In his current Evangel bio, Frank Turk lists one of his pastimes as “internet mayhem.” As evidenced by the current offense taken to him by Mark Olsen and various commenters at Evangel, he obviously hasn’t lost his spiritual gift in that matter. However, as he read through Olson’s last post, and after reviewing the procession of torches and pitchforks coming for him in that lonely castle on the hill outside town, Frank was surprised to learn that it wasn’t the actual Calvinistic monster that he is which all the haters want to destroy: it’s one they have created themselves out of the dead scraps of their own personal points of view.
In an effort to destroy that monster, and thereby save the internet villagers from themselves and their allegedly well-intention internet vigilantism (because of course: someone on the internet is wrong), the following interview has been provided.
You may be right to lynch Frank in the end, but his message is clear: at least head to the right mad scientist’s lair. and also: fire – good!
Frank Turk: Thanks, I guess. I wish I could take credit for it. Looks like a lot of people are looking for someone to hold responsible for something — not sure why. It seems they get pretty angry when they come to this place.
Frank Turk: I am certainly the object of all the outrage, and I’m also certain that my posting here at Evangel caused these things. I’m just not really sure how — I think it’s because people want to be offended. I am certain, for example, that TUAD wants to be offended by me — because I find his approach to argumentation and reasoning pretty shallow. I’m sure that offends him to say that, but someone who isn’t seeking to find offense in criticisms would say, “how about an example,” rather than “I know you are but what am I?”
To answer your question, FTE, I am sure I “caused” the outrage — I was the one who started people thinking about their list of grievances. I just don’t think I caused the grievances.
Frank Turk: Well, to the second example there, FTE, I’d like to get a short list of places where I actually said some person specifically is not saved. I’m sure I have said it maybe two of three times in my first 5-year mission to explore strange new worlds and to go boldly where others will only go kicking and screaming. I’ve said specific atheists are not saved; I’ve said specific apostates are not saved; I think I called one or two prohibitionists over the years purveyors of a different gospel and therefore not saved.
Here at Evangel I am certain I have not called any of my fellow bloggers “not saved”, and I am equally certain I have not called anyone commenting here “not saved”. I feel like I’ve taken great pains to do so. However, in that spirit, I’m open to examples of me doing such a thing here. I could be wrong, but because in about 10 years of internet apologetics (a really pathetic hobby, I admit) I have a significant list of “lessons learned”, I seek to avoid saying such things about specific people unless they make it clear they have abandoned the Gospel.
Frank Turk: Wow. Great question — that seems pretty obvious to me, but I always forget that most people don’t frame up the Christian faith the way I do.
You know: this guy Jesus was born about 201 decades ago, and he was born in a feed trough even though angels announced his birth and prophecy announced his birth and all creation was waiting for his birth. And Jesus came telling people (Jewish people — the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) that all that stuff that God was talking about in the OT was about to come true. When he asked Simon (the son of Jonah) what it was that he thought all that meant, Simon said, “well: you’re the Messiah, Jesus — the son of God Almighty.” And Jesus agreed with him — said that this truth isn’t something Simon puzzled out on his own, but that God himself taught him it was true.
But right then and there, Jesus didn’t say, “so here’s how we’re going to set up the Kingdom, boys — take good notes because you’re going to be architects of a new kind of Judaism, and new way of being human.” In Mat 16, Matthew tells us, “From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.”
See: the point of there being a Messiah (a “Christ” in our Jesus-ese) is that Christ must die — not anything else. Jesus gives Peter and the 12 the word that the gates of Hell will not stand against his assembly, and that the church is what Christ builds, and the way Christ builds that assembly is by dying in Jerusalem and then raising from the dead.
This is the Gospel: the Christ-centered, Christ-exulting, Christ-made, Christ-intended, Christ-himself-only work of dying in fulfillment of the Scripture, and then raising from the dead in fulfillment of the Scripture.
The reason I pick this out from Mat 16 and not 1 Cor 15:1-4 is that after Jesus explains all that, Peter says, “hey waitaminit — that’s just not right. Messiah is supposed to restore Jerusalem, Jesus. Don’t talk like that.” And when Jesus listened to “the Rock” tell him that the Gospel is discouraging and shouldn’t be mentioned, Jesus says, “that’s Satanic, Peter: don’t get in my way — you want what you want in those things and not what God wants.”
Jesus himself is not afraid to call his friend and his follower “Satan” for up-ending the Gospel — for thinking about what man wants rather than what God wants. And in that, we all do what Peter here did from time to time.
The problem is that some of us — you know: us people who attend congregations with crosses in high places and bibles of one sort or another in the seats — get married up to our ideas of what man wants. Let me say it clearly here so that nobody misses it:
Every denomination, every local church, and every individual person who systematically puts what man wants ahead of what God wants in the way Peter here does in rebuking Christ is abandoning the Gospel.
I don’t care if you’re a Baptist, a Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, COGIC, COG, Blog or Mablog: when you say, in some way, that Christ ought not to have to die and man can have it his own way, you’re abandoning the Gospel and you are putting yourself and others to eternal peril.
That’s what I mean when I say that. Anyone who approaches that point of view reductively and tries to pin their conclusions on me is just a liar — they are straw-manning me, and attacking someone and something I would myself repudiate.
Frank Turk: hang on a second …
Gosh, that’s frustrating to hear someone ask that question! It’s like they aren’t listening at all.
See: I think that question entirely misses the point. It assumes that I think that the Gospel is contained in some sort of corporate hierarchy. The deck is stacked from the go for that person, and I worry about them investing in some institutionalized apparatus what Christ himself said is his work alone.
To make sure I answer the question succinctly: not one denomination in the history of the world ever could lay claim to a “pure” Gospel. Not one ever. No cooperative program of Baptists; no synod of reformed geniuses; no gaggle of baby-baptizers; no brood of anti-baby baptizers; no diocese; no prelate; no empire; no abby of monks; no catacomb of frightened potential martyrs (in spite of Joe Carter’s insistence that martyrdom was statistically insignificant); no Corinthians, no Hebrews, no Thessalonians, no Ephesians, no Galatians, no Catholics, no Mennonites, no Lollards. No bloggers, if I may say so.
Not one ever had a “pure” institution, or a “pure” Gospel.
So for us today to start seeking out which one is the “purest” is sort of like straining through a land fill looking for the “purest” sandwich. What a waste of time! To find the “purest” Gospel, we have to look to Christ himself — as he was proclaimed by Moses and all the Prophets, and then by his disciples and Apostles, captured by God’s grace and providence in Scripture.
The rub, of course, is that if we read Scripture seriously and with any manner of consistency, we have to admit that Christ wants an assembly of believers — not just in theory, but in fact, in person, together in fellowship for the sake of declaring Gospel and also doing and living as if the Gospel is true. That means there has to be some kind of local church, assembled in a way which resembles the order of NT assemblies (we translate that word “churches”, which is fine as long as we see what the word ought to mean rather than what we often make it mean) following in obedience to Christ and the Apostles.
Frank Turk: Let’s think about that second question first: what sort of an ass would I have to be to think that I am the one guy who both finally figured all this stuff out, and finally got right what 201 decades of people working on this have never gotten right? I’d have to be a pretty gigantically self-involved moron with little or no historical perspective to think that if everyone were just like me, and listened only to me, they’d finally “get the Gospel right”. Think about that broadly and apply it liberally.
That sort of pontification [uh-huh] and self-involvement is itself a kind of denial of the Gospel. It refuses to admit that nobody is a finished product, and that like the Hebrews, and the Phillipians, and the Ephesians, and the Corinthians, and all of Israel, and Solomon, and David, and all the people in the book of Judges, and Moses, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and Noah, and Adam we are people who need to be saved, not a people who are somehow already triumphant and triumphal.
I myself make mistakes like this in my spiritual life all the time. The question is only if Jesus will save me and if the Gospel is the solution to the things I am doing and thinking, and the trouble I get myself into. Is the Gospel the solution to the culture of me personally? If the answer is not “yes”, and if I do not need to be buried in Christ’s death so I can be raised to Christ’s life every day, then I have denied the Gospel. What denomination I belong to is utterly irrelevant — and may in fact be part of the problem as I seek refuge in it rather than in Him.
So of course: I belong to a denomination. Everyone who is in fellowship with other people (whether they are believers or not; whether they will admit it to themselves or not) belongs to a denomination. Even the kooks who think that by not attending any church in protest to denominationalism belong to a denomination.
The question is whether we are taking refuge in the denomination, or in Christ.
To bore you to death on this subject, let me give you some examples which will really cause internet mayhem: in the exact same way I think many, many Catholics make this error, there are many, many, many Southern baptists who unquestionably make this error, and there are many, many, many, many pastors and members in the Shepherd’s Fellowship who make this error. This is not a merely high-church error: it is the error of thinking that some confession saves you, or some tradition saves you, or some association/relationship/membership/affiliation saves you.
The requirement of the NT to belong to a local assembly of believers who actually assemble and actually love Jesus and live like the work of Christ has consequences in the real world — and obeying that requirement — is not the same as saying that my denomination is “pure” or “purer” or “purest”. It’s saying that I’m a filthy sinner who, without Christ, is dead — so the life I have is a life I will spend in the shadow of the Cross and in the joy of the empty tomb.
Frank Turk: Only on Twitter.
Frank Turk: Did I say he did? I think TUAD says that he did — TUAD said Olson’s EO, therefore he’s a gospel-denying bogeyman. I deny that logic is in any way a decent way to reason
I leave it to TUAD to prove that Mark Olson is a person who denies the doctrine of original sin (that is, the inherent depravity of man’s nature as we are here after the fall), is totally sold on the concept of Theosis, and would demand that salvation is entirely a cooperative effort between God and man and not a monergistic work.
My opinion is that Olson would never do such a thing. He would label my understanding of EO as completely baseless and then explain how EO isn’t essentially pelagian, doesn’t teach that people are “deified” (cf. Maximus the Confessor), and doesn’t extoll the partnership view that man saves himself with God’s help.
I could be wrong: I welcome his correction and would apologize if his view of the Gospel is pelagian, synergistic and, well, can explain and embrace any very-astonishing explanation of holiness found in the doctrines of theosis. But a pelagian, synergistic view is somewhat excluded from what Jesus was talking about in Mat 16.
I leave that for TUAD and Olson to flesh out for us. I confess I don’t actually know for certain what Olson believes in these matters, but from what I’ve read from him I don’t think he’s what TUAD requires to make his point.
Frank Turk: Yes. Of course!
Frank Turk: You can put it that way if you want to — I don’t think that this is a charitable way to say it.
Listen: we have all done this in other areas of our lives. For example, many of us work for companies where we sort of look past some of the more-flamboyant points of the mission statement or work in spite of some of the objectives out employers have because they are unsavory to a greater or lesser degree. And we do it for the sake of self-preservation — that is, we know better than to do that, so we define objectives or statements in a way we can achieve them or accept them so that we are not compromised.
I know a lot of Catholics who do this. And let’s just be honest: I know a lot of baptists and their kin who do this to preserve their own semi-pelagianism, so it’s not always a good thing. But we are who we are.
Frank Turk: In a word? yes. I’m out of words on this subject. Next.
Frank Turk: Before I answer that, let me tell you what a clever interviewer you are. You’re a very sharp guy.
Frank Turk: Yeah, I’m just sayin’ that you’re not leaving any stone unturned. Thanks for your help.
Anyway, the wildly-ironic thing about that accusation is that it ignores every post I’ve made here at Evangel — including this one, and including the posts and comments that got Francis Beckwith’s text batch in a bundle regarding the advertising at the Evangel blog. It seems to say, “the only reason to come here is to cooperate with heretics and deceive people into confusion about the Gospel.”
Well: one good reason to blog here is to dispell that sort of Colson-esque, Hewitt-esque, Beckwith-esque view that ecumenism ought to come by painting in broader strokes and overlooking things like whether or not there’s a saving sacrifice at the mass, and whether or not people are born inherently good but just have to work harder — whether that be through prayer or through tea-totalling abstention from alcohol. “Ecumenism” comes when we preach the Gospel, and the Gospel destroys our idols, and then the church under the actual Gospel is a city on a hill, a light on a lampstand.
A good reason to blog here is to jiggle the Jenga tower of the foggy ecumenists and force them to consider and reconsider the Gospel. Hence: Evangel.
It seems to me that my blogging here so far has done that — if we judge by the mad rush to condemn me as a trouble-making, lifeless, etc. etc. bigot, anyway.
The reason that’s different than, for example, signing the Manhattan Declaration (and remind me to come back to that regarding where the outraged contingent of the signers are right now) is that the MD has to, by rights and by nature, diminish what it means to say “preach the Gospel” or “declare the Gospel” or “Gospel” in order to say that all the signers of all manner of stripes of tradition mean the same thing when they say that.
Here I can simply proclaim: I can proclaim what I mean to proclaim, and if Olson disagrees he can disagree, or if Beckwith disagrees he can disagree, or if TUAD disagrees he can disagree (though I admit I have deleted his more-offensive comments for the sake of his own well-being), and the differences can be obvious and clear.
If that confuses people, so be it: but it would confuse them because they would come to the table with the ambiguous notion that all religions are the same, and all sociologically-similar “Christians” all believe the same thing. The disambiguation of those ideas is, by a long shot, a spiritually-prosperous endeavor.
I’m not doing anything ambiguous here: I’m taking great pains to clarify, and it has lead to all manner of offense.
Frank Turk: Oh yeah. Thanks.
You know: RC Sproul has said what I have said about this document. And many people have received what he has said without all the cataclysm and apocalypse. But there are, of course, a contingent of people who cannot disagree without being hell-bent to make those who have disagreed with them (you know: not just in theory or in general, but in fact and specifically with what they have said) into the Devil himself because that’s the only way to get to the end-point where they are right, dammit: RIGHT!
So for example: to say, “the Gospel itself is obscured when we say that the the way it is defined by Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants is more or less the same thing, and I won’t sign on to a document which does this,” is then manipulated into saying, “All Catholics be damned! And Mark Olson especially!” is not even remotely rational. It’s not even sensible — it’s simply demonizing the other side for the sake of eventually raising the argument, “and who would want to be associated with a guy who would say that?”
I didn’t have to demonize anyone to say what I said — in fact, I have taken privately flack for failing to demonize Catholics and Orthodox in my objection. Can you imagine? Because I have said, and will continue to say, that there is something exclusive among the three major banks of theology mentioned in the MD — and that they may all be wrong, but that they cannot all be right — I have been told I have myself watered down the Gospel!
You know: wow.
But the outrage contingent has to have an enemy, not just a position or a disagreement. So when someone points out to them that making someone your enemy for nothing is disreputable, they have to see and raise: they have to amp up the reproach because of course — saying, “wow — that’s right. maybe there’s a good reason to disagree about this (as Al Mohler did) and I shouldn’t make someone into an enemy of all people who’s trying to make a rational point,” would be admitting they are wrong.
So they marginalize themselves for the sake of one incidental document which will, long term, save zero babies, reform zero marriages, provide not one extra second of religious freedom, but philosophically makes the actual definition of the Gospel ambiguous and unimportant.
Honestly, I think there’s room for very vigorous discussion here — but running full speed with scissors toward the room full of marbles which is the “hypocrite pharisee” rebuttal is not helpful at all.
Frank Turk: Sure. But “hypocrite pharisee” is not an argument — even reasoning out reasons to call me a “hypocrite pharisee” is not an argument. They should be a little more concerned with my objections as they come rather than how they think they apply to me. I may in fact be a hypocrite pharisee — that’s not a good reason to sign the MD. The MD throws a large blanket over all manner of theologies and calls the blanket “the Gospel”, and therefore all manner of people “believers”. Prove to me that it doesn’t do that (Colson says it does; he wrote it), or that they are, and we’re having a discussion. Pretending that my (alleged) flaws are reason to sign the MD is simply not convincing.
Frank Turk: Yes. Exactly. I would also like to find a way to tell everyone reading here to pray for Matt Chandler, pastor of the Village Church in Highland, TX, And Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk, who are both in medical distress, but you didn’t bring it up.
Frank Turk: This is the unscripted part, eh?
Frank Turk: like I said — you’re a sharp guy. WORD says we’re over 10 pages already. You think anyone is still reading?
Frank Turk: Exactly. If anyone reads this and responds, you can come back and we can try to talk some sense to them again. Next time we can talk about why people should respect the faith of others before us and anachronisms and all manner of other things related to this stuff.
Frank Turk: You’re the interviewer, dude. Paul Edwards tried and failed, and he’s better at this than you are.
December 12th, 2009 | 6:21 pm | #1
Frank,
I don’t ever recall feeling outraged by you.
Is that bad?
John Mark
December 12th, 2009 | 7:15 pm | #2
It’s disappointing, but it’s not bad. You just miss out on so much of the fun.
December 12th, 2009 | 7:17 pm | #3
I am outraged that you are disappointed in me. Are you implying that I am not a Christian?
1. Frank Turk is disappointed in me.
2. Frank Turk would be disappointed in me if I were a pagan.
Therefore: Frank Turk thinks I am a pagan.
Isn’t that precious logic?
John Mark
December 12th, 2009 | 7:31 pm | #4
Obviously, since I brought up the question of “which Protestant denomination is the most biblically centered or has the best expression of the Gospel,” I “am not listening” to Mr. Turk.
Well, I guess I should feel something about that. Don’t, though.
After all, you’re the ones who keep accusing others of “leaving the Gospel behind,” right?
December 12th, 2009 | 8:01 pm | #5
I don’t think I’ve ever read a more immature and self-serving post on any ostensibly Christian blog. How sad that some “Evangelicals” (capital “E”) find it necessary to build themselves up by tearing other people down.
December 12th, 2009 | 8:07 pm | #6
JMR: That’s better. See how much fun that is?
December 12th, 2009 | 8:11 pm | #7
James — I think you don’t read enough “ostensibly Christian blogs”. However, thank you for your insights — where did I tear anyone down?
December 12th, 2009 | 8:14 pm | #8
I was catechized and baptized into the Orthodox Church, and I have personalized my catechesis. When I talk about the Gospel with someone and when I think about it myself, I am most definitely going to place the emphasis on Jesus. I believe Jesus died for my sins on the Cross, that He rose from the dead, and that belief in Him is the ONLY way to get to heaven. Those are the basics for me.
I believe, that as Christians, we must “know Christ in our hearts,” and when I say this, I mean there must be a “cirumsicision” of the heart that Paul talks about in Romans. (And yes I am aware of the vastly different ways that OE and Protestants interpret Romans.). I also believe in the end we don’t know who will be “saved,” and I mean this in terms of who will be in heaven.
These are the basics for me, but I am also fully aware that Orthodox theology has a great deal of depth to it. Yes, we venerate saints, yes we have icons, yes the Theotokos plays a role, and yes there are the deep writings of the Fathers. And I would argue this all plays a role in our theology, but the role of Jesus for me is front and center because it is His saving work on the Cross and Resurrection from the dead that makes salvation possible and brings profound hope and joy to my life.
December 12th, 2009 | 8:16 pm | #9
Craig –
Have you ever listened to a whole talk (I am hard-pressed to believe you could call it a “sermon”) by Joel Osteen? Osteen is a “pastor” of a “church”.
I have no idea if he has signed the MD yet, and I am sure he isn’t reading Evangel. But as a test case, do you think Osteen embraces the Gospel, or is he doing something else to the Gospel?
The point of my question is to establish whether or not we can see anyone on the sociologically-evangelical spectrum who has, in fact, “left the Gospel behind.” Can you help me with this, or will you prefer your coy and vague denunciations?
December 12th, 2009 | 8:23 pm | #10
Alison –
I respect that. You said this:
You also said this:
To which I say, “fair enough.” Of course the Bible does not have a supplement which lists the names of all the elect from all the ages.
Given that soteriological agnosticism, how do we bridge the gap between hope and confidence in Christ and, for example, whatever happens to us right now?
December 12th, 2009 | 8:48 pm | #11
I can’t believe it is a Saturday night, and I am engaging in this discussion. I obviously need a life!
But.. I don’t suscribe to the doctrine of “once saved, always saved.” (I don’t know if you were asking that.) When I say this, I mean that we have been saved, we are being saved right now, and that we will be saved at our death. I am taking this from the tenses Paul uses in Romans. I am not going to venture what happens when we die (because I don’t know) in terms of what heaven is like. I believe there is a heaven and a hell, and that faith in Christ gets us to heaven–and not a dead faith, but here we could argue about works which also gets tricky–and that Christ will judge us, and we will be in the presence of God. But that is my limited knowledge because I cannot give you exact Scripture quotes. (I am not a theologian, and I have been a Christian for less than ten years, and an Orthodox Christian for less than five so I really know so little.)
Do I believe it is possible to be danger of losing your salvation? Absolutely–I think Hebrews 10-19:31 speaks to this matter. I don’t know how “hard” it is to lose one’s salvation, but I renew my faith in Christ on a daily basis, thank God for the gift of salvation, and strive (with God’s help of course!) to pick myself up again and again after I sin.
December 12th, 2009 | 8:55 pm | #12
Frank, you said:
Yet the title of this post, which does take immense courage for such an admission, is: An Interview with the Devil Himself.
How do you reconcile those two statements? Are you saying the devil is saved? That you are? Or aren’t? Or…?
I’m confused. ;)
December 12th, 2009 | 9:02 pm | #13
Alison –
consider it a preparation for worship in the morning. :-)
It’s a hard question I am asking, so don’t feel like you should just have a top-of-mind response. Here’s what I’m getting at: on the one hand, if we have a hard agnosticism about our state relative to salvation (that is: we cannot know who is finally saved until they are finally saved), the personal “I” is part of that “who”.
The necessary relationship between soteriological agnosticism and the objective work of Christ is that I cannot know if I am personally saved.
Let me encourage you to do something: re-read the book of Ephesians. It is written specifically that the believer may know that she is saved. However, it also gives us strong confidence that we may know who are fellow believers are. I ask you to consider it and think about the implications of the objective work of Christ for anyone in particular.
December 12th, 2009 | 9:04 pm | #14
I’m confused as well, Mark. However, ask anyone: I am in fact the Devil himself.
December 12th, 2009 | 9:26 pm | #15
I hope this post is not indicative of a trend on this blog, for it will ruin it in a hurry: self-indulgent, passive-aggressive codswallop.
December 12th, 2009 | 9:41 pm | #16
One final comment, and then I am off to bed. Yes, I believed that I am saved right now because of the gift of grace (which I did nothing to earn!). But I can’t buy “once saved, always saved,” even for myself. (Yes I am coming back to that.)
And I am aware of some of the fruits of the spirit mentioned in Ephesians and Galatians–as well as the former ways of life that we put aside when we are Christians. But I still sin so I need Christ.
And really aren’t Galatians and Ephesians rather interesting books. Interesting how Luther and Calvin interpreted them, eh? So yes, I agree that I differ in theology with my Protestant/Evangelical brethren, but we still have our core belief in our need for Christ so we are united on that.
And I don’t attend church on Sundays! Why are you mentioning worship in the morning??? Just kidding :)
And you know I am having a theological conversation with you, and I forgot what denomination you are in. That is really scary for me! I guees I better check if I continue in this discussion! Okay off to bed.
December 12th, 2009 | 10:19 pm | #17
I have a evangelical friend who talks like you talk: Objective, systematic, scientific statements about the church, salvation, etc are ruled out because they belong to the fallen phenomenal world and tend to fall short of God and gospel, which belong to the transcendental realm. Therefore talk of the historic church is talk about a mere idol, as are any experiences of good works we may have done that are in line with the gospel.
I attribute his views to his reading of Van Til. What bothers me about his style is that he can criticize anything by adopting a dialetical mode and then claim to evade categorization of views in objective terms.
December 12th, 2009 | 10:28 pm | #18
Prov 10:19
Eccl 5:3
Prov 18:2
Rom 14:1
Matt 7:24
December 12th, 2009 | 10:49 pm | #19
Dear Frank Turk: Coy and vague has worked for me so far. Best regards, Craig
P.S. Thank you, Evangel bloggers and Mark Olson, for at least one highly interesting, mature, and worthwhile thread. You may now return to form. See ya!
December 12th, 2009 | 11:07 pm | #20
Note to self: the next time you answer questions people are asking, remember they are not talking to you, but at you.
December 12th, 2009 | 11:09 pm | #21
Rev. McCain –
Were there any questions in this interview not asked in the comments of ther posts? Did I miss any of those questions?
How would you have answered them?
December 12th, 2009 | 11:26 pm | #22
Well, personally, I’m relieved, because tonight I completely lost my temper at one of my kid’s toys (because I was thinking about what I wanted, rather than what God wanted) and thought “I’m the Devil.” But apparently I’m not! I’m so relieved.
Oh dear. I’ve used a personal pronoun seven times in one comment. I apologize for such a self-serving comment.
December 13th, 2009 | 12:52 am | #23
What precisely did I write that gave Turk the impression that “ecumenism ought to come by painting in broader strokes and overlooking things like whether or not there’s a saving sacrifice at the mass, and whether or not people are born inherently good but just have to work harder — whether that be through prayer or through tea-totalling abstention from alcohol”?
Answer: I have no idea. Perhaps he can enlighten us with an actual citation or quote.
What is particularly disappointing about this post is not that it offers an opinion that is contrary to other opinions. After, we should, as a matter of Christian charity, welcome such candor, for without it real dialogue cannot even get off the ground. Rather, what is disappointing is what it reveals about the power of the conceptual grid by which Mr. Turk views the Christian world, a world, both geographically and chronologically, that is far greater, far richer, and more multilayered than the world of North American Reformed Baptists. (We Catholics, by the way, owe much to these Christians, as well as many other Evangelical groups, who have had the courage to stand against the forces of secularism to which many Catholics, sadly, have been slow to respond).
It is one that seems not to be able to distinguish between the question of whether a person is a Christian and the question of whether that Christian has conscious awareness of, and has willfully announced his agreement with, a particular theological theory of justification. After all, one becomes a child of God by God’s grace. Whether it is via the Evangelical altar call or the rite of baptism, one, fortunately, does not have to first become a systematic theologian as a condition for conversion.
When I was a Protestant I believed that my Catholic friends were “saved,” even if they believed in what I once thought was a mistaken view of justification. It seemed to me that they trusted in Christ. They embraced all the great creeds, and clearly believed what St. Paul says in I Cor. 15 is “the Gospel”:
Of course, as St. Paul writes, this is only “of first importance,” implying that there is more to the Christian life than this narrative of the Gospel. This includes, as John Paul II eloquently presents it in Evangelium Vitae, the praxis of the Gospel, the “love” about which St. Paul writes in I Cor. 13. It is a “love” that is, according to the apostle, greater than even faith and hope. In fact, without it, “I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.”
December 13th, 2009 | 1:15 am | #24
Hmm. Perhaps I’m the odd-man out here, but I didn’t see self-serving here, nor a bunch of put-downs. I actually saw a good deal of self-aware irony, and an attempt to clarify a position while remaining lighthearted. I’ve not been following the comment streams, admittedly, and Mr. Turk is (sad to say, sir!) not my most favorite of authors here, though I do appreciate him regularly. That being said, perhaps it might be in all our best interests to take this as what it seems to have been penned as, i.e. a lighthearted, mildly self-deriding post aimed to puncture a lot of misconceptions? Perhaps it’s simply my dry sense of humor, but I think this makes a good deal more sense and is a good deal less offensive if you take it as being funny.
December 13th, 2009 | 7:31 am | #25
I am shocked that something can be funny and informative.
Shocked.
Thanks, Mr. Krycho, for your support.
December 13th, 2009 | 8:04 am | #26
Dr. Beckwith wrote:
The italics part Dr. Beckwith never once wrote in any context or by inference. The string of 3 examples here (mass, EO pelagianism, and baptist pelagianism) are meant to convey the way anyone might brush over the differences. That is to say: there are some in all three camps who would brush over critical differences.
I have never read anything by Dr. Beckwith on the mass, so whether he has ever said anything about it would be news to me.
However, the point that he views the differences between RC and Protestant theology as incidental can be seen in every defense of Catholicism he produces, starting with this one here.
How should we view Roman Catholics? Of course: we should view them through the lens of 1 Cor 15 — they believe in the death and resurrection of Christ, so they are Christians. We should not think about the problems Galatians places on that interpretation. We should not think about the problems 1 Cor 1 & 2 places on that interpretation. We certainly shouldn’t consider what it means that the Magisterium of Rome anathematized those who reject the Deuterocanon, let alone those who would affirm sola fide and sola gratia. We should simply paint the essentials of the faith as broadly as possible and receive everyone who would say this as Christians.
Has Dr. Beckwith ever used the term “broad brush” in terms of his approach? Of course not — that would be telling, and it would erode the arguments he makes significantly. But his minimalist approach is a broad brush, simply put.
As to this bit:
I suspect that someone reading that would have to look at this passage of the above interview:
and ask himself, “Did Dr. Beckwith read this? I know his name is not mentioned in this part, but it is the foundation of the rest of Frank’s post. Why would he skip that part?”
Indeed: why?
December 13th, 2009 | 10:01 am | #27
This post is why I still like Frank. Great Post.
I am not sure that you always live up to your high falutin statements, but then, who does?
Having said that, I retain the right to in the future declare your work self-indulgent, passive-aggressive codswallop
December 13th, 2009 | 12:39 pm | #28
So the crowd before Pilate chanting “crucify him, crucify him” were more gospel centered than Peter was at the time.
December 13th, 2009 | 3:31 pm | #29
Here is my final comment on this thread.
I have found you to be gracious in how you have dealt with me, Mr. Turk. Did you ask me several questions about my questions? Yes. But I am used to people asking me questions about my faith. My best friends are Protestants (w-ho have been Christians far longer than I have), and they disagree with me-sometimes heatedly–about the finer points of theology. Because I am a Christian whose faith in Christ is the foundation of my life, I talk about my beliefs a lot with my friends. And I personally think questions are a good thing. My friends force to me to think honestly about what I believe.
And because I am called to be a witness of Christ to others, I think I had better know and understand what I believe. And I also think it is important that I do not blindly follow whatever I am told. The Pharisees followed most everything they were told, and well, we know where that got them.
In the final analysis, I believe my faith in Christ will be what saves me–not my Orthodox faith. But for right now while I am living on this earth, I have chosen to worship among Orthodox Christians.
December 13th, 2009 | 3:40 pm | #30
Mike M: So the crowd before Pilate chanting “crucify him, crucify him” were more gospel centered than Peter was at the time.
What a grossly fatuous comment. You might as well say, “the Muslim pro-lifers are more gospel-centered than the atheist pro-choicers.” If you were following Frank’s point at all, you’d know that neither the crowd NOR Peter at that time were especially gospel-centered.
Or are you reading a different New Testament than everyone else here? One that makes the point that the crowd demanded Jesus’ crucifixion because they knew in advance it was necessary for their own salvation?
December 13th, 2009 | 5:58 pm | #31
Frank Turk is the devil? That will certainly color the way I read Dante the next time. In fact, I would like to see FTE release an updated version of the Inferno- illustrations optional :)
A serious question for Frank Turk: as someone who works (well, “blogs”) with RC and EO on a regular basis, how do you make clear the line between where you agree (which I assume includes the Trinity and the Law) and where you disagree (again, assuming that’s the Gospel and other less-important issues like Ecclesiology)? Is confusion over this line part of the reason you’re “the devil”? I admit some self-interest and the question, as I’m a loosely Reformed Baptist at a Catholic University, and run into similar problems (I’m not quite “the devil” yet, though I have been called a heretic on occasion :)
December 13th, 2009 | 7:08 pm | #32
Coyle:
The fact that some Catholics will call you a heretic is proof enough that, while you may actually be a heretic (like me, and like all baptists ought to be seen by serious, under-the-authority-of-the-Magisterium Catholics), you are presenting the Gospel that a Reformed Baptist ought to proclaim. And that, I think, is more than enough.
That would be my short answer. My long answer would include this: some people would tell you that unless you were giving them the ol’ Elijah treatment and calling fire down on them, you’re not engaging those who disagree with you hard enough on the apologetics front. I disagree.
I think that the Gospel is its own apologetic. That is: it is chock-full of stumbling blocks. Because it is what it is and not what we want it to be, when it is actually presented it makes us sick to our ethical and self-satisfied stomachs. It makes us alternately mad and full of regret.
So if you’re in the Catholic university and not of the Catholic university, what you shouldn’t do is attend mass, or confession, or seek out benedictions. You should act like someone who is a messenger to people with priests and sacrifices, and tell them about our perfect high priest who has completed his work and sits at the right hand of the Father — who does not need to do his work over and over. Tell them the Gospel, including the parts that will make them call you antinomian, and the parts which will make them tell you you hate God’s church.
Do a better job than I do, btw. You seem like the kind of guy who might be able.
December 13th, 2009 | 7:10 pm | #33
dac –
I think he has a copyright on that, so don’t get sued.
And you will get clowned at my blog if you try it there, so be forewarned.
December 13th, 2009 | 7:14 pm | #34
Mike M –
I wonder… they did in fact say, “We have no king but Caesar,” didn’t they? Check your Bible on that one as it may be a surprise to you that, even using your very clever attempt at humor, the crowd before Pilate was not Gospel-centered.
They did not want what God wanted, and the text makes that plain.
December 13th, 2009 | 7:54 pm | #35
Mr. Turk (Dr.?),
If you do indeed possess the Reformed Baptist secrets for calling down Elijah-fire from heaven, please share. I promise to use it only on buildings and modern art, not on people :)
And I am definitely a heretic- I’ve had the delight (no sarcasm intended- it really was a delight thanks to the knowledgeable and thoughtful instructor) of sitting through Catholic University’s “History of the Reformation” class, and I lost count of how many times you and I are anathema.
Thank you for the thoughtful comments on Evangelizing RCs- I think you’re right, the Gospel is it’s own apologetic, particularly when it’s given in full (antinomia and anti-churchia included). One of the wonderful things I’ve discovered from my Catholic friends is how desperate they are to hear the message that sins are forgiven in full at the Cross.
I am a bit curious- given how divided we are over the Gospel, what do you think the role of those areas (e.g. Trinity, Law) where Protestants, RC and EO agree ought to be?
December 13th, 2009 | 8:09 pm | #36
Coyle –
I am only a Doctor of Internet Mayhem, and I received my degree at the University of Hard Knocks, which is unaccreditted, so most people just call me “Frank”, and that’s plenty descriptive.
Regarding the Law, I think you are selling it short: it’s the place where, without any doubt, we ought to be able to gain agreement from everyone — including those from (sociologically-speaking) non-christian heritages. Rom 1 & 2 tells us that; history in fact tells us that as the reason the first 3 centuries of Gospel-following outcasts were ultimately admired for their superior moral reasoning and actions.
Which, btw, is why I find myself extremely worried about contemporary “conservation” “religious” “politics”. How is it that, for example, in 200 AD, when temple sex with prostitutes was a completely non-controversial act, it was clear to the culture that Christian morality was vastly superior to the common morality, yet in our post-Christian age when the majority of people share our moral concerns, we find ourselves fighting an uphill battle on basic moral issues because we are well-known as “haters” and “hypocrites”?
I don’t think there’s something wrong with our morality on paper: I think there’s something wrong with it as we live it out and preach it.
So to answer your question: the Law ought to be our best friend when dealing with anyone who is a human being. That it is not speaks to the way we think about it and use it.
Regarding the common Nicene heritage of the three streams you list, I’m going to try to blog about that after Christmas.
December 13th, 2009 | 8:37 pm | #37
In the final analysis, I believe my faith in Christ will be what saves me
You see, here is where we Evangelicals of the Old-School-First-To-Be-Called-Evangelical (aka Lutherans) get the heebie-jeebies.
You believe that *your* faith is what will save you?
Hmmm…
It is the blood of Christ shed for you that saves you. It is the grace of God that saves you, in Christ and through the instrumentality of faith, but not *your* faith, but rather the faith that God gives as a gift, lest you should boast (Eph. 2).
Christ saves you, by grace, through faith, the faith He gives you as a gift.
Just want to keep clear who is in the driver’s seat.
December 13th, 2009 | 8:52 pm | #38
The odds of you ever having the opportunity to clown me are far less likely than you engaging in self-indulgent, passive-aggressive codswallop (again)
December 13th, 2009 | 8:58 pm | #39
The dude is interviewing himself. We’ve all gone mad.
December 13th, 2009 | 9:11 pm | #40
Rev. McCain –
Is it my faith? I mean, can I talk about the faith which saves me as “mine” without getting setting the confession on fire?
Sure: I agree with all your stipulations — honestly. From a systematic standpoint, I think we agree in principle. But isn’t it right to say, for example with John 3:16, that the believers are saved, and with Rom 1:16 that everyone who believes are under the power of salvation?
I once had someone quote me Francis Pieper’s “Brief Statement” — “By this faith in Christ, through which men obtain the forgiveness of sins, is not meant any human effort to fulfill the Law of God after the example of Christ, but faith in the Gospel, that is, in the forgiveness of sins, or justification, which was fully earned for us by Christ and is offered by the Gospel.”
Sounds suspiciously like what Alison confesses. You might want to check Pieper’s dog tags or something.
December 13th, 2009 | 9:13 pm | #41
Mator –
That’s the nicest thing anyone’s said about me here at Evangel in 6 weeks.
December 13th, 2009 | 9:23 pm | #42
Am I the only one who thinks “Fire – Good!” is hillarious?
That is the best Frankenstein’s Monster line ever. Never gets old.
December 13th, 2009 | 9:45 pm | #43
Craig,
One thing I don’t understand: During our back-and-forth at Mark Olson’s post, I told you that your questions made it look like you missed the point–because they reveal your assumptions about church-as-one-pure-organization. (And if you’re right, you should be arguing those assumptions, not just using them to frame a question that carries little force without them.) And you said that the thread as a whole (including our interaction) restored your faith in well-conducted interaction here at Evangel.
Frank, talking about the exact same questions, rather eerily said that it’s frustrating when people ask them, because “It’s like they aren’t listening at all.” He went on, “It assumes that I think that the Gospel is contained in some sort of corporate hierarchy. The deck is stacked from the go” And you took that somewhat more sensitively.
I don’t get it. Really.
You saw this post as immature. I rejoiced to see its light-hearted attempt to handle the many thoughts thrown his way by Mark Olson, TUaD, and yourself. Even with its length, it was pretty coherent and easy to read. I’m pretty confident that, had you chosen to engage, it would have been much more beneficial than you expect; I think your decision to bow out was premature.
I referred you to a post I had done on the difficulties of style. I want to point specifically to something that’s applicable here:
I’m not saying you’re acting like a full-blown member of the Irenics division of law enforcement, but I do think some more benefit-of-the-doubt is called for. (I’d especially like to see it here, because I enjoyed talking to you, and I’d like to spectate.)
December 13th, 2009 | 10:00 pm | #44
That was a matter of style. But there was an issue of substance that puzzled me far more.
I cannot grasp how Dr. Beckwith came away with this impression:
I honestly, without exaggeration, did a double-take when I read this. (Well, OK, I didn’t actually do the physical motion. But my mind went, “Say what?”)
Of course, Frank is welcome to correct me here, if he actually does conflate salvation with conscious articulation and agreement with Protestantism on sola fide.
But I came away with precisely the opposite impression, from everything he said about true believers in the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, and non-believers in the SBC, and Mark Olson’s conversion to EO, and subjectivized catechesis.
Namely, that it is not about the words we use to articulate, but about what we are actually depending on–the nature of the faith that underlies our verbal confession. Because, “I myself make mistakes like this in my spiritual life all the time. The question is only if Jesus will save me and if the Gospel is the solution to the things I am doing and thinking, and the trouble I get myself into.”
December 13th, 2009 | 10:05 pm | #45
I also noticed Dr. Beckwith’s use of the “that’s so naively parochial” card, but that’s not puzzling–it’s like clockwork, in its predictability.
December 13th, 2009 | 10:27 pm | #46
Dear Jugulum: Thanks for the outreach, and for the concern for my spiritual well-being. (That probably sounded ironic, especially on this thread, but it wasn’t.)
I actually have been puzzled myself about my reactions here lately. I really am debating within myself as to whether or not participating in these discussions has been helpful or not, especially spiritually. I have corresponded, argued, fussed, and just plain talked with atheists, agnostics, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, creationists, Dawkins-worshippers, Pentecostals, New Agers–you name it. I do not remember ever having–to be blunt–such a visceral dislike of anyone as I have had of Frank, who seems rightly to be a central character here on this blog. Frank might consider this to be the convicting work of the Holy Spirit bringing me to the True Gospel. I am not sure about that. I do not detect–again, to be blunt–much if any of the Spirit of Christ in his writings. Maybe this is just the nature of internet blogging, which seems to range from the merely pugilistic to the scorched-earth policy.
But these opinions of mine about someone who is quite clearly a devout fellow Christian trouble me. One of us is off base, and I am quite open to the possibility it is me. If I am wrong in my appraisal, then I am being not merely hyper-sensitive (as you warned me about), but also ferociously judgmental. This option obviously concerns me greatly.
Or maybe I’m wrong about both of us, both Frank and myself, and these fora are just not the place for me to be right now. As a fairly recent convert to Catholicism after decades of evangelicalism, I could be simply overly defensive.
Anyway, as I said, thanks for your concern, and sincerely, may God bless Frank Turk and everyone else here.
December 13th, 2009 | 10:48 pm | #47
And to Frank Beckwith: Having not said hello since October, hello again, and have a blessed Christmas. Best, Craig
December 13th, 2009 | 10:53 pm | #48
Glad I’ve got you thinking, Frank. A step in the right direction?
I always think it the better way to focus more on Christ and His gifts, than “my faith” talk. There’s a whole bunch of folks in Evangelical-land who are left uncertain and unsure about “their faith” when the bad times come, and if all they’ve been taught is to “make a decision” for Jesus, well…that doesn’t stand up.
That’s why there are so many re-baptisms and altar calls out there among the “I’m saved by my faith” crowd.
But then again, if even the sure and certain means of God giving His grace, are merely symbols or memories, well…it all kind of makes sense.
December 13th, 2009 | 10:58 pm | #49
Craig,
See, that’s why I like you.
I wish you well in discerning yourself and others, and I pray God would grant you wisdom, both to see and to cope.
For what it’s worth, the core of my appreciation for Frank is his consistent, Christ-based theme of the centrality of real, self-sacrificial love for the people in the local church. If you are seeking the spirit of Christ in him–past your possibly-defensive reaction, past personality conflicts, past his confessed personal failings–then that it is where it will shine most brightly, piercing through the muck and mire of this mortal life of sinful flesh.
December 13th, 2009 | 11:02 pm | #50
Craig –
I think the problem at it’s root is that the Gospel is offensive, and when it challenges anyone’s notions of what they think is right, they get defensive.
The primary offense of the Gospel is that it is exclusive — that is, it is serious about being what it is and nothing else. People want the Gospel to be *inclusive*, because that’s how they conceive of *love*, and it gets ugly when someone says, ‘not so much’.
I think it has not a lot to do with whether one is ‘saved’ or not: I think it has more to do with whether one sees Christ’s work clearly or not.
And as I’m typing from my phone, I’ll stop there.
December 13th, 2009 | 11:20 pm | #51
Rev. McCain –
I’d love to chat with you about baptism when you are ready. As to the rest, it’s interesting that you are so forgiving of a Lutheran and so much less to an EO novice when both say the same thing.
I wonder why that’s a reasonable way to address this question? And I ask because I think your accusation that I’m not thinking very clearly in this post is, frankly, just an easy way out from dealing with what I have said.
December 14th, 2009 | 7:12 am | #52
I actually have been puzzled myself about my reactions here lately. I really am debating within myself as to whether or not participating in these discussions has been helpful or not, especially spiritually
That is an excellent question for all of us (and for me personally it led to some significant changes in my own habits)
December 14th, 2009 | 8:40 am | #53
Okay now I feel compelled to post one more thing in response to Rev. McCain. I made a very simplistic statement. I do not know you, I am not having a live conversation with you where you can respond to my simplistic formulations, etc. I made a simple statement, which you are right needs to be qualified. I read the Bible with commentaries–not just interpreting things as I will–as I am a believer in Tradition with a big T. But I also am not so narrow-minded as to dismiss many of the things that CS Lewis states in Mere Christianity about what all confessing Christians believe. I do believe in a faith that shows the fruits of the spirit not a dead faith. There must be some kind of conversion in the whole process of becoming a Christian. And I also believe in corporate worship, Baptism, and the Sacraments. I don’t just think it is okay to spend Sundays in my bedroom worshiping Jesus.
That all being stated, I do believe there is room in the kingdom of heaven for those workers who come late in the day (Christ says as much). And I absolutely believe that the thief next to Christ will be in Paradise, and as I understand his story, all he had was faith in Christ. But as I have stated before, I am NOT a theologian, and I do not have a any degree in Christianity. I have been a Christian for about six years of my adult life, and an Orthodox Christian for almost two. Obviously many would say I have conflicting thoughts on the faith because I believe that there is room for Orthodox Christians, Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Pentecostals, Anglicans, and other confessing Christians in heaven. But… I am NOT God so my opinion counts for nothing. So I am going to be quiet now and leave this discussion to those who have thought longer and harder about this.
December 14th, 2009 | 9:38 am | #54
because of course: someone on the internet is wrong
I don’t have a dog in this fight. But I’ve noticed that, regardless of how funny that cartoon is, it’s linked to mainly by folks who have no problem with getting into an internet brew-ha-ha in the first place.
December 14th, 2009 | 10:05 am | #55
dac,
Curse you for forcing me to examine my own habits, too!
December 14th, 2009 | 10:41 am | #56
Allison, I certainly was not picking on you/at you, but the portion of your post that caught my attention, provided me a chance to comment on what I see as a weak spot in Evangelicalism.
Thanks for letting me know you are not God. I would have hated to start all my prayers now with “Dear Allison, I just want to thank YOU…”
I think you actually pointed this conversation in a healthy direction!
A blessed Advent and Christmas to you and yours.
PTM
December 14th, 2009 | 10:47 am | #57
Greetings Frank,
A chat about baptism would be great.
Perhaps you can let me know where I’ve erred in suggesting Evangelicalism would do better to focus more on talking about Christ and His gifts, and what He has done and is doing and less on “my faith” kind of talk.
I’ve always loved the way Luther lays it down in his explanation of the Third Article of the Apostles’ Creed:
I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.
PTM
December 14th, 2009 | 12:06 pm | #58
I’ve been reading these threads with interest over the weekend but piecemeal in the midst of other activities, so am not sure if I’ve missed something. I’m confused: if Mr. Turk and others are concerned about signing the MD because it presents different gospels as if they are the same, or as if the differences don’t matter, yet are saying that, in terms of salvation, the differences don’t matter because members of different Christian faith groups including RC and EO may believe in the “mere” Gospel, then…why not sign the MD? Is it because making and affirming such a statement as the MD won’t in the end be effectual spiritually or politically? Is it because the differences between Protestant, RC and EO gospels are greater than the similarities? Is it because the RC and EO organizations (Churches) add to (or subtract from) the Gospel and therefore don’t affirm the “true” Gospel? And therefore members must deny those add-ons (or subtractions) in order to truly be saved?
In other words, why do the differences matter so much? And is there an assumption that all readers of the MD will assume that any person identifying with a denom/branch of Christianity accepts all official tenets of that denom/branch, assuming that they actually know what those all are?
Please help me understand.
December 14th, 2009 | 1:51 pm | #59
Bob: exactly. It’s a club.
December 14th, 2009 | 1:51 pm | #60
“Is it because the RC and EO organizations (Churches) add to (or subtract from) the Gospel and therefore don’t affirm the “true” Gospel? And therefore members must deny those add-ons (or subtractions) in order to truly be saved?”
Dear Bonnie: I think everyone else can speak for themselves, but the impression I have gotten is that this hits the nail on the head.
This, in other words, is somewhat similar to the situations in which Joshua Hochschild at Wheaton College and Francis Beckwith with the evangelical scholars’ association found themselves: that is, they insisted that as Catholics they could sign and affirm the evangelical statement of faith, but the evangelical groups involved did not think that was truly possible. The differences in the groups’ views of justification outweighed the similarity, in evangelical eyes.
The perception on my part is that many evangelicals on this blog believe that if Catholics are saved and part of the body of Christ, they are so in spite of being Catholic; that is, their salvation comes from Christ and not necessarily from any body of believers, especially one with a “false gospel.”
Catholics find it difficult to understand this viewpoint because they find it difficult to separate the Head (Christ) and His Body (the Church). Salvation is of Christ and ministered through His Church. To evangelicals, this looks way too much like finding salvation in an organization and not in Christ.
Does this sound like an accurate assessment to the rest of you?
December 14th, 2009 | 2:02 pm | #61
How about we all take a breather and sing a choris of “Silent Night”? Or is it too late for that?
December 14th, 2009 | 2:04 pm | #62
Frank,
I should point out, that like JMR, I am neither outraged or offended. I’m also not convinced that terms originating and defined by Western theological conflict map well to the East. On that … I’ll try to elaborate more in another post.
December 14th, 2009 | 2:05 pm | #63
Frank,
Seriously, though, I haven’t looked at Michael Spencer’s blog in a while. Am sorry to hear about him having medical troubles. A quick perusal of his blog, and I didn’t find anything about it. Can you update us?
December 14th, 2009 | 2:19 pm | #64
Craig,
I’ll take a stab at that one. As an Evangelical I think you’re close but not quite there.
It’s not so much that we see it as finding salvation through an organization, most of us, I think, would have serious trouble with anyone saying “I’m a Christian, but that doesn’t mean I need to belong to a local church.”
I would say that we are saved into the church, not that salvation is ministered or available through His church. That does start to sound a little too much like the church is the salvation broker.
But the primary thing would be that it seems completely unreasonable to us to believe that an organization which has anathemetized the gospel itself (a la Trent) and continues to uphold those anathemas, can consider itself a church of any kind, let alone THE church.
It really does come down to theology, and primarily that of soteriology and more specifically, justification. That is why I, as a member of an Mennonite church can call Frank, a Baptist, a brother, and Rev. McCain, a Lutheran, a brother as well. Because we agree on the essentials of who saves completely and how.
So we don’t need an organization called “THE TRUE CHURCH” because we can see it all over the place, wherever the gospel is rightly preached and believed.
That is also why we believe that Catholic’s can be saved but only in spite of the church, not because of it. They need to hear the real gospel to be saved, and, except for aberrant parishes (and I’m sure there are some, probably even many) Rome has, in our view, left the gospel behind.
Make sense?
December 14th, 2009 | 2:50 pm | #65
So we don’t need an organization called “THE TRUE CHURCH” because we can see it all over the place, wherever the gospel is rightly preached and believed.
“That is also why we believe that Catholic’s can be saved but only in spite of the church, not because of it. They need to hear the real gospel to be saved, and, except for aberrant parishes (and I’m sure there are some, probably even many) Rome has, in our view, left the gospel behind.
Make sense?”
Yes, it is very clear and makes sense. Thank you.
If others think this is correct, then you are probably right in refusing to sign the MD or anything else associated with Catholics.
In fact, I would think that Frank Turk was right, much earlier on a different thread, in bringing up the question of whether or not evangelicals should even feel free to post on this site. Even though First Things is not a “Catholic” publication, it is obviously quite open to Catholic writers and ideas. As such, it is disseminating potentially dangerous ideas and teachings.
I’m not being touchy here. See, Jugulum, I am even smiling: :) I am, however, trying to deal with the plain sense of “leaving the [real] Gospel behind.”
Allow me to paraphrase again. Here are four statements:
Some Baptists are Christians and some are not.
Some Catholics are Christians and some are not.
A Baptist church, as such, is a Christian assembly.
A Catholic church, as such, is a Christian assembly.
Is it the case that evangelicalism, in general, would agree with the first three statements but not the fourth?
December 14th, 2009 | 2:55 pm | #66
Craig,
Assuming that in those last 2 statements, you are saying (and I think you are), “A…church, by virtue of it’s officially stated theology, is/is not a Christian assembly.” Then yes, I would agree to the first 3 and not the 4th.
December 14th, 2009 | 2:58 pm | #67
Craig,
As I think has been stated elsewhere, the primary difference between this blog and the MD (which TUAD has JOYFULLY signed), is that the MD explicitly assumes that the signers hold to the same gospel, while I don’t see that this blog assumes that.
December 14th, 2009 | 3:15 pm | #68
Craig,
I wasn’t worried about you engaging in a touchy way–I was worried about you unnecessarily disengaging in a touchy way. :)
I believe it was TUaD who brought up the question about blogging here at Evangel, not Frank.
I’m not sure if you missed it–Frank did reply to that in the “interview”. In a nutshell, his point is that signing the MD requires ambiguating the gospel; here at Evangel, everyone is free to disambiguate the gospel–clarifying our differences or proving our commonality as they see fit.
Avoiding the MD isn’t about avoiding being in the same room as heretics, or about avoiding publishing in a venue that publishes bad stuff.
As for the four statements–”as such” is an oversimplification. To expand on what Daryl said:
It’s more like, “Baptist theology teaches the gospel, though some Baptists truly believe it and some don’t. As such, it is a Christian assembly.” And, “Catholic theology does not teach the gospel, though some Catholics believe it anyway, and others don’t. As such, it is not a Christian assembly.”
December 14th, 2009 | 4:32 pm | #69
All right; thank you for the responses, flabbergasting though they are to me.
(See, what I thought would happen was this: I’d list these four statements, point out that people were writing and responding as if they thought the fourth statement ["A Catholic church, as such, is a Christian assembly"] were not true–and then people would smack their heads and say, “Well, of course it IS true; what was I thinking?” Instead, the response was more like, “Yes, Craig, exactly right–no, wait, let’s make it a bit stronger.” Yeesh.)
So-o-o-o-o-o-o-o: a group can officially, theologically, in both belief and practice, throughout its entire liturgy (we’re talking about a liturgical group here), acknowledge the Trinity, the Lordship of Christ, the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus for the sins of the world, Jesus as God the Son manifest in the flesh, that the entire history of salvation is by God’s grace alone, that God has given us the Bible by divine inspiration, that worship and adoration belong to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, and so on–but because it denies the sola fide view of justification, it cannot be considered a Christian assembly?
Now I know you probably disagree with a lot of points of Catholic doctrine, but is this the one which makes you assert that Catholicism is not even Christian? Is this the “heart of the Gospel,” as I remember someone putting it?
December 14th, 2009 | 4:35 pm | #70
“How about we all take a breather and sing a choris of “Silent Night”? Or is it too late for that?”
Dear Bob: At any rate, it’s never too late for a rousing “Onward Christian Soldiers.”
December 14th, 2009 | 4:52 pm | #71
Craig,
It’s similar, I think, to listing the parts of a car and saying “So you’re telling that we agree on all this, but just because I say water works like gas and you say only gas works like gas, my car won’t work?
Yup, it won’t.
Considering that historically (and still) the Roman church has said this about Evangelicalism, what’s to be flabbergasted about?
December 14th, 2009 | 5:10 pm | #72
Dear Bob: At any rate, it’s never too late for a rousing “Onward Christian Soldiers.”
ROTFLOL!!!!
And sorry I spelled “chorus” wrong. The “i” right next tot he “u” on the keyboard. I’m not (completely) ummm … whatever the word is for not being able to read and write too good.
December 14th, 2009 | 5:15 pm | #73
Well, I guess the “flabbergasted” part is because Catholicism does accept Protestants as Christians. Separated, but Christians. The reverse does not seem to be the case.
If the sola fide doctrine really is the sticking point at which a Protestant would say, “Nope, sorry, if you don’t accept this, you are not Christian”–then I suppose I would simply ask, “Given the ENTIRE New Testament message, is it really that obvious that sola fide is THE crucial Christian doctrine?” For that matter, is sola fide itself really that obvious?
I know I left myself open here. But if you cut-and-paste your list of scriptural passages here, then I’ll cut-and-paste mine back at you. We could begin with this one: “You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James 2:24).
Now I know that you could whip up your memorized explanation of what that verse ACTUALLY means. But I just want you to stop and think: Is it really the case that someone could read that and similar verses and come up with, “Yes, it is obvious that “justification by faith alone” is the crucial Christian doctrine, the sine qua non of Christianity. Without it, an assembly is not Christian.” Does that seem reasonable?
As Oliver Cromwell cried out, “I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think ye that ye may be mistaken!”–at least before stating that a group which is so obviously Christian CANNOT be Christian.
December 14th, 2009 | 5:15 pm | #74
Daryl,
Are you thinking of the Pope’s somewhat recent comments on Protestant churches not being true “churches”, but rather “ecclesial communities”?
By the way, those comments didn’t remotely offend me. It makes sense, if we lack the right even to administer communion–which ostensibly requires authorization through the line of apostolic succession of bishops.
Craig,
Would you agree that if an ostensibly Christian group does not teach a saving gospel, that the word “church” shouldn’t apply?
If so, then your flabbergastion is aimed at the notion that Catholicism does not teach a saving gospel, right?
December 14th, 2009 | 5:20 pm | #75
Craig,
Consider verses like John 14:28, or Matthew 24:36, whose “plain meaning” is often used as proof texts against the Trinity.
Are they proof texts against the idea that Trinitarianism is crucial Christian doctrine, a sine qua non, without which an assembly is not Christian?
December 14th, 2009 | 5:24 pm | #76
signing the MD requires ambiguating the gospel
But why? Forgive me for being dense. I just don’t get it.
Would y’all here who believe this agree with C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity? Because it seems like you (or some of you) say that you would, but then you act (and say) as if you wouldn’t…?
(Please feel free to ignore this comment & hum Silent Night instead…:-) )
December 14th, 2009 | 5:27 pm | #77
Okay, point taken. Proof-texting is not usually a good idea.
So let’s say I go with the historic interpretive consensus of the past 2,000 years. Do I end up with sola fide? I still wouldn’t think so.
And I’m still asking the question: Is sola fide the real sticking point here? I mean, is this the major barrier to accepting the Catholic Church as Christian?
December 14th, 2009 | 5:42 pm | #78
Darryl (#64)
I consider myself an Evangelical but do not agree with what many Evangelicals have been saying in these threads about which particular kinds of believers are truly saved. Does that disqualify me from being an Evangelical? Just who is allowed to claim that label?
This goes along with my earlier question (on another thread) as to just which denoms qualify as Evangelical churches.
December 14th, 2009 | 5:44 pm | #79
On Mark’s post, at the end of the comment thread (I was late to the game) I wrote:
RK (#67) said, “Ecumenism is the short and untidy path to only standing for part of the Gospel – for fear of offense of those you’re allied with.”
Maybe ecumenism, at least for some, is not motivated by fear of offense, to man at least, but rather a desire to give charitable benefit of the doubt to all who claim Christ crucified and resurrected for the salvation of mankind.
I am certain that, humans (even Christian ones) being whom they are, there is no Christian nor group of Christians that does not, in some way, add to the gospel. I am also certain that there is no Christian or group (church, etc.) that does not also in some way miss the fullness of the gospel. Therefore, an ecumenism that embraces all those who would claim salvation in Christ alone, regardless of disagreements over just how that salvation is appropriated, seems to me just and wise.
Further, as my Catholic family members assure me, RCs do not doubt a Protestant (like me) can be saved, but believe that he or she is not “in full communion.” So there is a disunity, but the unity is greater.
And still further, I think I understand what you are saying about the meaning of “evangelical,” but historically, evangelicalism is an attempt to reclaim the gospel as essential and exclusive to salvation. It seems to me that attempts to define it too narrowly or exclusively (in truth adding to the essential meaning) actually contradict that goal.
December 14th, 2009 | 6:01 pm | #80
I don’t have a corrent update on iMonk, but I know the BHT folks read over here occasionally. Prayer for Michael is always warranted; in this case, there is a specific and merciful need.
December 14th, 2009 | 6:14 pm | #81
By the way, Craig, you shouldn’t think that the issue is with denying the phrase “sola fide”, or that being able to properly articulate justification is necessary for salvation.
On the level of personal salvation, it’s a matter of what you’re actually depending on–the nature of your faith, not the quality of your articulation or the developed perfection of your understanding. (I.e., salvation is not reserved for systematic theologians–thank God, for my own sake and everyone else’s.)
Which is why you can be outside Christ even if you say the right words, and you can be in Christ even if you don’t say the right words.
Bonnie–I’m thinking about your suggestion for the motivation for ecumenism. And I don’t we’re as far away from you as you think. Meaning, we’ve already said that we don’t doubt a Roman Catholic can be saved.
What we also say is that if a Catholic is saved, it’s in spite of their church’s teaching on the gospel, not because of it. And I don’t see how that’s incompatible with the motives you suggested.
Remember that we’re talking about the organizational, “official teaching” level. And if I try to apply your logic there, it would turn into, “Every group that claims to lead people to Christ really is a Christian group.” Is that what you mean? Am I misapplying your logic?
December 14th, 2009 | 6:27 pm | #82
Bonnie said:
I’m sure I missed some of it. I tried to hit the high-notes with this response.
Well, that’s not what I am saying. My great friend Dan Phillips lined out 19 questions to ask the signers of the MD, which I think makes the issues crystal clear; my abbreviated version would llok like this:
[1] The Gospel is what it is.
[2] However, the way the Gospel is defined by EO, RC and EV are three distinct things which cannot be reconciled.
[3] The MD makes it clear that this issue is not a central matter in defining who is and is not a “believer”. That is: the definition of the Gospel is incidental to defining the Christian faith, not central.
[4] This explicit statement in the MD obscures the importance of the Gospel
[5] Therefore, I respectfully decline to sign it.
It has nothing to do with whether some percentage of people signing that document are unbelievers: I promise you that any church one might join will have a certain percentage of unbelievers in it (the Bible tells us as much). It has to do with whether or not the definiton of “believers” is made to mean “those who are saved by faith in Christ” or “those who have a common moral axe to grind.”
Does that help?
This is the part here which really makes me wonder whether peopel are reading all the objections to this declaration — particularly, my objections.
The key objection has nothing to do with the salvation state of anyone.
The key objection is that relegating the Gospel to something less important in defining who “believers” are and replacing it with moral inclinations makes what the Gospel actually is into something it is not.
Huh. I can tell you that Timothy George would tell you they do not matter that much.
I think they matter only if the Gospel is something which has a specific meaning and is meant for a specific end. If the Gospel is flexible and ill-defined, you are right: it doesn’t matter.
See above. The question is about how this document positions the Gospel relative to its necessity in defining what is and is not Christian.
I hope that helps.
December 14th, 2009 | 6:28 pm | #83
For the record, Mere Christianity ambiguates the Gospel. The idea that the Nicene Creed is the best definition of the central tenets of the Christian faith leaves a LOT to be desired.
December 14th, 2009 | 6:31 pm | #84
Craig (from #77): “So let’s say I go with the historic interpretive consensus of the past 2,000 years. Do I end up with sola fide? I still wouldn’t think so.”
That assumes that there has been a “interpretive consensus of the past 2,000 years.” Which there certainly hasn’t been. Even leaving aside the non-consensus in the last 400 (whether talking about the lack of consensus between Protestant and Catholic, or Tridentine Catholic and Vatican II Catholic), even prior to that you can’t really talk about a universal Christian consensus. There have always been Waldensians, the Irish church, the East/West divide, and countless other variations (all within the Trinitarian umbrella) of Scriptural interpretation, all of whom defy across-the-board condemnnation as “un-Christian.” After studying this stuff for a bit (not long enough), I am coming to believe that a major failure on the part of Protestants has been engaging Catholics only on a systematic level (your earlier proof-texting comments show that you’ve been exposed to that) and just granting the historical claims of Catholicism, particularly those it makes about the Apostolic and Ante-nicene fathers. You can talk about historical winners and losers, and in that sense, through the Middle Ages and until the Reformation you can certainly argue that what became the Roman Catholic church tended to come out on top (except in the East), but you can’t talk about an “historic interpretive consensus” and be historically accurate at the same time.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not taking a relativist position on Scriptural interpretation- especially when it comes to the Gospel! There are definitely right and wrong ways to read Scripture and approach salvation. I do, however, want to join Frank Turk in resisting tying this “right way” absolutely to any historical church, denomination, etc.
“And I’m still asking the question: Is sola fide the real sticking point here? I mean, is this the major barrier to accepting the Catholic Church as Christian?”
Yes and no. Depending on which Protestants you talk to (I come from a Reformed Baptist background), there would also be the question of whether anything larger than a local congregation is really a “church” at all, and not just a “parachurch organization.”
But before that question can be engaged, the question of faithfulness to the Gospel has to be sorted out for it to be even relevant…
December 14th, 2009 | 6:34 pm | #85
Some Baptists are Christians and some are not.
– Agreed.
Some Catholics are Christians and some are not.
– Agreed.
A Baptist church, as such, is a Christian assembly.
– You cannot tell at face value; an inehernt part of baptist ecclesiology is the independence of the local assembly, so there is not telling if they have a viable confession and faith unless you observe them. That is: they do not have a home office in Memphis the way a catholic church has a home office in Rome.
A Catholic church, as such, is a Christian assembly.
– Because they do have a home office in Rome, and their confession is that their fidelity is hinged on the orthodoxy of the Roman Bishop’s definition of the faith, this question is answered by understanding whether or not the Roman Bishop (as a successor to all the Roman bishops, and a keeper of what they have established) promulgates an orthodox faith. The comparison is not apples to apples.
December 14th, 2009 | 6:36 pm | #86
Craig said:
Aha.
What was done at the council of Trent, Craig? In 300 words or less, what was trent established to do, and what did it actually do?
December 14th, 2009 | 6:38 pm | #87
Coyle:
Welcome to the party. You have just passed counter-Catholic apologetics 101.
December 14th, 2009 | 6:40 pm | #88
Haha, thanks- it’s only taken me 5 years of grad school at The Catholic University of America :)
December 14th, 2009 | 6:47 pm | #89
“By the way, those comments didn’t remotely offend me.”
Jug, nor I. Which is why, for the life of me, I don’t understand why the same comments in the reverse are found to be offensive.
And as Frank has reiterated, how hard is it to understand that 3 different versions of the gospel can’t all be the same saving gospel?
And, further to that, isn’t it more than a bit odd to have individuals from all sides essentially complaining that other individuals from the other sides are saying WHAT THEIR RESPECTIVE CHURCHES HAVE SAID ALL ALONG?
It’s not for us, I don’t think, to reinvent the official teachings of Rome, the EO and historic Evangelicalism just so we can sing Kumbaya and hold hands together.
Further to that, why the kerfluffle when an Evangelical says something like “But Rome and the EO don’t have the Biblical gospel”, particularly when both groups deny the sufficiency of Scripture to define such things?
Wouldn’t a better response be…”Well it may be Biblical, but seeing as Sola Scriptura is a fiction, that doesn’t matter. What matters is that it’s not Magesterial.”
That may be a misrepresentation, but it seems to me at least consistent.
And, incidentally, that is why one of the primary, if not the primary, issue in the reformation was one of authority. Both sides recognized that the other side was being consistent in defining the gospel in concert with where it found it’s authority. But, of course, with two such different sources of final authority, how could their respective definitions of the gospel ever be the same?
And why now are we asked to say that they are?
December 14th, 2009 | 6:56 pm | #90
Perhaps the question is: “What is the ‘good news’ of the Gospel a church is preaching? And why is it such good new? And how good is it really?”
December 14th, 2009 | 7:00 pm | #91
Rev. McCain,
And start those answers with the assumption of our complete sinfulness and hatred of God…and they’ll get to the heart of it in a flash.
December 14th, 2009 | 9:06 pm | #92
[...] Turk, cf this post, is down on wiggly ecumenism. And in this he is right. But it also seems out that he’s throwing the baby out with the [...]
December 14th, 2009 | 9:09 pm | #93
Frank Turk (referring back to #82; I didn’t want to re-quote the whole thing):
A lot, or all, of your opposition to signing the MD seems to revolve around the “Gospel” mentioned in it. What would you think about a similar Christian proclamation revolving instead around the idea of a general revelation, or “natural law” (I know many tend not to like that term), or “first grace” (in Russell Hittinger’s phrase)? Is it the specific mention of the Gospel that is the primary irritant?
(The Trent question I might get to later. I take it that your raising it at this point means you do not accept that the Catholic Church views Protestants as Christians, but separated in communion?
(I would put the idea it this way: Anyone in Heaven gets there because of Jesus our Savior and eventual Judge, and gets there as part of the church catholikos. The most visible manifestation of that church catholikos on earth is the Catholic Church. In other words–yes, I think of you as being a Catholic, but currently in a Protestant and separated state. I just sat here for 90 seconds staring at that sentence. All right, it gets posted.)
December 14th, 2009 | 11:03 pm | #94
Thanks so much for the direct responses, I really appreciate it. (Mr. Turk, I’m beginning to doubt your consistency as a devil. Or The Devil.) I guess I’m going to have to read the whole MD before I can comment further on that.
I do understand and agree with Jugulum’s words about personal salvation being a matter of what one is truly depending on, not one’s ability to articulate it or understand finer points of systematic theology. But I don’t understand how Lewis’ mere Christianity ambiguates the gospel — that’s where I glaze over & stare blankly into space. Mea culpa, I’m sure. I agree that the Nicene Creed doesn’t go the full distance. Yet…
“…why the kerfluffle when an Evangelical says something like ‘But Rome and the EO don’t have the Biblical gospel’, particularly when both groups deny the sufficiency of Scripture to define such things?” (Daryl #89)
But but but…this seems to me to make the Scriptures God.
“’…Every group that claims to lead people to Christ really is a Christian group.’ Is that what you mean?” (Jugulum)
No, I wouldn’t get anywhere near that sloppy, nebulous, or ambiguous :-). Each group would have to claim that Christ’s death and resurrection…oh no…I’m not going to say this right, I know it! Okay, how’s this: ..would have to claim that in Christ alone we are saved.
Mr. Turk, regarding your abbreviations [1] and [2] of Mr. Phillip’s remarks on the MD in #82:
[1] Yes
[2] Um…I haven’t seen this. But maybe I need to study up.
Thanks again for your response.
December 14th, 2009 | 11:30 pm | #95
Bonnie,
“But but but…this seems to me to make the Scriptures God.”
I don’t know if this helps or not, but the way I’ve heard it explained is as follows:
There are many places we can go to see generally true things about God. Nature, politics, the family, traditions, the Image of God in man, etc.
But, the only place where we see the personal and specific characteristics of God on display is in Scripture. And even more specifically, what we see is that God relates personally to man despite our rebellion against him by taking on flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, living the perfect life that we should have lived, dying the just death that we should have died, and on our repentance and faith counting the life and death of Christ as ours and vice-versa.
Because we only see these uniquely personal aspects of God’s character revealed in Scripture, Scripture is the highest authority for man.
At least, that’s one argument I’ve heard that I think sounds fairly convincing.
December 15th, 2009 | 3:59 am | #96
Craig –
I have no idea what you last post means until we understand what happened at the Council of Trent. It seems to me that Trent makes “Protestants” into “separated Catholics”, but that word “separation” isn’t as, um, lovely as it seems you would make it.
We often want to get after Trent for its view of Justification, but I think there’s a far more telling section of the canons: what’s the state of those who actively reject the Deuterocanon? What kind of “separation” is that which Trent defines for them?
December 15th, 2009 | 4:02 am | #97
Bonnie –
I look good in this thread because there’s no other side. I’m sure if TUAD were here, you’d see exactly how horrible I really am.
Before that happens, I’m closing the comments. No sense in spoiling all this good will toward men.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact