Which best defines a Southern Baptist Evangelical in campus ministry?
1: All kids in ministry dress up for Halloween as Al Mohler, but group splits when half discover it is meant as a compliment.
OR
2. Half the kids rebel and go to local Halloween party only to tearfully repent on Sunday morning and the other half feels good that they are not the first half.
I am stuck. (We love you Dr. Mohler!)
October 19th, 2009 | 8:37 pm | #1
In all of this, I am sort of agog that here at First Thing, John Mark Reynolds turns out to be the funny one.
Joe told me I was supposed to be the funny one.
October 19th, 2009 | 9:04 pm | #2
“In all of this, I am sort of agog that here at First Thing, John Mark Reynolds turns out to be the funny one.”
It’s because levity goes with liturgy. :-)
BTW, I have an idea for Halloween: why don’t people dress up for church as well-groomed Christians on the prior Sunday? That would be a refreshing change. Remember “Sunday best”?
There should be a one-week total ban on t-shirts, hip huggers, flip-flops, and shorts.
The Catholics are no better, by the way. It’s an abomination to see the Calvarychapelization of American Christianity. And I’m not talking theology; I’m talking sloppy agape. Enough with the sign of peace, the hugging, and the Amway intimacy. Let’s bring back the communion rails, a choir sporting robes, ushers who enforce discipline, and children who call adults “Mr.,” “Mrs.,” and “Miss” rather than by their first names.
Rant over.
October 19th, 2009 | 9:38 pm | #3
I’m worried that we have a spammer posing as Dr. Beckwith. This doesn’t sound like the Francis Beckwith we all know and criticize.
October 19th, 2009 | 10:09 pm | #4
Frank Turk is worried about me? Amazing. He didn’t mind hurling insults at me elsewhere:
This sort of opining about someone’s inner life and thought processes from an online interview is unseemly. The meanness was palpable.
I have no idea how people like Mr. Turk can so causally and without regard for others claim to know every jot and tittle of what lurks in a person’s spiritual journey. It made me ill when I read it two years ago, and it makes me ill to read again now.
To take something so personal, profound, and moving and turn into a condescending blog entry in order to get a rise out of your fundamentalist Amen corner is beyond the pale.
October 19th, 2009 | 11:51 pm | #5
I’m hesitant to enter these comments at this point, but I did want to address Frank B.’s point about dressing up for church. I have a dear friend who was a factory worker and jeans and t-shirts were her dress-up clothes. She didn’t own any dresses or slacks. She was attending church regularly, though not yet a believer, when the dear church ladies approached her and told her how shameful it was that she was attending church dressed the way she was. Affording nice clothes for a couple of hours on Sunday morning wasn’t an option, so she never went back. This was long before I knew her, but even now she really has no interest in stepping foot inside church again and she is still not a believer.
I understand the desire to dress more respectfully for the occasion, but I also see beauty in the come-as-you-are approach in some churches.
October 20th, 2009 | 1:20 am | #6
Dr. Beckwith:
I’m not sure what it was in Frank Turk’s comments that you interpreted as “hurling insults.” He characterizes your choice “to return to communion with Rome” as “hollow,” but this characterization is not based upon “opining about someone’s inner life and thought processes,” rather his statements are a reflection about some public comments that you made concerning Trent, which indicate a lack of recognition about central gospel differences between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals.
October 20th, 2009 | 3:33 am | #7
Aha. I say, ‘your choices are hollow,’ and I’m just another bigot — but Dr. Beckwith calls those who take the anathemas of Trent seriously ‘bigots’, and smears all non-catholics as low-church tramps and scamps, (excuse me — and some catholics)and he’s a well-considered academic, I guess, with a detacted objectivity.
I welcome him here; I welcome his contribution to this dialog. I actually went to his blog to drop him a note that someone using his name was offer comments below his normal standard to make sure this was him.
But that said, I stand by my comments from JT’s old blog. If it’s hateful to call the migration in and out of Protestantism a ‘hollow’ choice, then I suppose that’s who I am.
October 20th, 2009 | 8:58 am | #8
Wow, Beckwith, I’m somewhat astonished you’ve been sitting on that quote for the past couple years. Let it go, man, if your Savior means anything.
October 20th, 2009 | 11:16 am | #9
I agree with Andrew. There is a context to Turk’s observation. Turk seems to believe Beckwith’s reading of Trent is in error and, therefore, his choice is hollow. If I am reading correctly.
Even Al Mohler disagrees with Beckwith in his understanding of faith alone as he writes in ‘Standing Together, Standing Apart’.
Without this doctrine[faith alone], no church is a true gospel church. Many Evangelicals, myself included, remain unconvinced that any consensus on salvation now exists between those who hold to the teachings of the Reformers and those who hold to the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. As a matter of fact, the embrace of an inclusivist model of salvation by the Catholic Church at Vatican II (and expanded thereafter) has served to increase the distance between the Evangelical affirmation of salvation through faith alone by grace alone through Christ alone and the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Central to the Evangelical doctrine of justification by faith is faith in Christ—and this faith is a gift received consciously by the believer through the means of the proclamation of the gospel.
October 20th, 2009 | 1:50 pm | #10
A brief interview is not an appropriate body of work by which to opine about thirty years of another’s life.
Can you imagine, Andrew, if someone were to make a judgment about your wife’s love for you because of a few comments she made at a PTA meeting or after church, with her listeners not understanding or wanting to understand her style or ways of communicating? You would be rightfully livid.
All I am suggesting is that Evangelicals like Turk learn how to read others with an eye toward learning rather than “gotcha.” If he had not read the interview locked and loaded, and if he had taken the time to understand Trent as Trent understood itself rather than how philosophically untutored low-church fundamentalist American Christians read it, he would have seen that I fully acknowledge profound differences between Trent and the Reformers. But they are differences that he cannot see, because he does not know where to look. The five causes of justification, for example, cannot be comprehended without understanding the role that Thomas Aquinas’ soteriology played with the council. Moreover, the issues of grace and nature are a piece with Chalcedonian Christology and the Council of Orange’s condemnation of Pelagianism. So, if one, for example, rejects Trent’s soteriology and all that it implies about nature and grace, then one must rethink Chalcedon and Orange, or at least try to account for them while sustaining a mere forensic view of justification. These are, of course, difficult issues for both Catholics and Protestants. And I fully acknowledge this is Return to Rome. But what just sticks in my craw is the arrogant flippancy of people like Turk who think they can move from a brief interview to pronounce on the seriousness of a person’s spiritual journey.
October 20th, 2009 | 3:02 pm | #11
Dr. Beckwith,
It is good to see you respond to the theological question raised, rather than merely the style of the last sentence of Frank’s post. The former is a substantive issue that concerns the whole body of Christ, in areas of eternal ramification. The latter is a more personal issue of charged emotion.
Certainly, style & attitude matters. Every Christian should be concerned with being a good ambassador for Christ, as your friend Greg Koukl advocates; we should be concerned with personal attitudes of humility, and with informed rebuke of false doctrine, as well as with discerning how to speak the truth in love without holding people to a higher standard of “niceness” and “softness” than Christ and the Apostles could meet. But eternal theological issues should never take the sideline.
And sadly, this kind of meta-discussion about style of discussion tends to overshadow the issues being discussed. (For that matter, when we personally feel that we have been wronged, it becomes very difficult to maintain the spirit of grace and charity that we are criticizing others for violating.)
Particularly, it would be excellent to see you address in more detail the specific issues that Frank raised (both here and here). Not just whether there are real differences between Trent and the Reformers, but specifically:
(1) What the Reformers thought they were rejecting, in their creeds and confessions rejecting Trent. (It is not just how “philosophically untutored low-church fundamentalist American Christians” read it; it is how the well-educated, involved-in-the-conflict Reformers read it.)
Are you saying that the Reformers did not think sola fide was a bone of contention? Are you saying that they understood the conflict in the same terms you did? (Or did the Reformers make the same mistakes as us unwashed fundamentalists of today?)
(2) Did the Council of Trent think they were anathematizing the Reformers for their view of justification by faith alone? Did Trent think that the Reformers had a purely intellectualized view of faith? (If so, are you saying Trent was right about the Reformers? Or are you saying Trent was mistaken about the “faith alone” aspect of the Reformers’ view of justification, and that part of the controversy was a big misunderstanding? They were actually saying the same thing, on that point?)
October 20th, 2009 | 3:03 pm | #12
P.S. The style of this blog doesn’t distinguish links clearly, so I’ll just point out that my post had three links–one in the first sentence, and two with the text “here and here”, halfway through.
October 20th, 2009 | 4:55 pm | #13
Jugulum:
It seems to me that the issue on which the Reformation ultimately turns is the nature of grace. Once I could not in good conscience hold to forensic justification and imputed righteousness, I had no choice but to return to the Church of my baptism. Trent’s account of justification–in its five causes–seemed to be far more coherent account of what one finds in Scripture as well as the lives of saints in both in and out of Scripture.
I want to give you a glimpse of why Catholics sometimes bristle when they first hear the solas rattled off by their Protestants friends. It seems to many Catholics that if there’s one central point in Scripture it is that nothing good is ever alone, not even God. For the Triune God is in fact three persons in eternal and loving fellowship with each other. God created Eve because man is not meant to be alone. In the incarnation Jesus of Nazareth is both God and man, with the latter not diminishing the former. In fact, virtually every Christological heresy in the history of the church is the consequence of someone trying to split the difference. For Arius, the God-man was not that much of a God. For the docetists he was not much of a man. The monophystists tried to merge both natures and thus ended up with neither.
The Pelagians embraced the idea that nature can be redeemed without grace. The Gnostic Simon Magus taught that one can acquire redemption by grace without changing nature.
In the New Testament, Christ is never alone. The Church is both his body and his bride. He is the vine; we are the branches. And the Church is never alone. It has the Holy Spirit to guide it. And being a follower of Jesus is not the exercise of one human faculty or power alone. In the words of Christ, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ And ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ “Pick up your cross, and follow me.” “My burden easy; my yoke is light.” “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.” And in the words of Paul, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail; but faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6)
As for scripture, according to the Catholic Church, the Bible itself, though infallible, arose from the life of the Church, in its liturgical and sacramental practices and theological reflections. It is a source of theological truth, to be sure, and uniquely the Word of God written. But the Church maintains that the Bible cannot be read in isolation from the historic Church and the practices that were developing alongside the Church’s creeds—creeds that became permanent benchmarks of orthodoxy during the same eras in which the canon of Scripture itself was finally fixed.
October 22nd, 2009 | 11:39 pm | #14
Professor, Your comments are well taken that saving faith is never alone – a truth that good Protestants are quick to defend.
However, more to the point, what Protestants object to is what Rome and Trent claim must accompany saving faith. That is, that certain rites as taught and practiced by Rome are necessary supplements. For example, Canon XXIX of the sixth session of Trent insists that the “sacrament of Penance” is necessary to restore a penitent sinner (contra James 5:16). Likewise Canon XXX also insists that “temporal punishment” in “Purgatory” awaits penitent sinners. Yet Christ “cancelled out the certificate of debt … against us … having nailed it to the cross” (and the burning away of inferior works in 1 Cor. 3 is not described punitively). It is innovations such as the “sacrament of Penance” and “punishment in Purgatory,” introduced centuries after the “faith … was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3) that the “run of the mill Protestant” objects to.
October 23rd, 2009 | 4:07 pm | #15
As an Anglican who is hoping to connect with Orthodoxy, I say that this discussion is what makes Orthodoxy so attractive. Catholics and Protestants are fighting within the same framework. Orthodoxy is a different framework altogether. It makes sense; it’s older; it’s Biblical. My post here doesn’t delve into the issues, but I hope people consider what I’m saying. Theology and novelty don’t mix.
October 25th, 2009 | 4:31 pm | #16
As one returning to the conservative wing of the Anglican Communion (now that it is available in the USA), I am happy to be in a church that embraces the authority of Scripture, the continuity of ancient apostolic traditions, and the work of the Holy Spirit.
In contrast, I find that later traditions such as the invocation of the departed saints and veneration of relics and images (held by both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism) are problematic for one committed to the faith “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3).
October 25th, 2009 | 5:24 pm | #17
Dr. Beckwith,
I understand your comment; I understand that those subjects factored into your decision to return to Rome, and I understand why you would be annoyed by simplistic treatments of the solas presented by ignorant Protestants. There are certainly simplistic, overly-reductionistic versions of the solas, as you can see in any good Protestant treatment of the difference between “sola Scriptura” and “solo Scripture”. Or discussion of the components of faith (noticia, assensus, feducia). Or the observation, “Faith alone justifies, but the faith that justifies is not alone”–the certain relationship between justification and a changed nature.
Informed Protestants find it quite annoying, too. Informed Protestants also find it annoying when Catholics speak as though the Reformation did not take these things into account.
That said, it’s odd to see you address that comment to me. I asked some specific questions about Trent and the Reformers, and how they each viewed what they were saying & what they were rejecting, and whether you think Trent misunderstood the Reformers. And only one passing reference in your comment seemed to be addressed at those questions. (It was in your first paragraph, where you mentioned forensic justification & imputed righteousness on the one hand, versus Trent’s view of the 5 causes of justification.)
Note: I’m not complaining if you choose not to take the time to answer my questions. I’m either repeating my questions, or I’m asking you to clarify how your comment was an answer to my questions (if it was).
To repeat:
(1) What are you saying the Reformers thought they were rejecting, in their creeds and confessions rejecting Trent?
Are you saying that the Reformers did not think sola fide was a bone of contention? Are you saying that they understood the conflict in the same terms you did? (Or did the Reformers make the same mistakes as us unwashed fundamentalists of today?)
(2) Did the Council of Trent think they were anathematizing the Reformers for their view of justification by faith alone? Did Trent think that the Reformers had a purely intellectualized view of faith? (If so, are you saying Trent was right about the Reformers? Or are you saying Trent was mistaken about the “faith alone” aspect of the Reformers’ view of justification, and that part of the controversy was a big misunderstanding? They were actually saying the same thing, on that point?)
October 28th, 2009 | 10:38 am | #18
Wow. How did I miss all the fireworks here?
I like the fact that Dr. Beckwith wants the highest consideration for “the seriousness of a person’s spiritual journey,” (his, anyway) but of course (like many Catholic apologists) would never grant such a thing to others who disagree with him. When we talk about “bigotry” or “anti-catholicism”, let’s make sure we observe what manifests itself all around when those terms are tossed into the mix.
That said, two things:
[1] This link to Avery Dulles’ 1999 essay in First Things regarding the real chasm between Catholics and Lutherans in spite of the 1994 Joint Declaration between Rome and some in the Lutheran church. Not sure how all Dr. Beckwith’s sound and fury signifies against what Cardinal Dulles had to say then.
[2] I wouldn’t go hardly that far to start this discussion, if anyone was really asking. There’s no question that the matters of Jstification, Grace, etc. are the things which frankly split the church at Trent. The paradigm I would use, however, to underscore the matter at Trent would be the recklessness with which anathemas were dished out at Trent. If it can be demonstrated that the fellows assembled by the Pope at Trent were in effect “piling on” and finding every reason available to them to cast out those of a different opinion, then I think it doesn’t just speak to the measure of the differences: it speaks to the objectives and teleology of Trent as to where they were trying to go with their ideology.
And since the can of worms (heh) is opened, here’s what I mean: in April 1546, Session 4 at Trent was opened, and from that session the following decree was presented –
For those who don’t follow what that means, or didn’t follow the link to read the who session, the anathema is here placed on anyone who does not accept the book of Maccabees, for example, as canonical Scripture.
Dr. Beckwith’s interpretation of history and theology is interesting and in many ways informative — from a certain perspective. But what it ignores is all the anathemas from Trent, and the objectives of the Council as demonstrated by its strident use of this condemnation.
At some point, this is not only about systematics and the purity of the Gospel — as important and central as those matters are. This is also about a body which calls itself “infallible” in order to dispose of those seeking reform and disenfranchising those with faith in Christ.
Just to wrap this up, this is specifically why the charge of “anti-catholicism” is always such a ridiculous gambit. The point of Trent was the disavowal and disenfranchisement of those who protested. It’s point was specifically “anti” “evangelical” on all counts. For the Protestant to then stand up and say, “well, I reject that entirely and expect the Catholic to at least admit what his church has done to those who believe what I believe — and until such a time a refuse to call him a brother for embracing my disenfranchisement,” and the Catholic to call that “anti-catholic” is the lowest form of sophistry.
I’m not asking anyone to refuse Dr. Beckwith a job, or his right to vote, or the right to own property, or anything the civil government should allow him — including his right to worship in any way he pleases. What I do expect, however, is that he be in some way credible when he abandons his former life for something he says is a weighty decision — and pretending that Trent did not do what it did for the reasons that these things were done, and that his church has the awful problem that it cannot deny a word of it because these are infallible decrees, is really too much.
Facts are facts: I really am an evangelical — a Protestant — and I believe what I believe. Trent anathematized this lock, stock and barrel — and until such a time that it retracts those condemnations, there is nothing that can resolve the differences. That Dr. Beckwith believes something else doesn’t make it true, and it doesn’t make it the moral high ground.
I’ll be in my low-church hut over here if the discussion continues.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact