comes to “our daily trials or the discipline of the Lord,” you acknowledge that our redemption is complete yet awaiting completion; when it comes to anything distinctively Catholic, you suddenly emphasize only completion, completion, completion. Either you haven’t throught it through, or you aren’t willing to, or something.
You are wrong on two counts: First, in Catholic soteriology there are no sins that are “unanswered” for — this is Steve Camp language, not Catholic catechetical language. Second, the fact that Jesus alone atones for the guilt of all our sin does not mean that we may not also have to suffer discipline from God to be purified of them, and so share in the holiness without which no one will see the Lord — as Hebrews 12:6-14 illustrates.
Unless you want to throw out the book of Hebrews, you seem to have boxed yourself into saying something like, “The completed work of Christ on the cross may not exclude the elect from undergoing discipline in this life to be purged from sin and share his holiness, but it does exclude it in the unbiblical location of purgatory. Such discipline in this life is compatible with the completed work of Christ, but in the next life it would be an affront to the completeness of the Cross.”
If that’s what your brief against purgatory amounts to, the defense rests.
I thought my point was obvious too (and actually I specifically said I made no promises). If these are closing statements, I’m happy to leave the question to the jury.
If Jesus and the Apostles meant us to understand that salvation cannot be lost, they did a spectacularly poor job of communicating that message to the early generations of Christians, not one of whom seems ever to have heard such a thing (including Calvinist faves like Augustine).
Anyway, “synergistic” vs. “monergistic” isn’t especially the language of the Bible or of the Christian creeds; AFAIK, Catholic soteriology can be explicated either way (e.g., Thomism lends itself to the language of “monergism,” Molinism to “synergism”). I don’t think that’s a particularly helpful line in the sand here.
I would rather use the language of scripture, e.g., “For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life… [There will be] glory and honor and peace for every one who does good. … For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified” (Rom 2:6-13).
How can I credit your theology when your hearing (or rather reading comprehension) is so poor?
When the defense of theological system A hinges on distorting theological system B, which system is the one with the problem?
Thanks, I’m glad to be appreciated. (BTW, Suz didn’t say you were an ass, only that you were acting like one, an important distinction. And I doubt if she would accept “bastard” as a helpful alternative; the unique semantic range of each term encompasses other relevant territory than the points you cited. As for your difference of opinion with Suz on the topic mentioned, that’s definitely a question I’ll leave for the jury.)
Thanks for the invitation. I don’t have a Google account, though I guess I could get one.
I would commend the same to you. Our family (we have five kids too!) will remember you in our family rosary tonight.
Tim,
Ask your PCA friend what the marks of the church are and why they donât have intercommuion with the Baptists or the Luthers. If you donât know what it means to be a collection of like minded individuals as opposed to a true church, then read the Reformation and Post-Reformation Reformed and Lutheran works on the marks of the church. The terminology is quite Classically Protestant. From my understanding the Methodists are not themselves unaffected by liberal theological so I would wonder how far current statements represent Methodist sentiment. I have read fairly widely in Anglican theology and the idea is fairly constant throughout. I am not arguing that one should be acrimonious, but consistent. Denying that some other body is a church isnât of itself acrimonious, especially if it is true. I am simply baffled why if there is so much supposed agreement why they donât have full intercommunion and mutual recognition of orders. And it isnât that ecclesiology isnât important to the majority of Protestants, since ecclesiology is one of the Reformation marks of the church, but rather that most Protestants have a docetistic ecclesiology. From my view, ecclesiology and the Trinity from day one have been intrinciallly linked so that you have Apostles, Presybters and Deacons and then with the death of the Apostles, Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons where the first member serves as an analog of the Father, who is the source of the other two ministers. This model is explicit in early works like Ignatius and Clement. The split in the presbyterate in Presbyterianism between teaching and ruling presbyters tells you a lot about their Christology for instance.
Cindy wrote,
“So, itâs up to us to decide whether God is able to work? His work is dependent on whether we âfightâ Him or not? Really? If it were true that we get to choose whether or not we will âletâ God work in us, then it would follow that we are in control of God. ”
First, this is only true for those who have election to grace and not to glory. IN Catholic theology some receive the election to glory and so it is impossible for them to fall finally.
Secondly, if it weren’t possible to resist God’s grace, how are you to explain Adam’s fall? Was Adam in control of God or did God will Adam to fall?
As I noted above, your reading of James 2 wonât work, for the last verse (v. 26) indicates that works, not faith is the cause of perfecting or completing faith. The analogy that James gives is just as the soul causes the body to live, so works cause faith to be alive and genuine. This is why James speaks of faith without works as dead. What then makes it alive? Faith. The way you read it, James would have to say, what kind of faith produces or causes good works? But that is not what James is considering. The reason why the Reformed canât permit works in justification, as Augustine taught is because the underlying Nominalist theory of causation thinks of effects and causes as discrete existences such that an effect cannot participate in the causal activity, effects are always passive. This is not the Realist view that Augustine endorses. So Cindy to be fair, perhaps you could agree with the teaching of Scripture and Augustine if you put away the vain philosophical traditions of men that have been bequeathed to you without your explicit knowledge. The problem is that you are in the grip of philosophical views that guide your reading of the bible of which you are not aware.
Moreover, on your own principles since every formal theological statement is fallible, everything you believe by definition is revisable and a teaching of men constructed out of the Bible. Even the canon itself is revisable on your view so that it is possible in the future (as was done in the past) to significantly alter the contents of the faith by adding or removing (or both) certain books of the bible. One of the major points of taking the church to be infallible under specific conditions is just so we donât end up giving our assent to merely human constructions or ideas.
None of the passages you cite says that faith is the only formal cause of justification which is what they would have to teach to teach sola fide. In fact, all Eph for example indicates is that faith is not OF ourselves, we are not the ultimate source of it, not that we are completely passive. In fact, Paul is quite clear in 1 Cor 13 and Romans 5:5, & 13:8ff that it is the love of God in us that fulfills the law and hence pleases God.
Steve,
Even if your gloss were right, passages like 2 Tim offer your position no help. 2 Tim indicates that Scripture is useful for the âman of God.â Are you that man? In Scripture, that phrase is used, as Paul uses it for example, of ordained ministers. In the OT, it is always used of priests or prophets. What Paul is saying is that Scripture is Timothyâs tool. He is a judge to apply the rule. And we know from historical sources like Eusebius that Timothy was a bishop. And this is why the verses you cite miss their intended target for supposing that Scripture were the only infallible rule of faith, sola scriptura would still not follow for the question is, who is the judge with the requisite authority to APPLY that rule? You? Just anybody? Scripture makes it clear in Acts 15 for instance that the judges are the apostles and their commissioned ministers (as well as Jesus in Matt 18:17. How will they hear unless someone is SENT? Who sent your ministers?). In the Bible there are only two ways for ministers to be sent from God, extraordinarily with miracles and prophecy like Moses or ordinarily through a succession back to someone who was extraordinarily like the Levites. Luther renounces his ordination and Calvin was never ordained, even by Protestants. And none of them had miracles or prophecy. So the question is, who sent your ministers since they do not meet the requisite biblical conditions on ordination? Calvin himself wrote,
âThey object that they have the word by which the will of God has been openly manifested; that is, if we permit them to banish from the Church the gift of interpretation, which should throw light upon the word. I admit that they have the word, but just as the Anthropomorphites of old had it, when they made God corporeal; just as Marcion and the Manichees had it when they made the body of Christ celestial or phantastical.â Calvinâs Institutes, Bk 4:17:25
âWhat is more excellent than to produce the true and complete perfection of the church? And yet this work, so
admirable and divine, is here declared by the apostle to be accomplished by the external ministry of the word. That those who neglect this instrument should hope to become perfect in Christ is utter madness. Yet such are the fanatics, on the one hand, who pretend to be favored with secret revelations of the Spirit, — and proud men, on the other, who imagine that to them the private reading of the Scriptures is enough, and that they have no need of the ordinary ministry of the church.â Calvinâs Commentaries, Eph 4:12
âWe must allow ourselves to be ruled and taught by men. This is the universal rule, which extends equally to the highest and to the lowest. The church is the common mother of all the godly, which bears, nourishes, and brings up children to God, kings and peasants alike; and this is done by the ministry. Those who neglect or despise this order choose to be wiser than Christ. Woe to the pride of such men!â Calvinâs Commentaries, Eph 4:12
âObserve well it is not said that God has left the Scriptures for everyone to read but has appointed a government that there may be persons to teach.â Calvin, Corpus Reformatorum, 8:412
âThe apostles did not appoint themselves, but were chosen by Christ; and, at the present day, true pastors do not rashly thrust themselves forward by their own judgment, but are raised up by the Lord. In short, the government of the church, by the ministry of the word, is not a contrivance of men, but an appointment made by the Son of God. As his own unalterable law, it demands our assent. They who reject or despise this ministry offer insult and rebellion to Christ its Author.â Calvinâs Commentaries, Eph 4:11
As to judgment, who is your judge who applies the only infallible rule without fail? You take yourself to be that judge which is why you think that no interpretation can bind your conscience unless you assent to it. On your own principles then you put your trust in your own fallible theological constructions, for on your own view no formal theological statement is beyond possible revision. Your faith is no different in kind than the postulates of any science-always provisional and so you can never justify your absolute commitment on such a foundation for inductive methodologies can never grant a certain conclusion. So in fact I think in principle the shoe is on the other foot. You are the one who has put their trust in the teachings of men for there is no Protestant doctrinal statement that can command your assent which shows that it is merely a human construction about God. Semper Reformada amounts to always revising, which is very appropriate for a creation of Renaissance humanism.
I will leave the silly mythology about prohibiting bible reading to others, except to say that this might fly with the Catholics, but it does no work with Orthodox Christians like myself. Whatâs the excuse for us? We always had the Bible ready at hand and we werenât reading it in Latin either, but Greek, our native tongue. No claim to medieval scholastic distortion is going to fly in Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria and Jerusalem. As for Re-forming, Christ already conferred the proper form on his Church and so there is no need to give a new form to it
As for adding books to Scripture, why on Protestant principles would that be a problem? Plenty of Presbyterian scholars argued for the revision of the canon once again in removing 3rd John because of its support of Episcopacy. So why include any book that doesnât strike my fancy?
Tim H.: The fact you’ve been shown that it’s an inaccurate and offensive label, yet you still use it is problematic. Do you call Native Americans “Indians”? Because frankly, offensive or not, it’s stupid. If you’ve ever met someone actually from India, you can pretty easily notice a major difference in appearances. Inaccurate labels do nobody any good.
Perry
I am a licensed minister of the gospel and have been approved to teach, preach, and proclaim the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ for many years. I have written and developed elder training programs for other churches, have served on staff as an associate pastor with Dr. John MacArthur, and currently am doing the work of an evangelist in itinerant ministry. (This means little to me, but I hope this answers your initial question above.)
I hope the following will be of encouragement to you.
J.C. Ryle commenting on John Wycliffe and his ministry.
“The true Christian was intended by Christ to prove all things by the Word of God, all churches, all ministers, all teaching, all preaching, all doctrines, all sermons, all writings, all opinions, all practices. These are His marching orders. Prove all by the Word of God; measure all by the measure of the Bible; compare all with the standard of the Bible; weigh all in the balances of the Bible; examine all by the light of the Bible; test all in the crucible of the Bible. That which can abide the fire of the Bible, receive hold, believe, and obey. That which cannot abide the fire of the Bible, reject, refuse, repudiate, and cast away. This is the flag which He nailed to the mast. May it never be lowered!
A church which does not honor the Bible is as useless as a body without life, or a steam engine without fire. A minister who does not honor the Bible is as useless as a soldier without arms, a builder without tools, a pilot without compass, or a messenger without tidings. Stand fast on old principles. Do not forsake the old paths. Let nothing tempt you to believe that multiplication of forms and ceremonies, constant reading of liturgical services, or frequent communions, will ever do so much good to souls as the powerful, fiery, fervent preaching of God’s Word. If men want to do good to the multitude, if they want to reach their hearts and consciences, they must attack them through their ears; they must blow the trumpet of the everlasting Gospel loud and long; they must preach the Word.”
I am a licensed minister of the gospel
Do you need a license for that too?
Do you need a license for that too?
Actually, I know some friends that became licensed Protestant ministers through the Internet!
“Approved” by whom? From what authority is your “license”? Is it not merely human approval and authority you speak of?
The Lord I follow commissioned the Apostles to teach in His name and St. Peter the rock to feed his sheep. Peter and the Twelve in turn commissioned the first bishops to carry on their work.
That office has continued from the first century until today. It enjoys divine authority, not merely human. That is why I am a Catholic (and for that matter why Perry is Orthodox).
Steve,
Thank you for answering my questions finally, even though you ignored my scriptural challenges to prove the filioque, creation ex nihilo or divine simplicity from the Scriptures alone. Mentioning MacArthur bakes no bread with me. The man was explicitly teaching in his Lordship teaching Romeâs view of Formed Faith for years all the while condemning Catholicism. Horton and Riddlebager admitted this to me personally. The fact that he didnât understand and was actually teaching against Protestant doctrines unknowingly doesnât inspire any confidence. In any case, appealing to being licensed by him or any other Protestant simply moves the question, it doesnât answer it for who sent him? Unless he has some direct commissioning by God attested to by miracles and prophecy he is not a biblical minister but a man made usurper. Making up new pieces of paper doesnât make you a licit minister of Jesus. Who sent you and your ministers? You have no miracles and no prophecy so you canât have any significant claim to have direct commissioning by God and your ministers either lacked or denied any ordinary commissioning 500 years ago.
In the NT (and OT) the means for ordaining is via the laying on of hands originally from the Apostles (1 Tim 4:14, 5:22, 2 Tim 1:6) even though the Presbyterians prohibited it for 100 years to make sure they cut off any idea of apostolic succession which incidentally means that it canât come through the presbyterate even if one denies that episcopacy is of divine right. The idea of succession is clearly taken from the OT (Neh 7:64) and so is present in both covenants as testified to in the apostolic corpus. Jesus is the chief apostle sent by the Father who in turn sends his apostles who in turn sent out authorized representatives with letters authenticating them to the churches. (Acts 9:2, 15:23, 28:21, 1 Cor 16:3) This is why in the Apostolic and early Church the most important question was first even before hearing any teaching, WHO SENT YOU? And this is the way Jesus himself speaks in his ministry. (Jn 5:23-37, 8:18, 12:49, 14:24, 20:21) Protestantism clearly innovates here and creates doctrines and practices not found in the bible and contrary to it.
As a former Anglican and before that, a Calvinist, I have read a good dose of Ryle but his comment is irrelevant for the Bible fixes the usage of the phrase âthe man of Godâ and it isnât just any Christian. This doesnât mean that individual Christians arenât charged with a measure of responsibility but it does undermine any normative right of private judgment. The question is, if the Bible is the infallible rule, who is the judge to apply the rule correctly? As I noted, Calvin takes it to be the external ministry of the Church, which oddly enough cuts off his own claims. If every Christian gets to apply the rule, why doesn’t every christian get to create his own canon too on the very same principle of private judgment and the internal testimony of the Spirit?
Steve Camp,
I am a licensed minister of the gospel and have been approved to teach, preach, and proclaim the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ for many years.
Romans 10:15, “And how can men preach unless they are sent?”
A preacher must be sent by those having God-given authority, the apostles and their successors, and not try to preach on their own authority like Korah in the Old Testament or try to purchase it with money like Simon Magnus.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
In the NT (and OT) the means for ordaining is via the laying on of hands originally from the Apostles (1 Tim 4:14, 5:22, 2 Tim 1:6) even though the Presbyterians prohibited it for 100 years to make sure they cut off any idea of apostolic succession which incidentally means that it canât come through the presbyterate even if one denies that episcopacy is of divine right. The idea of succession is clearly taken from the OT (Neh 7:64) and so is present in both covenants as testified to in the apostolic corpus. Jesus is the chief apostle sent by the Father who in turn sends his apostles who in turn sent out authorized representatives with letters authenticating them to the churches. (Acts 9:2, 15:23, 28:21, 1 Cor 16:3) This is why in the Apostolic and early Church the most important question was first even before hearing any teaching, WHO SENT YOU? And this is the way Jesus himself speaks in his ministry. (Jn 5:23-37, 8:18, 12:49, 14:24, 20:21) Protestantism clearly innovates here and creates doctrines and practices not found in the bible and contrary to it.
Perry Robinson,
Again, I am thankful for your comments in your latest post.
Keep posting, brutha!
Steve Camp,
The authority I appeal to and speak from is the Word of God rightly divided
My whole point is how do you know you have rightly divided the Word of God? Because you say so? Because those who say what you want to hear have told you?
If Scripture alone is all you need why did the Ethiopian Jew(Acts 8) say he needed someone to guide him? He recognized what you will not even though Perry Robinson has so clearly made the point; That one must be sent with authority or he is a false apostle.
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. (2 Cor. 11:13)
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio,
It doesn’t take infalliblity to know, but that being the case, it still is of no use, for the passage in 2 Tim about Scripture is talking about its uses by “the man of God”, specifically Timothy a bishop. The right division or interpretation as the verse teaches is the perogative of bishops, and not some private right of judgment.
Protestants can come to and know what the right interpretation is, it is just that on their own principles, their theoretical constructions could never count as divine teaching because they cannot bind the conscience. Skeptical arguments only serve to show up their metaphysical inadequacy. If there is apossibility of failure, then it can’t be divine and hence can’t bind my conscience, even if it is in fact correct. The degree to which I am obligated to believe a knowledge claim is far lower and has exculpatory conditions, whereas this is pretty much not the case with divine teaching. You are obligated to believe divine teaching even if you don’t know that it is true.
Perry Robinson,
I agree with your understanding/explanation of the “man of God”.
Yes, protestants can come to know the right understanding but as you have stated they have no authority to bind, loose or send themselves to preach.
The point I was making with Steve Camp is that since we clearly disagree on the meaning of Sacred Scripture we must see the need for an authority to decide. Which of course Sacred Scripture clearly shows is the Bride of Christ, the Church.
I would assume not being a philosopher (and only having a public high school education) that I have misunderstood the point of your last comment.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Gentlemen:
Based on the surface of what you are claiming, I present the following as concerning what I see the scriptures teaching, rather than catholic ecclesiology:
1. 2 Tim 2:2 – Paul tells Timothy, “and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others alsoâ. That’s the true apostolic succession.
2. Paul appointed and encouraged Titus in
Titus 1:5 âgo and appoint elders in every town
as I directed youâ. Do you not consider all those elders official ministers of the gospel?
3. Do you consider Paul an official representative and minister of the Lord Jesus Christ, for he was not appointed or chosen by Peter or the others, but was chosen directly by God on the road to Damascus.
4. As lengthy Church history bears out, the Catholic churchâs claim to direct apostolic succession from Peter is false. The papacy is corrupt in its claim to be directly linked to Peter. Once again, you appeal by revisionist history rather than according to the Word of God, chiefly amongst which the church was not founded upon the little rock of Peter, but upon The Rock, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself (MT.16:18).
The fact that a group of cardinals choose another pope by democratic vote creates no biblical apostolic succession, but simply a political one. Considering you claim infallibility of the pope, why is it that there have been sharp disagreements between people in Catholic church history? Surely if there is infallibility, there would be unity, but that has not been the case.
And by biblical scrutiny, no pope speaking by infallible rule could biblically condone the skewed doctrines we have tried to address on this thread.
Taking scripture at face value, today’s protestant churches approve and affirm their ministers by the biblical qualifications in 1Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Do you consider those qualifiers established by the apostle Paul for pastors today to be illegitimate, or do you consider those same qualifiers as only referring to the pope?
Cindy Bleil,
The fact that a group of cardinals choose another pope by democratic vote creates no biblical apostolic succession, but simply a political one.
Well, there are a couple of things you want to need cleared up here:
(1) Peter does not give his keys to his successor. No pope gives their keys to the successor because, normally, the pope is dead.
What we have is Jesus promised in Matt 16 that he would give the keys to Peter; he promised the keys of the kingdom to Peter and the context of Matt 16 makes plain that there would be successors of Peter, but nowhere does the Scripture say that Peter himself has to communicate the keys.
What is key here is understanding that first of all, weâre talking about the successor of Peter as the Bishop of Rome. He is the one to whom the keys of the kingdom is communicated and the way that that happens, we see in the Book of Acts Chapter 1 when Judas died —
It was Peter who made the rules for how this would take place -â I mean, Peter basically, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, quotes if you look at Acts Chapter 1 right around verses 19, 20 and 21; he quotes Psalm 69 and Psalm 109 and he puts those two verses together and he says weâve got to choose a replacement for Judas and then they did so.
In other words, Peter makes the rules as far as how weâre going to go about electing bishops in the future, the successors of the Apostles.
But, that was put into place before Peter dies, obviously, so he could have successors and we have a 1st Century testament to this in St. Clement of Rome who in Par 44 of his work called the Epistle to the Corinthians â this is Pope Clement, the 3rd Successor of St. Peter, who is also mentioned in the New Testament, by the way he tells us, if I could remember, I donât have it in front of me but I think I can get it almost â he says, âThe Apostles knew through perfect foreknowledge that strife would arise amongst the Office of Bishop. Therefore, they made arrangements that other approved men should succeed to their ministry so that after they have died, other approved men could succeed to their ministry.â
There, you have the idea of Apostolic succession; not only in the Scriptures in Rom 10:14, for example, and Acts 1:20, but historically we see St. Clement of Rome talking about it. We see in fact lists of the Bishop of Rome that go all the way back. For example, St. Irenaeus of Lyon â- book 3 chapter 3 (as I believe) in his work called Against Heresies â- there he lists the Bishops of Rome all the way back to Peter; from the Bishop of Rome from the time that he was alive in about 177 AD.
We have also various other lists from different historians like Eusebius of Caesara; we have even St. Augustine; we have others who give us the lists of the Bishops of Rome all the way back to St. Peter.
This is thus a matter of historical fact. Even the Orthodox acknowledge â- who are not Catholic â- that we have the lists of the Bishops of Rome that go all the way back to Peter; albeit, there, he is considered the first amongst equals.
Cindy Bleil,
1. 2 Tim 2:2 – Paul tells Timothy, “and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others alsoâ. That’s the true apostolic succession. Yes, exactly what you have heard not read.
2. Paul appointed and encouraged Titus in
Titus 1:5 âgo and appoint elders in every town
as I directed youâ. Do you not consider all those elders official ministers of the gospel? Yes, because they had “hands laid upon them” and they were sent by those in authority.
3. Do you consider Paul an official representative and minister of the Lord Jesus Christ, for he was not appointed or chosen by Peter or the others, but was chosen directly by God on the road to Damascus. Yes, because as Our Lord said he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6) by the disciple Ananis and in Antioch they laid hands upon him and he was sent by those in the Church (Acts 13:3-4)
4. As lengthy Church history bears out, the Catholic churchâs claim to direct apostolic succession from Peter is false. You are incorrect and the list of succession is documented.
The papacy is corrupt in its claim to be directly linked to Peter. Once again, you appeal by revisionist history rather than according to the Word of God, chiefly amongst which the church was not founded upon the little rock of Peter, but upon The Rock, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself (MT.16:18). Christ Himself built His Church upon the rock, kepha in aramaic, of Peter, kepha, and St. Paul refers to Peter as Cephas (Greek transliteration of kepha many times)
Do you consider those qualifiers established by the apostle Paul for pastors today to be illegitimate, or do you consider those same qualifiers as only referring to the pope? The Church understands as the Sacred Scriptures clealy state that the holder of the keys has the God-given authority to bind and loose and authortatively interpret the Word of God.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Esau,
Nicely said.
Cindy Bleil,
I posted very quick comments but would like to discuss in more detail any of the questions you asked. I will be online later.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio: You are right that she is incorrect. If she were correct, she would have been able to give an example from “lengthy church history”.
Cindy.
1* The doctrine of Apostolic Succession does include a succession of right teaching, but Paul makes clear that it isnât tantamount to it.
2* Tim 1:6 “For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.”
Which is why Paul says âDo not be hasty in the laying on of handsâ 1 Tim 5:22. If the succession were only teaching and not something conveyed by laying on of hands, Paul wouldnât have taught Timothy that the gift of ministry came through the laying on of his hands nor would he counsel him not to ordain anyone quickly or a new believer for that matter. Just as in the Old Testament (Neh 7:64), succession via the laying on of hands was a necessary condition, even if it included perseverance in right teaching and it is a necessary condition, Protestants lack. At no time in the OT during times of national apostasy is there a single instance of a layman taking the priesthood onto himself legitimatly. The only example that I know of is of the rebellion of Kora-Numbers 16, which didn’t end too well. Apostasy among the priesthood does not entitle you to create a new one. This is why the Prophets were necessary because they had a direct and superior commissioning from God attested to by miracles and prophecy.
2. Yes, Titus did appoint elders in every town, but thereâs that 1500 year gap you have to jump in order to claim any kind of link with those elders. Moreover, there is no substantial evidence that anyone else other than Apostles and Bishops could ever ordain presbyters and deacons, effectively ruling out any plausible claim by Presbyterians and Baptists to being sent from the Apostles. In fact 3rd John makes it fairly clear, so clear that Presbyterians wanted to exclude it from the canon, that there is an office above presbyter such that it takes an apostle to remove or discipline that person. (3rd Jn 1:9-10) The Presbyterians actually forbade the biblical practice of the laying on of hands for 100 years to preclude anyone from claiming a ministerial succession and installed their ministers by vote only.
3. Paul had a direct extraordinary commissioning from Christ, as did the other Apostles, which is why he didnât need to be ordained by them. Paul also had miracles and prophecy to substantiate his claims, not to mention reception by all of the other apostles Of course, none of your ministers meet those biblical qualifications.
4. I am not Catholic, so even if the Catholic Church were mistaken, there is unquestionable proof that the Orthodox Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Ephesus were directly founded by various Apostles. Moreover, no reputable scholar I know of questions Peterâs death and previous ministry in Rome these days. The fact that Peterâs body is in fact there is just icing on the cake. And I donât have to believe in the Roman interpretation of Matt 16:18, which I donât to believe in, to believe consistently in Apostolic Succession. The doctrine stands independent of that interpretation. (Again, I am Orthodox and not Catholic.) If Apostolic Succession is true, Protestantism is necessarily false for it is a necessary condition for having a biblical church.
Moral failure no more disqualified Judas from being a genuine Apostle and working miracles with the other Apostles when they were sent out during the earthly ministry of Jesus as it precluded Peter from being one. Moreover, Protestantism doesnât meet your criteria of moral purity anyhow as most Protestant bodies simply became an arm of the state supporting whatever immoral policy the monarch wished. Such is the case today in Europe with the state Protestant Churches and has been for a long time. The idea of Apostolic Succession is not that of mere voting, but the passing on of the spiritual gift of the Apostolic Ministry, as the bible teaches through the laying on of hands.
To state that no pope speaking infallibly could biblically condone doctrines you take to be false seems to imply that you are in a better position to apply the rule of faith in an authoritative manner. Where exactly does the Bible give you such authority? Moreover, you are just begging the question against the Catholic position, for if Catholicism were true and the Pope had such authority, it follows logically that the doctrines could not be false.
As for 1 Tim 3, your ministers donât even claim the title âbishopâ so how can they qualify for it? The fact is that the bible teaches that there is a spiritual gift givren by the Apostles to 2nd generation ministers appointed by them and this is passed to them via the laying on of hands. Protestant bodies (Anglicans perhaps excepting) emphatically deny that there is any such gift or perpetuation of it so how could they meet the biblical conditions on a legitimate minister is beyond me. How denying the bible is being biblical is beyond me.
Cindy,
Since St. Paul (and the other apostles) entrusted disciples like Timothy to entrust in turn the word of Christ to faithful men who would then be able to teach others also, then in looking to the second, third and fourth generations of believers we should be able to get a pretty good idea of what that message actually was.
What we find in doing so is that the early Christians — those disciples of the apostles, many witnesses, faithful men and others also — believed in the apostolic succession of bishops, in baptismal regeneration, in the Eucharistic sacrifice and ministerial priesthood, in the possibility of falling from grace through mortal sin, and so on.
So, the “apostolic succession” you cite in 1 Tim 2:2 supports the apostolic succession we believe as Catholics.
Certainly, they were appointed by Titus who was appointed by an apostle. That’s apostolic succession.
Two points here:
A. While St. Paul was not one of the Twelve, by his own acknowledgement his chosen status as an apostle was an extraordinary one and a late one — “last of all” and “as one untimely born” (1 Cor 15). He was as it were the last pillar of the apostolic church; certainly Jesus did not continue to personally choose apostles from heaven in the post-apostolic church.
B. While St. Paul was not one of the Twelve, he recognized that his apostolic ministry must be in solidarity with that of the Twelve. Twice he went to Jerusalem to confer with Peter and others, privately laying before them the gospel he preached in order to be sure that his work was not in vain.
On the contrary, the essential historical facts are well attested in the early church and acknowledged by non-Catholic historians. The revisionist history is yours.
“Unredeemed flesh? Unredeemed? Do you mean to say… something remains undone? Something is still incomplete?
Well, of course. But how can this be? Did Jesus die and rise to redeem your soul only? Did he not die and rise also for your body? Since his work is perfect and complete, how can it be that anything is undone or incomplete? ” SDG – Aug 9, 7:56
OH how I wish to heavens Steve Camp could of at least for a moment reflected on your argumentation here SDG. He completely ignored discussion of it and it was so very good.
Well I certainly valued it and believe it definately a worthwhile bridge to be traversed! If you’re still lingering Mr. Camp, good sake man, read and re-read that post and chew HARD on it.
In His Grace.
Through the courage and heroic efforts of Martin Luther,
In these heroic efforts, do you include declaring the letter of James is a “epistle of straw” and that it contains none of the Good News?
And deliberately mistranslating Romans to say the “just shall live by faith alone“? And when he was called on the unjustified “alone”, declaring “Dr. Martin Luther would have it so”?
From such roots, it’s not surprising that such fruit as this comes:
Just make sure your version is the Word of God (the one with 66 books only – ESV or NASB are very good).
Steve Camp hates the Word of God.
He actively rejects books — the Word of God — from the Bible. On what grounds? Because in the first century, Jews who had already rejected Christ rejected those books as well. There is no other grounds on which those books can be rejected.
To forestall the claim that the Council of Trent added them, I point out that the Orthodox, whose schism with the Catholic Church is older, also accept the deterocanonical works.
Mary,
Your comments regarding the Orthodox canon are generally correct, though..cough..we think the schism is on the other foot as caused by the revocation of the 8th Ecumenical Council.
There is a difference between the Tridentine and Orthodox canon on the point of 1st Esdras for example. Trent doesn’t include it and the Orthodox do. This is also the case for 3rd and 4th Maccabees, and the Prayer of Manessah. The Tridentine Canon is therefore narrower than the Orthodox Canon.
Our Canon was established in the 4th Century, not at Trent in the 16th.
Bill,
One wonders why there is a discrepancy between the two traditions on that point then.
Perry,
As usual, I’ve very much appreciated your participation in this thread.
FWIW, I wasn’t clear that the Orthodox tradition necessarily considered the OT canon entirely nailed down. I’ve heard conflicting things from different Orthodox Christians in this regard, and with respect to the discrepancy with the Catholic tradition.
My memory is that Trent solemnly defined the same OT canon set forth by a number of fourth and fifth-century councils and synods.
My memory is that Trent solemnly defined the same OT canon set forth by a number of fourth and fifth-century councils and synods.
Of course. That was because heretics like Steve Camp were denying, at that time, what had never been denied before.
SDG,
I often hear conflicting things from individual Catholics, which is why I generally don’t impute such things to Catholicism as a whole. It’s called anecdotal evidence. It’s best to go with representative and normative sources.
Orthodoxy affirms the ratification of various minor synods at Trullo, 2nd Nicea, etc, which is why we have a wider canon. I am not looking for a fight on this score, but I just wanted to make it clear that we don’t have exactly the same canon. It is very common to confuse us with the fluid canon of the non-Chalcedonians like the Ethiopians.
Touché. FWIW, I only said I wasn’t clear; I wasn’t imputing anything to Orthodoxy as a whole, and certainly I too am not looking for a quarrel.
Of course I try to look for what is “representative and normative.” My only caveat is that it isn’t always easy for the casual observer to ascertain how “representative” various sources or points of view are (everybody represents themselves as mainstream, etc.). As for “normative”… well, in the Catholic tradition, I would know where to look for that — the Catechism, Vatican II, the CDF, papal encyclicals, Trent and so forth. For Eastern Orthodoxy, to the casual observer at least, the standard of what is “normative” today might be less obvious / easy to determine.
Here is the link to the CCC paragraph #120 THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE, if anyone is interested.
The Companion to the CCC which is a compendium of the texts referred to in the CCC has the following footnotes for paragraph #120.
It quotes the Council of Rome (382 A.D.) under Pope Damasus I:
SDG,
Granted it is more difficult for the casual observer but that is for lots of reasons. Here are some of them. Orthodoxy is less familiar to most people, even to those who have a good degree of theological competence. We don’t necessarily the same ecclesiology so trying to locate structures from one body in another isn’t going to be very fruitful because those structures may not exist or aren’t viewed in the same way. Translation across conceptual schemes is quite difficult and often people infuse the meaning of a term from one system into that of another.
Incensio,
The Orthodox accept those councils ratified by 2nd Nicea and the 8th council in 879/880 and yet we have a different canon. (Because not all participants signed, we didn’t accept Florence.) Why might that be? Well it might be that books were compacted so the list is the same, though the contents differ. This was a fairly common practice. There’s a handy chart http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/otbooks.html
End blockquotes.
I can think of some other possible reasons Florence was ultimately rejected in the East, but let’s not get contentious. đ
So, Perry, let’s say that I as a casual observer am getting conflicting answers from different Orthodox Christians, and (being familiar with the same phenomenon with Catholic believers) I don’t want to go on anecdotal evidence — I want to find current answers that are more normative, less a matter of individual opinion or schools of thought, but speak for Orthodoxy as a whole — not unlike (I don’t say the same as) what I would look for in Catholicism in the Catechism, Vatican II, the CDF, etc.
Can I ask where you would direct me?
SDG,
Well, as the Pope at the time of Florence stated that if Saint Mark did not sign “we have accomplished nothing!” Who am I to disagree with the Pope? đ
Certain Fathers are taken to have infallibly taught on specific issues and their works are picked out by various councils as being “spirit inspired.” Cyril on the hypostatic union for example or Maximus on the Two Wills in Christ. Many of these are listed in 2nd Nicea for example. There are also the canons cantained in works *like* the Rudder for example. And of course there are the Councils themselves. That is no small amount of reading.
Yes, of course that’s all good for historic sources, but it doesn’t necessarily provide normative answers regarding current questions and trends in Orthodox thought. Certainly we always need to keep going back to the formulations and definitions of the past, and we must always be true to them; but at the same time new questions are always being asked, and new answers are always necessary. The faith is unchanging, and the old formulations remain normative, but new formulations are also necessary.
The decrees of Nicaea I addressed the questions of the day, but they didn’t address the questions of later centuries, which is why later councils were held. Nicaea II affirmed the same essential faith as Nicaea I, but it formulated the truths of that faith in a way suited to the questions and controversies of its day.
In the same way, in the Catholic tradition the Catechism of the Catholic Church attests the same essential faith as the Catechism of the Council of Trent, but formulated in a way that addresses questions and trends and developments in the world today. I consider the Catechism of the Council of Trent indispensable, but the CCC is even more necessary today.
I actually have a fair amount of Orthodox literature on my shelf, and I can see developments in Orthodox thought on some subjects just in the last fifty years, just as there has been in the world of Catholic thought. But whereas I know how to orient myself with respect to current questions in Catholic thought by looking to the Catechism and other recent normative Catholic teaching documents, when it comes to questions in Orthodox thought today I’m not sure where to look for a normative point of reference.
FWIW, I have even heard discontentment on this point from the Orthodox side of the divide. Some time ago an Orthodox Christian I know lamented (complained would be too strong a word) how difficult it sometimes seemed to get a straight answer to the question what Orthodoxy taught on some subjects.
Jarnor23:
You wrote,
Tim H.: The fact you’ve been shown that it’s an inaccurate and offensive label, yet you still use it is problematic. Do you call Native Americans “Indians”? Because frankly, offensive or not, it’s stupid. If you’ve ever met someone actually from India, you can pretty easily notice a major difference in appearances. Inaccurate labels do nobody any good.
As a matter of fact, I do call those descended of the pre-Columbian inhabitants here “Indians.” I am, in fact, an American Indian (Chicamauga). We call ourselves this. Not “Native American,” which is the correct term for the broader category of anyone born in this country. It is *not* an offensive term to us. “Native American,” however, is to my ears, an annoying piece of [guilty white liberal] political correctness, and I never use it. However, I know that other people, elsewhere, use different terms. The Canadians use something like “First Peoples” to describe us, I believe. It sounds silly and patronizing to me, but it’s their term, and they can go use it however they like.
You know, I have noticed that friends of mine from India do look different from me. (They’re Caucasian, after all.) But what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China? No, Indians from India are distinct from us American Indians. Columbus didn’t get as far as he thought he had, but the name stuck. So what? Can we not use a name because there was a mistake in geography 500 years ago? Of course we can. And we do. You needn’t get your nose out of joint about it.
There’s no need to be so insulting to me. It is not “stupid” for me to call myself or my fellow Indians, “Indians.” That’s our name, and that’s what I’m calling us. And it’s not stupid for any of you whites to call us Indians, either (I’m assuming you’re white, from what you’re writing). It’s our name.
Don’t worry, I’ll forgive you if you’ve ever slipped up and used the “wrong” term sometime. If I were really mad about it, I would have scalped you, after all. đ
Perry–
The lay minister said, “Whaaat??! No!” The closest we could figure you were thinking of was this thing about the “marks of the true church,” which I now see that you’ve brought up explicitly. And he told me that Luther and Calvin had two, being guided by the word of God and preserving the true nature of the sacraments (which they thought the Catholic church of that day had failed at). But that these were pretty general, and though I mentioned your assertion about his church supposedly holding that the Baptists aren’t a “true church,” he said no to all of that.
Even if you hold to Luther & Calvin’s criteria (I don’t give it that much weight, but I’m Methodist), I still think you’re looking at it through the wrong eyes as to how Protestants would interpret this. I suspect you need a much more high-church ecclesiology to take it the way the Catholics seem to.
And there’s no need to get into criticising my church, if you don’t mind. I’m not taking any whacks at yours, if you’ll notice (or at the Catholics, for that matter). My wife grew up Orthodox, and I’ve got a lot of respect for them.
The Methodist Church is actually conservative at the congregational level, although a lot of our bishops get whacky on social statements (we don’t let them muck around with doctrine, so maybe they feel the need to “express themselves”) Anyway, one of the characteristics of our church is to hold that a smaller set of doctrines is really necessary for agreement, so maybe we don’t feel the need to get into these fights the way some others do. Lay off.
Perry–
Actually, rereading what you wrote, I see you weren’t making any hard attack on Methodism. Sorry about that! I was getting defensive for no reason.
As I say, the bishops often get off the reservation, but the church is much more conservative. And the doctrine is short and unchanged, so no, our absence from this debate isn’t a matter of leaving behind traditional Methodist theology/ecclesiology. It’s simply not a characteristic of our church to do this.
This is reflected in our own history. Wesley himself remained Anglican and stayed within that structure, but he’d come to believe that Christ had not instituted one particular form for the church. And he’d insisted that the Methodists in America (whom after the Revolution finally had to form a separate church) not adopt an episcopal structure, at least in name. But we decided to have bishops anyway.
Meanwhile, the Methodists in Britain formed a separate church around the same time, but they have no bishops. Meanwhile yet again, there are other churches descended from our same movement which have even different ecclesiologies or structures. There is even a presbyterian church which is Wesleyan (Cumberland Presbyterian, with whom we share a seminary, so there’s close mutual cooperation there), and several others I’m less familiar with but which I suspect have different forms. By this, I’m saying that we officially don’t care so much about church structure. Some pastors lay importance on apostolic succession, others don’t.
You keep bringing up “intercommunion,” which I’m sure could encompass a lot of things. I’m not sure what the technical details on ordination are, and whether you have to get reordained if you switch Protestant denominations. But if that’s one of the things you’re talking about, then it’s not because one church is claiming the other “isn’t a true church” and that its pastors aren’t “really” ordained. We don’t have the sacramental interpretation of ordination, so redoing it if you change denominations isn’t a denial of its “validity” in the other denomination.
I’ll ask my uncle about the details of that in the Episcopal church, where he’s a priest. I’m curious now.
Jarnor23–
I just realized that I’d gotten off topic in replying to your last post. You seem to be looking for offense (easy to do online, isn’t it?) when none is meant. One should take things in the spirit in which they’re given. “Roman Catholic” is a term we use not to offend or insult (In fact, I’ve seen Catholics use this themselves while writing in these discussion threads!), but to describe something precisely and in accordance with our theology.
It wasn’t argued that “Roman Catholic” was *insulting* but rather *inaccurate*. And in fact, if you’ll scroll back up the page, you’ll notice that I’ve mostly been using the shorter “Catholic” here. So calm down. đ
Tim H.
I’d be interested to hear back from some of y’all on that idea that we Protestants should not be at all offended by the Pope’s recent document reasserting that the Protestant churches are not actually churches.
By this, I’m saying that we officially don’t care so much about church structure.
I think you have answered your own question on why you should not be offended by the document.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Tim, whether or not you are one, the label is utterly stupid. It’s inaccurate and misleading. Words have meanings, and ones that mislead should be replaced with more accurate, better usages. I don’t give a damn if they’re politically correct or not.
For instance, gentleman used to mean something very specific, having to do with owning lands and title. Suddenly it became a word to mean nice, even though “nice” already existed. Suddenly, you cannot refuse to call someone a gentleman or look like a jerk. A perfectly good word has been ruined. Same with Indian meaning someone from India. And I fear, some day, “Christian”, although I’m not sure if that’s morphing to nice guy or war criminal/hate monger. Your guess is as good as mine what the masses will choose.
Jarnor23–
Please don’t call my people’s name “stupid.” If you’re obsessing over ways not to offend, saying this might be one of the things you could cut out.
By over 500 years worth of continuous usage, “Indian” now also means “someone from a pre-Columbian tribe native to America.” Just as “lead” can mean the graphite used in pencils. 500 years is a long time in language, and it *does* establish and change usage and meanings of words. That’s simply how it works.
So whether you like it or not, my people *are* called “Indians.” If you’re still mad about it, call us “American Indians,” and then you should be more at peace with the world. đ
Inocencio–
Yes, I knew this was the explanation as to why we shouldn’t be offended by the recent declaration. But I wanted those who were getting mad about “Roman Catholic” to stop and think about it for a moment.
Tim, I’m part Cherokee and I agree with you.
Well, this is an interesting tangent.
I have to agree with Tim H and bill912 on “American Indian” as an acceptable term for descendants of the native / indigenous / pre-Colombian inhabitants of what are today called the Americas (especially in the US). Although originally imposed from without and rooted in an innocent error, etymology is in this case trumped not only by (a) widespread and long-established general usage and (b) the absence of a more authentic or otherwise preferable term, but also — and critically — by (c) general (though not universal) acceptance within the communities thereby designated.
The importance of that third criterion, acceptability for the community designated, is underscored by Tim H’s (and bill912’s) claims of American Indian heritage. The clear implication is that it is American Indians, more than others, who get to decide whether they can be called American Indians or not. (I’m tempted at this point to cite my own American Indian heritage, but it’s so remote as to be negligible.)
This is precisely why the pejorative and objectionable “Romanist/Romanism,” and to a lesser degree the less problematic but still incorrect term “Roman Catholic/ism,” are not acceptable terms for the Catholic Church and her members (except those who actually do belong to the Roman or Latin Church). In this case, the body that gets to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable is the Holy See, which speaks for the Catholic Church. In official Church teaching documents, “Roman Catholic” always refers specifically to the Latin Church, and the entire communion of Churches united under the Bishop of Rome is always called “the Catholic Church.”
“Roman Catholic” as a way of referring to the entire Catholic Church is contrary to the Church’s self-designation, self-understanding, and usage, and should therefore be avoided. Theological caveats regarding the applicability of the term are no excuse for misuse of terms as proper names.
Someone above argued that the Catholic Church’s own caveats regarding the applicability of the term “church” to refer to Protestant ecclesial communions that lack the sacraments constituted a counter-example. However, one must distinguish between the word “church” used as a noun and the same word in the official name of a particular body. Thus a Catholic might reasonably refer to “Baptist ecclesial communions” rather than “Baptist churches,” but he would unquestionably say “the United Church of Christ” rather than “the United Ecclesial Community of Christ.” Yet this certainly does not imply that we regard the United Church of Christ as the definitive holder of that title!
What it really signifies, I think, is that we are secure enough in our own identity and claims to be willing to grant others the courtesy of their own names for themselves, without feeling that this somehow compromises our own claims on whatever terms are in question.
In that respect, when I encounter Protestant Christians who insist on “RCC” rather than “Catholic Church” (again, when speaking of the whole communion, not just the Latin Church) — sometimes with a flip aside such as “I’m Presbyterian Catholic myself,” etc. — I can’t help reading that as reflecting their own insecurity in their identity. Clearly, they resist calling us “the Catholic Church” because they feel that somehow diminishes their claim to be truly “catholic.” If they were serenely confident in their claims of catholicity, why would a mere name be so important?
As a Catholic, I don’t mind speaking of “Orthodoxy,” “the Orthodox” or “the Orthodox Churches”; I don’t consider this in any way to diminish the Catholic Church’s claims of orthodoxy. (In keeping with their own usage I may also speak of “Eastern Orthodoxy,” but I don’t insist on it or use it exclusively.) I don’t mind speaking of “Evangelicals” (and again, I also speak of Evangelical Protestants, but I don’t insist on it), even though as a Catholic I consider myself an evangelical Christian.
The same could be said for any number of other groups, from Episcopalians (whom we as Catholics don’t believe have a valid episcopacy) and Presbyterians (whom we don’t believe have the presbyterate as we understand it) to Christian Science, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and many others whom we as Christians would all agree have no claim at all to the titles designated by their names, yet whose names don’t seem to pose the kind of difficulty that some Evangelicals feel with respect to the Catholic Church.
Why is it that when it comes to the Catholic Church some Protestants feel that using her own name for herself is an unacceptable concession, and insist on “Roman Catholic”?
Why do others, including James White, try to avoid using “Catholic” at all, even in conjunction with “Roman,” and rely instead on such circumloctions as “Rome,” “the Roman Church” or “Church of Rome,” as well as the clearly pejorative “Romanism/Romanist”?
What is it about this name and this claim that prompts such discomfort and resistance?
SDG,
We donât think there is anything new under the sun and this is why the seven councils (even though we have more councils than seven) form a kind of theological capstone. Every new heresy, whether in belief or practice is just a repackaging of some old one. So we donât think there are any fundamentally ânewâ questions to be asked. I could argue this on philosophical grounds. For example, what is Hegelianism but Platonism speaking German? What is women’s ordination but a new Nestorianism? What is homosexuality but a new gnosticism? (you are not your body.)
2ndly the Orthodox donât subscribe to a theory of conceptual development of doctrine where the idea is delivered in nascent form and is drawn out through the use of dialectic over time so that the church becomes ever more conscious of the contents of the apostolic deposit. Your question then begs the question because you are applying or importing something contrary and alien to Orthodox presuppositions.
Consequently, we read the councils differently and much more apophatically. Homoousia for example tells us nothing philosophically about the divine essence. It simply says that whatever is true of the Father pace ingenerate is true of the Son. Importing a philosophical concept of ousia will distort the doctrine. Much the same can be said for the Chalcedonian framing and other decrees. There is no conceptual advance.
As far then as âdevelopmentsâ in Orthodox thought that depends on what you mean given the above, because development in the above sense would amount to innovation for us. Often times some authors arenât developing at all, but simply bringing up something from the past that hasnât been sufficiently emphasized as was the case with Lossky on the divine energies.
I donât find it to be difficult to get straight answers, but of course I have a good amount of professional training in philosophy and intellectual history so its easier for me to locate and access sources. Often times this is not true for the average layman. Another problem can be that many sources are untranslated and still in Greek or Russian and so arenât accessible. But difficulty in finding an answer doesnât imply that the answer isnât there. Often times it depends on how patient the person wishes to be and how far down the explanatory hole they wish to go?
Perry Robinson,
Because I have heard conflicting explanations, may I ask what the Orthodox understanding is of divorce and remarriage? And where one would look for the definitive answer?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
SDG,
Regarding the term “Roman Catholic”, I agree with you about people like White but we also have to keep in mind that many non-Catholics and even many American Catholics have no idea that “Roman Catholic” is not just the more complete name of the Catholic Church and that there is anything innaccurate or insulting about calling someone Roman Catholic instead of just Catholic. Therefore there is often innocence in the use of the term, not insecurity or insult.
Of course we should seek to correct such usages and especially correct fellow Catholics who, having been surrounded by Protestant/secular culture, have in ignorance adopted the term.
I don’t even like using the word to designate the Latin Rite Church. It is still not the proper name of that Church and it associates members of it too closely with the city of Rome, not to mention its meaning outside the Catholic Church makes using the term in a different way potentially confusing, since others would think we are using it in the only way they are familiar with.
That secular/Protestant meaning being transfered into Latin Rite Catholic thought and then using it exclusively for Latin Rite Catholics could also make the Eastern Catholics seem less fully Catholic too.
J.R. Stoodley: Absolutely, I was speaking only of those who continue to insist on using “RCC” rather than “Catholic Church” even after having the point clarified for them.
Inocencio,
Perry may come back with a good explanation or sourse, but if not it may be that this is something there is not a consistent position in the Orthodox Church, as there seems to be none on the baptism of non-Orthodox or the morality of contraception (at least in some circumstances). The structure of the Orthodox episcopacy and their rejection of the idea of doctrinal development prevents them from settling questions and disputes any more.
J.R. Stoodley,
“The structure of the Orthodox episcopacy and their rejection of the idea of doctrinal development prevents them from settling questions and disputes any more.”
That is understanding I have also. I was just trying to see how someone who is Orthodox explains the different understandings. I was waiting for Perry Robinson’s response before asking about contraception.
And as Perry said:
So I am very interested in what sources he would quote or provide.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
The structure of the Orthodox episcopacy and their rejection of the idea of doctrinal development prevents them from settling questions and disputes any more.
J.R. Stoodley,
You have a basic summary here of the position, but it goes far deeper and is, in fact, far more nuanced than that.
If you want to investigate this more fully, you might want to visit Liccone’s website, Sacramentum Vitae.
There, you will find far more extensive arguments concerning this topic.
That said, Perry Robinson happened to be one of those individuals previously banned from the Pontifications website due to, let’s say, the fury of the impassioned arguments that had resulted there.
Personally, I don’t necessarily subscribe to Perry’s arguments against Rome; although, concerning some finer points, I do admit there are a certain of them that are a bit thought-provoking from my perspective.
Of course, keep in mind, this is coming from a guy who has but a rudimentary understanding of the theological issues therein.
Any deeper, you’d have to consult with Prejean or Liccone.
The structure of the Orthodox episcopacy and their rejection of the idea of doctrinal development prevents them from settling questions and disputes any more.
J.R. Stoodley,
You have a basic summary here of the position, but it goes far deeper and is, in fact, far more nuanced than that.
If you want to investigate this more fully, you might want to visit Liccone’s website, Sacramentum Vitae.
There, you will find far more extensive arguments concerning this topic.
That said, Perry Robinson happened to be one of those individuals previously banned from the Pontifications website due to, let’s say, the fury of the impassioned arguments that had resulted there.
Personally, I don’t necessarily subscribe to Perry’s arguments against Rome; although, concerning some finer points, I do admit there are a certain of them that are a bit thought-provoking from my perspective.
Of course, keep in mind, this is coming from a guy who has but a rudimentary understanding of the theological issues therein.
Any deeper, you’d have to consult with Prejean or Liccone.
You know, I can call myself a Martian, and even if I somehow manage to do it for 500 years, it doesn’t make it any more accurate.
I stand by it, even if you LIKE it, it’s still a stupid, stupid, and inaccurate label.
Your ancestry isn’t stupid, but the label is, whether you enjoy the label or not. Feel free to use a word that shows the maximum amount of inaccuracy and misunderstanding of where your people came from. I’m not backing down, even if 500 years of usage does things in language such as give us other word meanings. Such as “Papist”, “Romanist”, or “Mackerel Kisser” for instance.
Jarnor my friend, I really think you’re fighting a losing — and unnecessary — battle.
Your ancestry isn’t stupid, but the label is, whether you enjoy the label or not. Feel free to use a word that shows the maximum amount of inaccuracy and misunderstanding of where your people came from. I’m not backing down, even if 500 years of usage does things in language such as give us other word meanings. Such as “Papist”, “Romanist”, or “Mackerel Kisser” for instance.
Jarnor23,
I’ve got to hand it to you; for a former Lutheran defending Catholicism in the ardent manner as you have here on the blog, it does much to the testament that once a Protestant converts, they should no longer be seen as a “convert”, but what they have essentially become — “Catholic” in the very sense of the word!
God bless you, brother!
Jarnor my friend, I really think you’re fighting a losing — and unnecessary — battle.
SDG:
It doesn’t take away from the fact that the term can is rendered as a perjorative one and, in effect, actually denotes ignorance as well as a grave misunderstanding on the part of the user.
Jarnor23,
The Carribbean is still sometimes called the West Indies, though maybe you’ll object to that too.
Anyway, you seem to be overly concerned with the less logical parts of language, especially if you are not of NA/AI yourself. Like SDG I’m a bit tempted to call upon my own Lenape ancestry but again it is too remote to be significant as an identity (though I like the fact that I have ancestors in America going back so far), and you have shown you don’t care what a people calls itself if you think it is a stupid name because of the word’s older/other meaning of someone from somewhere associated with the Indus river. I’d suggest you loosen up and call people whatever they want to be called. Certainly “Native American” has its own problems as it denegrates the Americaness of native born non-Indians (encouraging the truely stupid “we’re all immigrants” idea) and can be interpreted as dehumanizing American Indians, like they are a native species of these lands as opposed to everyone else. On the other hand no one hearing someone decended from pre-Columbian Americans refered to as Indians or American Indians will think they came from India or the East Indies or something.
Well, the West Indies were technically west, if you REALLY went a long ways. đ This is a perfect example of why the Caribbean is a better name.
If people want to call themselves something that is inaccurate, well, I guess they’ll do that. That certainly doesn’t have to mean people have to find it sensible or correct. And the crux of the matter is when people outside that group use that inaccurate label as a pejorative. I live in North Dakota, and you have no idea how many times I’ve had to listen to some ignorant white guy slander “those damn lazy Indians” and stuff like that. It’s disgusting frankly.
So, I guess that’s what bothers me about this situation largely, that people take an inaccurate label, turn it into a slur, and throw it at people they don’t like. I hope you might be able to see why I think this is a problem, and quite relevant to the situation in this thread.
Fun with inaccurate labels: Shooting stars aren’t stars. Starfish aren’t fish. Flying fish can’t fly. Bee flies aren’t bees. Horned bees don’t have horns. French horns aren’t French. We could do this all day. đ
I’m with you, Jarnor, about pejorative use, which is objectionable regardless of the words involved. In this regard, “Romanism” and “Romanist” are characteristically pejorative and objectionable; “Roman Catholic” is less problematic but inaccurate. Of course, people can use “Catholic” pejoratively (“those damn Catholics,” etc.) just as easily, but that one happens to be our name.
I’m with you, Jarnor, about pejorative use…
Actually, to be fair to Jarnor23, I was the one who extended his argument to encompass the perjorative usage of such terms, which, of course, certainly applies to these instances here.
I guess if it is used as a racial slur that they don’t like in North Dakota then clearly you should use a different term. I like American Indian best because to my ears at least it is both completely respectful and precise in its meaning, unlike either Indian strait up or Native American.
Here in New York State the more common problem I’ve encountered is people who make out the Native Americans to be these super[/sub]-human creatures from the primeval past who are at one with nature and infinitely morally superior to “white people.”
The difference is probably largely how much contact people in different areas have with the real people as well as red state/blue state cultural differences. Maybe there are differences in the way the local tribes live and present themselves too.
Anyway, this isn’t a big deal I think, and the point about not insulting people by calling them something inaccurate and insulting is valid in the case of the term “Roman Catholic” which is the more relevant tangent.
the point about not insulting people by calling them something inaccurate and insulting
JR Stoodley,
That’s just it —
This regards more so the deliberate use of such labels — labels that in and of themselves (as Jarnor23 has said) denote the ignorance/large misunderstanding of those who utilize such terms for the purpose of pejoratively putting down certain people.
I’m not clear any longer which labels you’re talking about, or even what you’re saying about them. You seem to be saying both that certain labels denote ignorance/misunderstanding “in and of themselves,” but you also cite the speakers’ “purpose of pejoratively putting down certain people.”
In any case, with J.R. Stoodley I feel the “American Indian” discussion is pretty much exhausted. Whether there is anything left to say about the misuse of “Roman Catholic” remains to be seen.
Perry Robinson:
Yes, I’m somewhat familiar with this sensibility, although I have to admit I don’t understand all of it very well yet.
For example, I have a hard time imagining that you’re saying that from the time of the Apostles to Nicaea II there was simply no conceptual advance in Christian theology, or that the theological formulations of, say, Calcedon may have “brought up” something that wasn’t “sufficiently emphasized” in, say, the second century, but brought no new level of clarity or precision.
I mean, if everything were already fully settled in the first century and there was nothing more to be worked out, even the first seven ecumenical councils would seem to be gilding the lily rather than a “theological capstone” (which implies an arch in the process of completion). Or is the idea that while the Church did need to work things out, that was a temporary thing for, say, the first millennium only, and at some point the Church finally finished dotting every “i” and crossing every “t,” the archway is finished, the capstone in place, so that now there’s nothing more to be said? Please understand, I’m not in the least trying to be argumentative, but I would like to understand better.
Perhaps this was an overly rigorous reading, since you may be leaving some wiggle room by saying that “some” authors “often times” aren’t “developing” at all, but only reemphasizing, etc. Does that allow for the possibility that other authors other times may be engaged in legitimate development? Or would that always be illegitimate “innovation”?
You say you don’t think there are any “fundamentally new” questions to be asked. For the moment at least, let’s grant that this is so. Even then, a question doesn’t have to be fundamentally new to be new enough — new enough to require, if not a fundamentally new answer, at the very least a definitive or normative judgment as to which of the old answers is truly applicable and why.
For example, you say that could argue on philosophical grounds, “What is women’s ordination but a new Nestorianism? What is homosexuality but a new gnosticism?” True, you could argue that. And they’re good questions. And I suspect that you and I would agree on the answers. Suffice to say, though, that it isn’t necessarily irrefutably self-evident that the questions have one and only one defensible answer — not even to all persons who accept the original answers on Nestorianism and gnosticism. You could argue that; someone else could argue the opposite. You might be right, but that fact alone wouldn’t make your position normative.
I happen to think that there’s a really, really strong case that contraception is absolutely as gnostic as homosexuality — that indeed they are two links in the same chain, and that social acceptance of the one is directly related to social acceptance of the other. That’s not a self-evident proposition, though; people can disagree. It’s a question that wasn’t asked in exactly that form during the first Christian millennium. New clarity is needed to answer it.
I’m aware that words like “new” and “development” have a very different resonance in Orthodox ears than in Western Latin ears — and in part I think that goes to the genius and strength of Orthodoxy. But I don’t think I need to strike a very partisan note to say that it is not always a strength. Orthodox thinkers have admitted as much.
I’m far from triumphalist about this. I’m acutely aware of the corresponding pitfalls characteristically afflicting Catholic culture. What Alexander Schmemann once wrote about Orthodoxy, I could just as easily say of Catholicism:
I am chastened and humbled by Fr. Schmemann’s example of simultaneous total commitment to and brutal honesty regarding his tradition, the total absence of anything like triumphalism combined with a spirit of deepest fidelity to his Orthodox milieu. Fr. Schmemann inspires me to try to be both as honest and as faithful regarding Catholicism, which in its essence I firmly believe to be Truth and Salvation but which in its cultural realization often falls woefully short of what it should be.
In particular, I acknowledge that Catholic culture, with its comparative openness to change, can be all too vulnerable to debilitating entanglements with the spirit of the age. This is a trap to which Orthodox culture is characteristically and admirably immune. But there are traps on all sides, and Orthodox culture has its own characteristic pitfalls along with its characteristic strengths. Even Fr. Schmemann has charged the culture of Orthodoxy (as opposed to its eternal truth) with the opposite error from that of Catholicism — namely, a schizophrenic, unreal abstraction from the times:
Again, I’m far from triumphalistic about this. I recognize that there are characteristic strengths and pitfalls in both Catholic and Orthodox culture. I’m sharply aware of the extent to which I live in a glass house (even if one built upon this rock); I’m throwing no stones.
Unfortunately, there are those on both sides (sometimes triumphalists, but not necessarily) who mistake the pitfalls of their own side for strengths. Among those the Catholic side are mushy modernists and reforming progressives who wrongly welcome the very symptoms of Catholic culture’s lamentable entanglements with the spirit of the age as signs of healthy development.
Among those on the Orthodox side, I think, are those Fr. Schmemann alluded to, sometimes the best and most orthodox, but mistakenly welcoming as a strength of Orthodox experience what is in fact a weakness, a withdrawal into an unreal and unchanging world increasingly removed from the real world of history and experience and change.
Having said all that, it does seem to me that there is something I can only call development (I’m not sure what you would want to call it) in Orthodox thought, and has been throughout the second millennium and into the third. I have some familiarity with at least some open questions in Orthodox ecclesiology and theology today, questions for which definitive answers appear not to be supplied in ready-made form from historical sources, and which theologians and experts continue to discuss, debate and possibly advance today.
Of course I’m aware of similar ongoing discussions in Catholicism as well, but there as I said I have a normative frame of reference, one that continually incorporates new questions and provides new answers, reformulating the eternal faith once given to speak in a new way to the changing needs of a changing world. I’m still trying to figure out how this works in Orthodoxy, if it works at all.
This is something I have long thought about, and the question I have always asked myself is: What is the average layman meant to do, anyway?
I’m grateful enough and I have perspective enough to realize that in the grand scheme of things I’m pretty privileged to have had the leisure, education and resources that I have. At the same time, I’m acutely aware that Jesus came not only for bookish types like me, but for the illiterate and uneducated; if anything, he probably prefers the latter to the former.
It therefore seems to me that whatever Christianity is meant to be, it’s got to be something that works as well for an illiterate Idaho farmer, a single mom working swing shift as a checkout clerk while her parents mind the kids, a twelfth-century Italian stonemason, an eighth-century Greek fisherman, and so on, as for a big mouth like me with a seminary degree and too much time on his hands for writing in fora like this.
As a Catholic, if I found myself talking to a single mom working swing shift as a checkout clerk who wanted to be able to find normative answers to today’s questions, I’d start her off with a copy of the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It’s short, it’s up to date, it’s normative — it’s not just one theologian’s or priest’s presentation of the faith, but is given to us by the Church.
Where would you as an Orthodox Christian send her? I’m sure there are lots of good overviews by good theologians that you personally could vouch for, but is that normative? OTOH, you certainly couldn’t just leave her in the reference wing of your local seminary library with the phone numbers of a few people who read Greek and Russian.
As a Catholic, I rejoice in the consolation of a living teaching authority, a living magisterium — one that continues to speak, to teach, to address and resolve questions, to address the unchanging faith to the changing issues of a changing world in a normative and authoritative way, just as it did throughout the first millennium. It is, so it seems to me, something the Church needs — something it will always need.
Are the Orthodox Churches able to do anything like this? Or are all the definitive answers for Orthodoxy codified once and for all, by saints and scholars who lived in a world without cloning, the pill, same-sex marriage, living wills, transgender operations and embryonic stem-cell research?
Okay, so that’s a little polemically couched, but I sincerely want to understand.
Inocencio,
One of the many things I am not is a canonist. I donât know everything so I focus my studies on areas I take to be deal breakers-Triadology, Christology, etc. One would need to consult the canons to start but my basic understanding is that an ecclesiastical divorce is permitted under biblical conditions of adultery and remarriage is permitted once. Of course canons are rules applied by bishops and the judgment lies with the bishop and this is why there is some degree of variance in application.
Stoodly,
I think you confuse the application of the canons across jurisdictions with the canons themselves. The theology is the same but since each bishop in his church is the church whole and entire, just as the divine energies are truly distinct without reduction to the other, it is up to him to apply them. Not to be polemical, but from the Orthodox perspective a lack of development of doctrine helps keep us conservative and keeps people from making a mess of the liturgy, not to mention other things. Moreover, as I noted before, there are no new heresies so there is nothing essentially new to settle. If you donât think so, then I suggest you study the history of philosophy a bit more. Plato loved the circle because it was the most perfect shape. No beginning and no end and such was the dialectic of philosophy. Nothing new and nothing old just the same stuff over and over again.
SDG,
From my perspective Nicea pours in to specific terms no positive meaning. Consequently the correction it provides to people in the past like Origen or Justin is not a development of an earlier concept, but a prohibition of any conceptual development. So it is sealing off any conceptual grasp of the divine essence. So, one of the functions of the councils is disentangling Christian theology from the influence of pagan philosophy and grasping for a consistent terminology since pagan philosophical terms werenât suited to Christian theology. All of the major heresies are at bottom a form of Gnosticism one way or another so no, essentially there is nothing more to be worked out. We preserve, we donât develop. We pass on, we donât alter. A Newman-esque type notion of development strikes us as always innovating.
The kind of ânew enoughâ question I think needs an example since I canât think of any major issue that would require development. In any case, for my part there is no essential difference between a Newman-esque type theory of development and a Platonic one and I would in fact argue that Newmanâs notion is in fact in debt to the Idealism of his time and that in turn to Platonism. I am not a Platonist but I know it when I see it.
I donât take self evidence to have any epistemic weight anyhow. The question is not epistemological but rather falls into the field of normativity and the church has already normatively dealt with those questions. Tradition is superior to reason and that is the point of say Hippolytus, we have via revelation what you could not ever get by dialectic. I can diagnose say womenâs ordination as a same old heresy but in point of fact, in the face of uniform practice, the church doesnât need a philosophical diagnosis to reject it. The default position goes to the churchâs uniform practice. This is why I think Christianity is a religion of tradition, specifically revelation and not reason and that Protestantism is a humanistic venture to make Christianity safe for and under the limiting concepts of humanism. On contraception I am not particularly fond of Natural Law theory nor Stoicism for that matter. I think they distort Christian anthropology so that is one reason why our views on contraception may differ to some degree.
I am not trying to be triumphalist about this but just report the way I see things. What else can I do? It may not always be a strength to be conservative in the best sense of the term, but Christâs power is perfected in weakness. What is often perceived as an ecclesiastical weakness in terms of the union of bishops is perceived by us as a strength because it makes any innovation a possible grounds for schism and that helps protect unity in truth.
I am all for honesty but there is something Scripturally to be said about advertising the dirty laundry to the philistines too. In any case, no bodyâs hands are perfectly clean and that is because no one is getting into a perfect church. There are no secret pathways past Michaelâs flaming sword back into the garden. Here we suffer and if we donât suffer, we arenât with Jesus.
There is truth in Fr. Schmemannâs comments but he also paints rather broadly too. Either way, history has always been messy. There is no idealized great part of church history to live in. That in and of itself isnât very interesting though it is hard to accept.
As for open questions, some of those have to do with the effects of Islamic and Soviet occupation. Some has to do with Latinization. And some of it has other causes. One cause is that some questions will be perpetually open and speculative since if you donât believe in development, there is a definite place where answers stop. This far and no further.
As for the average layman do you really think the average Protestant can get straight answers on complicated subjects? I mean can he handle them? Like what? Heâs sitting down with Mullerâs Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics or Karl Barthâs Church Dogmatics and he is going to grasp what is written there? Like the average Catholic can grasp Lonergan? I donât think the average Orthodox layman could grasp Gregory Palamas to save his life. But so what? People trust and if they are faithful they do the best the can. I donât think we can expect more and I donât think we need to, especially given the fact that I think theology in the sense of holiness and experiencing the life of God works just fine without any formal education. That said, I can usually put most of the complicated stuff in stories, quips and such. People âget itâ in a flash but they canât unpack it and I am down with that.
There are a number of catachisms I could and so send people to. For us, normativity is a function of faithfulness to the tradition. So a catechism is a good one if it so functions. But just because bishops for example may fail in some circumstances it doesnât follow that they must fail in all circumstances and I donât believe that they could and do so. Hence conciliar decisions and ratified patristic texts.
As for a teaching authority I suppose I prefer the consolation that my bishops arenât trying to be and arenât meant to be academics. They are too busy living in a monastery in a desert fighting Satan and the passions prior to being called to the episcopate. Prayer is needed, not the latest re-hash of Marx or Freud.
On stem cell research I think all the necessary answers are in Christology so no I donât think we need a new answer and the Orthodox bishops in America didnât need a council to uniformly condemn it either.
As for this convo, I must leave. The semester is going to start soon and I have two papers for publication I have to get out. If you wish to continue, you can reach me via my blog.
Perry Robinson:
So, one of the functions of the councils is disentangling Christian theology from the influence of pagan philosophy and grasping for a consistent terminology since pagan philosophical terms werenât suited to Christian theology.
Do you consider Aristotelian terms ‘pagan philosophical terms’?
Jarnor23–
Lighten up, Francis.
Bill912–
Thanks for the back-up. Glad to meet a fellow Cherokee on here. I’m Chicamauga, which is a branch centered around Nickajack on the Tennessee River. Back in the old days, we were the disreputable branch of the tribe.
SDG–
Your Lenape branch too diluted to count? Naaaaah–Come on, join with your Red brethren! đ
Beckwith is one of the greatest apologists alive today. He received his M.A. with honors, in apologetics from the Simon Greenleaf School of Law. And I believe his Ph.D. in law.
‘Nother Cherokee, here…! But no idea what branch or anything. My great-grandmother on my Dad’s side was a full-blood, and I have other Cherokee ancestors as well, so I am at least 1/8.
At the time, though, the family saw the Indian heritage as something to be covered up rather than heralded, so there was no reservation number and no record of her Cherokee name or family.
I think her husband was a closet Irishman… another group that sometimes covered their roots in order to get along.
Tim J.–
Yes, it was pretty well closeted within our family, too. But my branch, the Chicamauga, really were disreputable right from the beginning. Some white outlaws fell in with the tribe (one was even chief for a while), and even the Indians were considered rebellious among their fellow Cherokee. We did a lot of raiding of flatboats coming down the Tennessee, by Nickajack Cave.
Funny how you go from that intermediate period of embarassment to now flaunting these sorts of things. Some of my cousins are petitioning for Federal recognition of the Chicamauga as a separate tribe. We’ll see how far that goes.
There’s a term in litigation used to describe what Greg did to Frank in this interview: “Trial by Ambush”. Perhaps I am being too critical and ungracious, but I frankly do not believe that Greg “misunderstood” or “miscommunicated” his intent in this interview. He seems to have intended to “expose” Dr. Beckwith’s purported “error”. As an objective listener (although admittedly a Catholic convert, so not entirely objective), I found Dr. Beckwith to be very gracious and forgiving. Anyway, God bless him for at least defending what he believes to be the Truth. With Peter, to Christ, through Mary, for the Greater Glory of God!