Frank Turk a while back offered that:
so it should be no surprise when I say it here that I am sure there are Catholics who are saved, and likewise for the occasional Eastern Orthodox
which apparently still has my dander up … as an Orthodox convert (from an American Protestant church) because this clearly implies that we are at the bottom of some relative estimation of ecclesiastical correctness in Mr Turk’s estimation … and furthermore other comments on that post indicate Mr Turk has little or no actual contact and knowledge of Orthodoxy. So with that in mind, here is a recent quote from the OCA Metropolitan for him to chew on.
“This process of becoming Orthodox is not something that you can do just after 6 months of catechesis and a little bit of chrism on your forehead. It’s a life-long process, because it’s being transformed into Christ. And if we can keep our focus that coming into the Orthodox Church is not about joining a new organization; it’s not joining ‘the right church’; it’s not ‘joining the historical church or the apostolic church’; or it’s not ‘joining the right church instead the wrong church that I was in.’
“But rather, it’s an entrance deeper and deeper into the mystery of Christ. Then I think we’re on the right track. Because otherwise all we’re doing is getting stuck in our heads and caught up in judgment and condemnation. In other words, we’re just stuck in our passions and we might as well have not converted anyway, because we still haven’t left the world behind.
“Our task is to incarnate that life in Christ that is not of this world. We have to be in the world, but not of it.”
- Metropolitan JONAH, “Baptizing the Culture”
Mr Turk has judged Orthodoxy and found it wanting, yet did not actually come up with any reasons or measure by which he did so. I offer this quote … you may find links to the talk from which this was garnered here.
Any reactions?
December 11th, 2009 | 10:47 am | #1
Dear Mark,
I posted the following comments on another Evangel thread, but I don’t know if you read it, so I’ll post it again on your thread.
Frank Turk: “BTW, I look forward to you making the case that Mark Olson is not an Evangelical. I’m sure Mr. Olson will as well.”
Me: “Why don’t you ask Mark Olson yourself?
BTW, I look forward to you making the case that you’re not a Pharasaic hypocrite. I’m sure others are as well.
I also find it somewhat curious that while the Manhattan Declaration is primarily focused on these specific truths:
1.the sanctity of human life
2.the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3.the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
the conservative Protestant objection is that the Gospel is being blurred and obscured by the Manhattan Declaration,
But yet there is no objection to working with a member of the Orthodox Church, Mark Olson, on a blog titled, ironically enough, “Evangel”.
Would not the Gospel be blurred and obscured just as much, if not more, by being a co-blogger with a member of the Orthodox Church on a blog called “Evangel” than just signing your name alongside members of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church on the Manhattan Declaration?
Suppose someone reads Mark Olson’s posts and comments on Evangel, really likes them, and then because of it, decides to become a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Could we then not claim, much like those conservative anti-MD Protestants, that the Gospel was blurred and obscured by those Evangelical co-bloggers who were blogging alongside with Mark Olson?
Wouldn’t the action of integrity for a conservative Protestant who is staunchly against the Manhattan Declaration for blurring and obscuring the Gospel to then respectfully decline to continue co-blogging with a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church on a blog named “Evangel”?
Wouldn’t that be logically consistent?”
Along with this comment:
“It’s been noted that there’s a logical inconsistency to seeing an anti-MD Protestant who complains about the Gospel being obscured by the Manhattan Declaration who then not only co-blogs with a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but also has his name on the masthead of a blog owned by First Things, a publication founded by Richard John Neuhaus, a Lutheran pastor turned Catholic priest and who was one of the founders of Evangelicals and Catholics Together, and whose current associate editor is an Orthodox Jew.”
December 11th, 2009 | 11:04 am | #2
BTW, when you wrote in your earlier reply to Mr. Frank Turk: “Which is why the Pharisaic statements noted above made by Mr Turk aren’t just harmless dumb things said on a blog … but the devils work being done for him.”
I used that descriptor when I wrote:
“I look forward to you making the case that you’re not a Pharasaic hypocrite.”
December 11th, 2009 | 11:13 am | #3
Frank Turk doesn’t have a clue. He makes a lot of noise…unintelligible noise. Arguing with him is as fruitful as arguing with a picture.
December 11th, 2009 | 11:16 am | #4
Mark,
Is it true that the EO church believes that:
No one can be saved unless he is baptized.
The Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition are of equal value, and that they complete each other.
And that the EO church does not believe that:
Scripture alone reveals all the doctrines necessary for the Faith.
Faith alone leads to eternal salvation, and that the eradication of one’s sins, the growth of good works, love, hope, perseverance, holy knowledge, and all the other virtues are secondary to faith in the matter of eternal salvation.
I took those from this website.
http://www.onearthasinheaven.com/beliefs.html
Because, if those statements are true, then your quote from Metropolitan JONAH is really just an expansion of that last bit about salvation not being through faith alone.
Being as (so far as I know) the EO officially believes itself to be the only true church, what else would Metropolitan JONAH say?
It remains odd to me that the 3 groups here represented, Roman, EO and Evangelical all officially state, in one form or another, that their core beliefs are the core beliefs of true Christianity and that all deviations are, in fact, deviations from the faith.
And yet, when someone says ” I can’t indiscriminately assume that an adherent to either of the other 2 is a Christian, based on the official teachings of those churches” everybody gets all up in arms about it.
Why should Frank not say what he says?
And, based upon the official teachings of the Roman and EO churches, on what authority do you or John Mark or any of the others, NOT say that about Evangelicals?
December 11th, 2009 | 11:25 am | #5
I don’t speak for Frank Turk, but in my opinion, though the above gets at a part of it, the issue is more precisely represented by this edit:
Calvinist evangelicals love our soteriology and many believe the Gospel consists in soteriology only. Ergo, we’ve become experts in soteriology and those that are not experts are lower in the “relative estimation”–if they even are Christians at all.
December 11th, 2009 | 11:27 am | #6
I wonder in these discussion if we are not forgetting that people are Christians not because of the extent to which they assent to, and can give verbal “testimony” to a certain body of doctrinal statements or assertions, but because the Holy Spirit calls people by the Gospel, and gives them saving faith, and keeps them in that faith?
We need to distinguish between erring church bodies, and Christians who are in such erring churches.
Given the fact that every poll taken of Christians in Evangelical churches show that there is still a high percentage of those who believe they are saved by works + faith I’m wondering how anything can be asserted about the extent to which Evangelicals are “Christians.”
Where the Gospel is heard, read and meditated upon, there the Holy Spirit is working to create faith in those whom He chooses to do so.
We need to distinguish between erring doctrines and erring churches advocating those doctrines, and setting up boundaries/borders either past which, or beyond which, the Holy Spirit can not, and is not, doing what He does: blows like the wind, working through the Gospel where it is heard, read, etc. etc.
And I too can’t help but smile at the comment above wondering why, if in fact the existence of Christians and The Church itself is such a dubious proposition in the Roman and Eastern communions, how or why anyone who holds such a view would be able to participate in a blog site sponsored by FIRST THINGS, which has been a consistent advocate for Roman Catholicism, this blog itself being part of their plan, to bring Evangelicals in, with the hope that they will eventually be persuaded to see the fullness of the Splendor of Truth that is located in the Roman Magisterium.
You do know this is what the FT agenda is, right?
You see where I’m going with this?
December 11th, 2009 | 11:30 am | #7
Orthodoxdj: “Frank Turk doesn’t have a clue. He makes a lot of noise…unintelligible noise. Arguing with him is as fruitful as arguing with a picture.”
LOL. Actually, folks are probably better off arguing with a picture instead of Frank Turk.
December 11th, 2009 | 11:33 am | #8
Rev. Paul T. McCain: ‘And I too can’t help but smile at the comment above wondering why…”.
Glad to bring a smile to your face, Reverend!
“You see where I’m going with this?”
Indeed, I do.
December 11th, 2009 | 11:35 am | #9
“how or why anyone who holds such a view would be able to participate in a blog site sponsored by FIRST THINGS, which has been a consistent advocate for Roman Catholicism”
Rev. McCain,
I would say it’s because when a non-believing group (and I’m talking about official teachings, not individual beliefs), asks you to speak to them, you do, and you deliver the gospel and refute their error as appropriate.
Of course FT has the agenda of converting Evangelicals and EO’s to Catholicism. But that doesn’t mean that we necessarily walk away and leave them to themselves.
December 11th, 2009 | 11:37 am | #10
Albert,
“Calvinist evangelicals love our soteriology and many believe the Gospel consists in soteriology only. Ergo, we’ve become experts in soteriology and those that are not experts are lower in the “relative estimation”–if they even are Christians at all.”
What are you suggesting? That there’s something mixed up about suggesting that people who get soteriology wrong might not be saved?
December 11th, 2009 | 11:40 am | #11
Soteriology answers this question:
What must I do to be saved?
Is it a stretch to say that organizations that answer that wrong are not Christian organizations and that individuals who answer that wrong, may not be saved?
December 11th, 2009 | 11:50 am | #12
I am a convert to Orthodoxy, and here I have found something true, beautiful, and real. For me personally, I did not come to truly know Christ in my heart until I converted to Orthodoxy. (I had become a Christian in my adult life in a Protestant context.) Some of my closest friends are Protestants, and I believe they will be in heaven in addition to Orthodox who truly know and have received Christ in their hearts as well as Catholics who truly know and have received Christ in their hearts. But if I think about it, I am not the final judge–only God is, and only He knows what is in our hearts and who will ultimately be saved.
I think it is very easy to get caught up into discussions about who has the “better” religion or who is really “saved,” but in the end, we all have to work out our own salvation “with fear and trembling,” and St. Paul says.
December 11th, 2009 | 11:54 am | #13
As I understand EO theology, a response might begin with “how do you understand salvation?” — not so much in the sense of what the conditions of salvation are, as what it *is*. A formulation the priest I’m under uses is “Salvation is communion; communion is salvation” — less in the sense of the sacrament of Holy Communion (though that is a means and sign of God’s work of salvation), as a kind of unity of being (forgive my lack of appropriate words); it is more salvation from sin than from God’s wrath; the inability to love and be loved, even in this life, is not different in kind from hell; communion with God and man in this life are not different in kind from heaven. It therefore makes sense that Mr. Turk would come to different conclusions about what Christianity entails, though it’s less clear how it follows that he would be unwilling to admit agreement even on things about which he agrees.
Re: Daryl,
1) No, EOs do not hold that a person must be baptized in order to be saved, but rather in order to be a member of the Church.
2) I suppose you could say that; you might also say that Holy Scripture is part of Holy Tradition
3) Yes.
4) If salvation is communion and we’re saved from sin insofar as sin is no longer part of what we are or do, I cannot see how goodness could be secondary to faith; it seemsmore like faith leads to goodness, which is part of salvation.
December 11th, 2009 | 11:59 am | #14
Are Protestantism and Roman Catholicism Heretical? quotes in one place as one example of where the Orthodox stand.
Do the Orthodox not find Protestantism wanting?
December 11th, 2009 | 12:20 pm | #15
iMark,
That was exactly my point.
While individuals may stray from the official teachings of the church to which they belong, and thereby be saved despite and erring church and not because of it, it is completely beyond me why Catholics and EO’s have trouble with Evangelicals saying that they are not Christian churches, when, if they are faithful to the official teachings of their respective churches, they should be saying the exact same thing about Evangelicals and each other.
December 11th, 2009 | 12:30 pm | #16
I’m not even certain of the parties in this discussion. Can any evangelical on this blog tell us which evangelical denomination represents the truest, most pure, most biblically based of all evangelical denominations, so we all at least have the benchmark of True Christianity?
If you cannot, doesn’t that tell us something about the constant claims to “True” Christianity, “True” Gospel, “True” Bible teaching?
It doesn’t have to be a long response. Just give us the name of the “True” Christian denomination, or at least the one which is “Closest To True.” How about “Closest to the Bible”? How about “Closest to the Gospel”? I am sure the rest of us, certainly myself, would want to join that group.
So ante up.
Or is the real benchmark of evangelicalism simply “Anything But Catholic or Orthodox”? I thought that Jesus, the Bible, and the Gospel were the standards. Calling all evangelicals! Which denomination is closest to Jesus, the Bible, and the Gospel?
We “Non-Gospel” “Christians” await the revelation.
December 11th, 2009 | 12:38 pm | #17
Craig,
All evangelical denominations agree on the essentials of the gospel. That’s what makes them evangelical (or should).
December 11th, 2009 | 12:40 pm | #18
No, Jugulum. I’m suggesting precisely what I suggest, which is not what you suggest I am suggesting.
December 11th, 2009 | 12:43 pm | #19
And Craig…it’s not like the Roman and EO church don’t themselves claim to be the only true church.
Which is why I say, why the animosity towards Evangelical claims that Rome and the EO don’t have the gospel is unfounded. You should all be saying the same thing about the others, given the significant differences in what each claim is necessary for salvation.
December 11th, 2009 | 12:52 pm | #20
Albert,
Care to elaborate?
December 11th, 2009 | 12:59 pm | #21
In other words, “What are you suggesting” wasn’t supposed to be purely a rhetorical segue. It was actually a request for clarification.
You might explain why you think there’s something more to Turk’s comment than “people who get soteriology wrong might not be saved”. (Or maybe it would be better to say, “Members of a church that gets soteriology wrong might not be saved.”)
December 11th, 2009 | 1:03 pm | #22
“And Craig…it’s not like the Roman and EO church don’t themselves claim to be the only true church.”
Well, yeah.
If we take as corroborating evidence something like (1) which group gave us the Bible itself? (2) which group gave us the Creeds? (3) which group can trace itself back to the Apostles themselves–or to put it a different way, has the longest unfragmented history? I think these questions are a good place to start.
So all I’m asking is: Since evangelicals claim the True Gospel, Bible, and kinship with the early apostolic Church (not all of them claim the Creeds)–it should be easy enough to figure out who is “Closest.”
Inquiring minds still want to know.
December 11th, 2009 | 1:06 pm | #23
By the way, in case anyone cares, I fully accept evangelicals as fellow Christians–indeed, as Catholics in a sense. (Having been one myself for decades.) But I think their “Truth” and “Gospel” claims in opposition to the Catholic Church are somewhat ridiculous, given actual Christian history.
December 11th, 2009 | 1:09 pm | #24
Daryl (#17),
Which would you say are the evangelical denominations?
December 11th, 2009 | 1:11 pm | #25
Craig,
Ah, so it’s not that evangelicals who question the legitimacy of the Catholic & Orthodox organizations are divisive, or mean?
It’s that they’re impertinent and obviously wrong, because they lack corroborating evidence?
December 11th, 2009 | 1:19 pm | #26
A couple of days ago while reading Professor Scot McKnight’s post about why he signed and supports the Manhattan Declaration I saw this post linking a video titled “Are You Saved? – An Orthodox Christian Answer.”
I watched it. While there are or would be some quibbles and objections here and there from folks, at the end of the day would you say that this Orthodox woman is not a Christian, not a follower of Christ, and if she were to die today, that she would be damned to Hell?
I wouldn’t.
P.S. I joyfully signed the Manhattan Declaration.
December 11th, 2009 | 1:22 pm | #27
TUaD,
You’re absolutely right. People around here need to stop their insistence that Orthodox people can’t be saved.
Direct your comment at whoever was doing that, and I’ll sign a joint critique with you.
December 11th, 2009 | 1:26 pm | #28
Jugulum,
Did you watch the video that Scot McKnight linked to? Would you say that that Orthodox woman is a Christian?
December 11th, 2009 | 1:48 pm | #29
TUAD: I joyfully signed the Manhattan Declaration.
ADAM: Really? What’s your name?
December 11th, 2009 | 2:03 pm | #30
“It’s that they’re impertinent and obviously wrong, because they lack corroborating evidence?”
Yep.
Or to put it another way, their evidence for “True Christian” authority is unconvincing. Appeals to the Bible Only are obviously not going to work, since evangelicals do not even agree on things such as the necessity of baptism, or whether or not glossolalia has passed away. Still, as I said, I have no doubt as to the Christianity of evangelicals. What I doubt is their authority to decide what is the true Gospel or true Christian salvation. That authority would be much more likely to reside in those who possess–as mentioned earlier–Corroborating Evidence.
The “divisive, or mean” argument is lagniappe.
(Besides, I’m reluctant to use it since I myself become overly antagonistic on occasion. Pray for me, as your brother in Christ.)
December 11th, 2009 | 2:07 pm | #31
TUaD,
My belief is that Jesus is judge, not myself. If suggesting that others passing judgement on others is Pharasaic is Pharasaic … well that can’t be right.
Daryl,
How did we get Scripture? Through the work of Holy Tradition, right? How then can you reject the latter when it was that which created for you the former?
Faith alone, … a question that. Devils believe yet are not saved. Furthermore if “the eradication of one’s sins, the growth of good works, love, hope, perseverance, holy knowledge, and all the other virtues” help my neighbor grow in faith … how is that not essential?
Jugulum,
Exactly. It is not Sola Soteriology. :D
I don’t think EO is the only way to Jesus or salvation … just the best way. I do think that the only one who really can make definitive statements of what truly are the ways or the right/correct soteriology is God and furthermore if you think you have the “right” or “only” way … that is (appropriating Mr Turk’s words) the devils work.
December 11th, 2009 | 2:11 pm | #32
Jugulum, sorry I’m a bit busy right now. But for what it’s worth, I meant precisely what I said, nothing more, nothing less.
December 11th, 2009 | 2:12 pm | #33
Adam Omelianchuk,
I saw your comment: “Joe, you should really read the comments on the MD posts. Some are perfectly willing to admit that the RCC and EO churches are non-Christian.”
What did you want Joe to do after he read those comments by whoever it is who is “perfectly willing to admit that the RCC and EO churches are non-Christian”?
Were you referring to Mr. Frank Turk, perchance?
December 11th, 2009 | 2:15 pm | #34
Dear Mark,
When I wrote: “I look forward to you making the case that you’re not a Pharasaic hypocrite”
That was directed to Mr. Frank Turk. Not to you.
December 11th, 2009 | 2:31 pm | #35
TUaD,
What makes you think I would want to assume that “I have a handle on the spiritual state of others”–to use her words–by using a 3-minute video of all things to pass judgment on her?
I do wonder about a couple things she said–but when she questioned worksless faith, she was certainly objecting to the right thing. My concerns might just be quibbles about articulation–nothing she said was a clear window onto a truly self-justifying faith.
God only knows for sure. Yes, I would approach her as a sister in Christ. And I would want to explore some things with her.
December 11th, 2009 | 2:33 pm | #36
Mark,
It seems like you skipped over the word “might”.
Meaning, I agree with you, if we’re talking about trying to hold everyone to a standard of perfectly articulating how we become saved. (I realize soteriology is broader than “becoming” saved, but it is part of soteriology.)
But sounds like you see no happy medium. As though there is nothing that anyone can ever say about salvation that should make us think they might not know Christ.
And that does seem an ironically absolutist argument, for an Eastern Orthodox to make.
If that’s not what you intended, then either you misunderstood my question, or I’m not understanding you.
December 11th, 2009 | 2:37 pm | #37
Jugulum: “Yes, I would approach her as a sister in Christ.”
Thanks Jugulum. So would I.
And that’s one of the reasons why I joyfully signed the Manhattan Declaration.
December 11th, 2009 | 2:43 pm | #38
I trudged through all these comments. I myself have been guilty of this same sort of bickering, so I say this as a fellow sinner …
Does any of this sniping advance the gospel (however you define that)? If a person who was sitting on the fence about becoming a Christian were to read these comments, would it tip him over? which way?
December 11th, 2009 | 2:50 pm | #39
Robert Smith: “Does any of this sniping advance the gospel (however you define that)? If a person who was sitting on the fence about becoming a Christian were to read these comments, would it tip him over? which way?”
A fair and reasonable question. One that I have thought long ago when reading the various anti-MD objections from conservative Protestants. With these anti-MD Protestants fighting so hard for Gospel purity and Gospel clarity, they may have ironically, and perhaps unwittingly, undermined the very Witness of the Gospel that they seek to protect and promote.
It’s crazy.
December 11th, 2009 | 3:10 pm | #40
TUaD,
“Thanks Jugulum. So would I.
And that’s one of the reasons why I joyfully signed the Manhattan Declaration.”
I realize that. The distinction between individuals and organizations is one of the reasons I didn’t, particularly since her video does not speak for Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
On your answer to Robert Smith:
Please recall your own comments about moronic interpretations when you cast fault to the other side. (Do you intend to return there and offer the explanation you said you would give?)
December 11th, 2009 | 3:18 pm | #41
Robert,
I agree with your basic sentiment, though there is also a place for cutting words. (A while ago, I wrote something about the balance between them.)
I hope that I haven’t stumbled in this thread.
December 11th, 2009 | 3:34 pm | #42
If everyone would only listen to me. :)
December 11th, 2009 | 3:37 pm | #43
Yeah, that’s one way to solve division. :)
December 11th, 2009 | 3:51 pm | #44
Craig Payne, #16: “Can any evangelical on this blog tell us which evangelical denomination represents the truest, most pure, most biblically based of all evangelical denominations, so we all at least have the benchmark of True Christianity?
If you cannot, doesn’t that tell us something about the constant claims to “True” Christianity, “True” Gospel, “True” Bible teaching?
It doesn’t have to be a long response. Just give us the name of the “True” Christian denomination, or at least the one which is “Closest To True.” How about “Closest to the Bible”? How about “Closest to the Gospel”? I am sure the rest of us, certainly myself, would want to join that group.
So ante up.
Or is the real benchmark of evangelicalism simply “Anything But Catholic or Orthodox”? I thought that Jesus, the Bible, and the Gospel were the standards. Calling all evangelicals! Which denomination is closest to Jesus, the Bible, and the Gospel?
We “Non-Gospel” “Christians” await the revelation.”
Craig, I’m a Bible-believing Christian, but I honestly cannot answer your question. And I’m assuming that your question is serious and earnest.
Sorry, I can’t answer you, perhaps someone else can.
December 11th, 2009 | 4:04 pm | #45
Dear TUAD: My question was in fact serious and earnest; however, I didn’t expect a direct response. It was more a question aimed at just a bit of provocation. So thank you, but don’t feel badly regarding it. Best regards to all, Craig
December 11th, 2009 | 4:05 pm | #46
Steve Hays’ post today is apropo, methinks.
Who is your brother in Christ? This is a big reason I stepped away from my initial attempts at setting up a common apologetics aggregation site – I realized that there were several different pages that people were on. Now that I’ve matured some, the definition of the gospel is the differentiator.
I’m sure Mark would recognize me, if dimly. Think back to blogs as an “evangelical ghetto”, Vox Apologia, etc – I’ve stayed committed to apologetic discourse – I’ve just realized that apologetics is defense and confirmation of the *Gospel* – per Scripture. If you don’t have the same euaggelion, you won’t have the same apologia , either.
That’s the problem. It’s a big one.
December 11th, 2009 | 4:22 pm | #47
Razorskiss: “Who is your brother in Christ?”
Dear Razorskiss,
In comment #35 Jugulum wrote, “Yes, I would approach her as a sister in Christ” in response to a video I linked to in #26.
Would you approach her as a sister in Christ as well? What would Jesus Christ have us do?
December 11th, 2009 | 4:40 pm | #48
Mark Olson,
A basic problem I have with your “dander” is that it’s so one-sided. Are you aware of the standard Orthodox view of Western believers? Consider the following:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/prot_rc_heresy.aspx
If that’s how the Orthodox view us, then it cuts both ways.
December 11th, 2009 | 4:50 pm | #49
I don’t know, TDU. A short video on the internet really isn’t sufficient to know whether I should or not. I would probably sound her out as to what her beliefs are before that. In the meantime, we speak to all we encounter, as we get opportunity, about the Gospel. The Gospel is for those in the church as well as those without. When you preach the Gospel within the visible church, and someone objects, I don’t think it’s any different. We’re called to the defense and confirmation of the Gospel – and that is at all times, to all men. I’ve had issues in my own church where I’ve had to answer objections, or offer them myself. That’s part of living in a fallen world.
I’m not going to say someone *is not* a Christian based on their church membership. I *will* say that adherence to the doctrines of a false gospel, per Galatians 1, is to be under the curse. It isn’t popular, but that’s how the Scriptures demand we treat the subject. As seen on Steve’s blog, it’s pretty much a round robin deal. Protestants, Romanists, and EOs all say pretty much the same things about those who do not conform to their conception of the gospel. Yet, as a Protestant, I can only be consistent and say “look to the Scriptures, and see if these things are so.”
December 11th, 2009 | 4:51 pm | #50
This post by Dr. Niel Nielson, President of Covenant College, is titled “Why I Almost Didn’t Sign the Manhattan Declaration.”
Here are some excerpts, but do read the entire article:
“I realized as well that the Declaration, while implying that the signers may agree on the nature and meaning of the gospel, does not define the gospel in any way that I find objectionable, i.e. by signing I was not affirming any heterodox, unbiblical view of the gospel. My signature – and this is important – signals my agreement with the Declaration as it explicitly and specifically stands, and nothing more.
To critics of the Declaration who say that it implies agreement with Catholics and Orthodox on the nature and meaning of the biblical gospel, I say that such implication is possible but certainly not necessary. To critics of the Declaration who say that it commits the signers to agreement with Catholics and Orthodox on the nature and meaning of the biblical gospel, I say strongly, “No, it does not.” I disagree with official Catholic and Orthodox understandings of the gospel, and embrace wholeheartedly our Protestant Reformation theology, grounded in the Scriptures and summarized most beautifully and convincingly in the Westminster Standards. The Declaration not only does not in any way violate those Standards, but in fact flows from them.”
I heartily commend Dr. Nielson’s thoughtful article.
December 11th, 2009 | 4:56 pm | #51
Dr. Nielson says: “official Catholic and Orthodox understandings of the gospel.” I must have missed the “official” Orthodox understanding of the gospel. Is it in the Orthodox catechism produced by the Orthodox pope? . . . oh. wait.
December 11th, 2009 | 5:04 pm | #52
Dear John Mark Reynolds: No, your question is just fine–just lower-case the “O” in the question.
December 11th, 2009 | 5:06 pm | #53
Wait… John, are you implying that the Orthodox don’t have an authoritative source for doctrine?
:)
December 11th, 2009 | 5:10 pm | #54
Not a living one . . . at least since the last Ecumenical Council! ;)
December 11th, 2009 | 5:50 pm | #55
Jugulum,
I’d even go so far as to qualify JMR’s last remark, as the Ecumenical conciliar decrees are only binding if they are received by the Church.
So what is binding and authoritative as an equivalent to a catechism? Ecumenical council + received by church and that which is seen as a consensus in the patristic teachings.
We don’t have an authoritative human source for doctrine. This might be a stumbling block or a problem if you want to make a point by point comparison with the catechism of a particular Western church and the East. But on the other hand, given the complexity of man, God, and the universe … not being bound might be better than the alternative.
Take for example the source cited above by Steven Hayes … it’s not authoritative or binding generically.
I might add that the legalism prevalent in the Protestant/Roman churches is viewed as a legacy of Rome, which viewed much of ethics and society from a technical legal language/prism.
And RK, yes I do recall you.
A generic remark … I do find it a good thing (and perhaps revealing or perhaps I’m missing something in these 50+ comments) that none of y’all actually are finding any fault with the Metropolitan’s remarks. That the real point here is to find “… an entrance deeper and deeper into the mystery of Christ. “
December 11th, 2009 | 6:31 pm | #56
Mark Olson
“Take for example the source cited above by Steven Hayes … it’s not authoritative or binding generically.”
You can take that escape route if you like, but you pay a toll. Who speaks for Orthodoxy? The Synod of Jerusalem? Or Mark Olson?
December 11th, 2009 | 6:33 pm | #57
Actually, I sort of skipped over his remarks. Read it before.
If you really want a full-blown argument against EO doctrine, I could probably give you one. It’d clutter up the comment section, probably. The *point* Frank was making is that it’s obvious we have different gospels. The theological distinctions between the respective groups necessitate this. The differentiation between imputation and infusion, theosis/deification and sanctification, the differing views on the depravity of man, etc. all necessitate that what we are talking about are different gospels.
Perhaps he was making an assumption that the readership of this blog would already know what those distinctions are – and they are ones I know he has commented on previously, as someone who is acquainted with Frank and his long-standing work on his blog, on Pyro, and related to Dr. White’s site.
When you have an audience like the one who reads this blog, you have one that already knows that these distinctions exist, what they are, and what they entail. It would become quite cumbersome to enumerate them every time you made a point in relation to it, I’m sure. Especially in regard to a Reformed audience, who regularly read blogs like that of TurretinFan, Steve Hays’ Triablogue, and Alpha and Omega, (who have all addressed Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy previously) visits sites like Monergism.com; there is a substantial audience who is already aware of these distinctives, does not need them rehashed, and can follow an argument with those distinctives in mind a priori.
The point, quite simply, is that there is no need to address every point of EO or RC doctrine in every post, just to make sure that those who don’t know that information are made aware of it. It is the reader’s task to “see if these things are so”. As Steve briefly pointed out, those anti-ecumenical tendencies are not restricted to Protestantism. There are large blocs of people these days who do not seem to be well-read in the history of the church; or who are, and choose to ignore the warnings of their predecessors, and insist that modernity has somehow changed the paradigm.
This is not only not necessarily so – it is in fact most definitely NOT so. As central the sticking point for RC and EO unity is the authority claims of the papacy, among others, the shift away from what we believe to be the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the sticking point for consistent Protestants. That was the center of the Reformation, and it continues to be the theological center of Protestant doctrine today, despite the tendency of the “evangellyfish” to compromise it for whatever fad seems appropriate at the time.
That really is the sticking point for us on the MD, on before that on the ECT. The difference with us is that we don’t think that the saying “doctrine divides” is a bad thing. It should divide. It did in Galatians, it did in Colossians, and everywhere else in Scripture. It’s unfortunate, but it’s just not something we can compromise, and stay consistent to Scripture.
While we appreciate the sentiment that unity is a positive thing – unity at the cost of principle isn’t something we can buy into. Just as an aside – I’m not saying you aren’t a Christian, Mark. I’m saying that what your church teaches is not in accordance with the gospel – and therefore not a solution to culture – as the tagline on Frank’s home blog has said for a very long time. “The Gospel is the solution to culture” is a consistent response from him. I appreciate him for standing firm, while wishing you well as an old acquaintance. Unfortunately, I can’t stand with you both – one accords with the Gospel, and one does not. I pray that it may one day be that I can do so without compromise.
December 11th, 2009 | 9:48 pm | #58
My previous question: “Can any evangelical on this blog tell us which evangelical denomination represents the truest, most pure, most biblically based of all evangelical denominations, so we all at least have the benchmark of True Christianity?
If you cannot, doesn’t that tell us something about the constant claims to “True” Christianity, “True” Gospel, “True” Bible teaching?
It doesn’t have to be a long response. Just give us the name of the “True” Christian denomination, or at least the one which is “Closest To True.” How about “Closest to the Bible”? How about “Closest to the Gospel”? I am sure the rest of us, certainly myself, would want to join that group.
So ante up.
Or is the real benchmark of evangelicalism simply “Anything But Catholic or Orthodox”? I thought that Jesus, the Bible, and the Gospel were the standards. Calling all evangelicals! Which denomination is closest to Jesus, the Bible, and the Gospel?
We “Non-Gospel” “Christians” await the revelation.”
Recent post by RK: “While we appreciate the sentiment that unity is a positive thing – unity at the cost of principle isn’t something we can buy into. Just as an aside – I’m not saying you aren’t a Christian, Mark. I’m saying that what your church teaches is not in accordance with the gospel – and therefore not a solution to culture – as the tagline on Frank’s home blog has said for a very long time. “The Gospel is the solution to culture” is a consistent response from him. I appreciate him for standing firm, while wishing you well as an old acquaintance. Unfortunately, I can’t stand with you both – one accords with the Gospel, and one does not. I pray that it may one day be that I can do so without compromise.”
Not to pick on you in particular, RK, but I’m going to anyway. :) Since the bloggers on Evangel obviously have magisterial authority to determine what accords with the Gospel and what doesn’t, it should be easy to answer the question.
Which evangelical denomination is “closest to the Gospel” and how do you know? (Before answering, keep in mind that every single one of them claims to be preaching the pure Bible, pure Gospel.) Which is best?
December 11th, 2009 | 10:17 pm | #59
There isn’t only one. There are many, many denominations that, as a rule, have the gospel right. Trying to do the “divide and conquer” route isn’t going to work. Take, for instance, all of the folks that tend to hang out in AOMin’s chat channel. I can think of, offhand, 15+ denoms represented. We’d all agree what the Gospel is.
Then, we can talk about the Arminian folks. While they might have minor (relative to the RCs or EOs) issues with properly defining the Gospel, they still retain the core elements. They still hold to imputation (although they do so inconsistently, due to their Arminian tenets), they still hold to the solas (although inconsistently, again). The Gospel is still recognizable.
Now, when the “gospel” becomes social justice, welfare reform, political activism – or infusion, theosis, an infallible magesterium, net deposits and withdrawls to the treasury of merit, adherence to a works program, perfection of doctrine (hyper-calvinism), antinomian, or a host of other pitfalls – that’s where you see the gospel disappear. That’s *always* what disappears.
A Reformed Baptist or Presbyterian won’t give you a different answer on the Gospel. A large percentage of the SBC will not either. Dr. Macarthur’s Grace won’t. Piper’s Bethlehem won’t. Then there’s the Dutch churches, the German churches, and etc, etc, etc. We can go on.
While I’m sure you believe the “magesterial authority” quip is cute, and all, there are such things as catechesis, confessional purity, and the study of historical theology. I subscribe to a confession from 1689 – and can agree with it word-for-word. The areas where I disagree from, say, a member of the OPC are so niggling, compared to Gospel centrality, that I really don’t waste much time at all debating the issues related to that. What all of the Reformed branches do agree on, as long as they’ve remained in touch with their roots, is the Gospel. Even the most staunch Arminian (who I do have a bone to pick with due to their *presentation* of the Gospel) has vastly more in common with me, theologically, than any RC or EO who adheres to their church’s positions. I always will have that commonality – because, once again, what I have in common with them is Sola Scriptura, and the rest of the Solas. That’s the nature of the beast.
What I could get on board with is a Gospel declaration. We aren’t called *evangel*icals for nothing. This section of the blog isn’t called “Evangel” for nothing.
There’s a reason. This is that reason. What saddens me is that so many have lost touch of the historical and theological roots of this issue – t the point where people are actually surprised.
This shouldn’t surprise anyone, folks. It’s nothing new, and it’s nothing you *should* have been seeing for the first time, if the leadership of your respective churches had been on the ball.
December 11th, 2009 | 11:28 pm | #60
All right. Thank you for the answer; and, while I am honestly doing my best to be charitable, it seems to boil down to the idea that there is no really good reason to choose one Protestant denomination over another. After all, all Protestants agree on the “essentials,” and their endless splintering is obviously due to disagreements over carpet colors.
I wasn’t really joking about magisterial authority. I have often said the same thing as a Protestant that others say: “If it doesn’t line up with the Bible, I don’t accept it.” Every Protestant is his own Magisterium and own Pope; every Protestant determines individually what is and what is not Biblical, and goes church-shopping accordingly.
I have attempted to point out that the Catholic Church has given us the Bible, the Creeds, and the lineage of Christian history dating back to Jesus and the Apostles. You have pointed to your “confessional purity” dating all the way back to “1689″–which, I will admit, for a Protestant denomination is quite a long time.
My point is simple: Do not evangelicals honestly see why Catholics and Orthodox would view Protestant claims to have the “True Gospel” as nonsensical?
December 11th, 2009 | 11:38 pm | #61
“Do not evangelicals honestly see why Catholics and Orthodox would view Protestant claims to have the “True Gospel” as nonsensical?”
It’s pretty easy to see, yes.
Do you understand where Protestants think you go wrong?
December 12th, 2009 | 12:54 am | #62
I see why. Like Jugulum, I’d like to see why you think Protestants disagree with that assessment.
December 12th, 2009 | 1:33 am | #63
FIRST THINGS, which has been a consistent advocate for Roman Catholicism, this blog itself being part of their plan, to bring Evangelicals in, with the hope that they will eventually be persuaded to see the fullness of the Splendor of Truth that is located in the Roman Magisterium.
You do know this is what the FT agenda is, right?
Please, please, please tell me you guys were only joking about this. You don’t really believe this do you?
December 12th, 2009 | 7:50 am | #64
Joe, I was not joking at all when I made this comment. I knew Father Neuhaus and respected his zeal and passion for winning a hearing for Roman Catholicism among Evangelicals and non-Roman Catholics. FT has always been, among other things, an avenue for this possibility.
It’s no secret and there is no shame in it. I said it not as a criticism, but rather, to point out the rather delicious irony that on this blog, a subset of the FT blog, we have people engaged in this kind of conversation.
What I admire about the FT approach is that it is entirely open, honest and above-board. No bait and switch tactics here.
December 12th, 2009 | 7:53 am | #65
“Can any evangelical on this blog tell us which evangelical denomination represents the truest, most pure, most biblically based of all evangelical denominations, so we all at least have the benchmark of True Christianity?
Of course: Historic Lutheranism.
See for yourself. Read the Book of Concord, for free, online, if you prefer.
http://www.bookofconcord.org
If I did not believe this, I would not be a Lutheran.
December 12th, 2009 | 9:32 am | #66
Hello again. Sorry about the interruption; at 50, bedtime for me is an imperative calling.
Also, thank you. After my somewhat intemperate outburst last night, I wasn’t sure what to expect this morning. Thank you for the evenhanded responses.
First of all, Rev. McCain: “If I did not believe this, I would not be a Lutheran.” This to me is exactly the right response. Really, every Christian should say the same, true? “If I did not believe this is the most true and biblically-based group, I would not belong to (fill in name).”
To Jugulum and RazorsKiss: Why do Protestants disagree with that assessment of Catholicism? Well, as an American Midwestern conservative Protestant for years and years, my attitude was always, “Catholics may have the philosophers [I always loved Aquinas, Augustine, et al.], but at least we have the Bible on our side.” I honestly did not know there was any point of view other than Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and so on. Plus, Catholic services were just so weird. What’s with all this legalistic mumbo-jumbo? And of course the “salvation by works” thing was patently the brew of the devil (along with real wine). So many “traditions of men,” so little of the “True Gospel” (as is currently under discussion). I also realize that at the time of the Reformation, reform within the Church was truly needed, desperately needed.
So yes, I understand Protestant objections and completely sympathize. I know that others would state it much more technically, but this is where I was at. It really took years and years for me to reluctantly admit that Catholics might be right about anything at all.
The philosophy slowly came first–why Sola Scriptura couldn’t be right, why the need for magisterial authority, and so on. The Bible came next, and all in a rush: “Good Lord, all this Catholic stuff is actually based on the Bible.”
However, to end on another personal note: I also do still attend a Protestant church, twice a week, with my family.
December 12th, 2009 | 11:47 am | #67
Joe,
As someone who has watched you, for a long time, please take this comment seriously.
Those of us on all sides of this equation who don’t take ecumenism seriously would agree with the above assessment by Rev. Paul. It’s not that I think this is “an underhanded plot” – I think it’s a rather obvious move. Rome wants us back in the fold. Recent moves they’ve made confirm this. Now, they want us back on their terms, obviously, but they’re looking for converts. The constant trumpeting of conversion stories by places like Catholic Answers and their like attest to this.
It’s not that we don’t know what the goal is. The point is more that we don’t accept what they say :) The reason folks like Frank get invited is to be the lightning rod for those they’re really looking for. “Don’t be like this guy! We can work together, we promise!”
Frank, I would posit, was not invited here as an attempted conversion. He was invited here to be on of the folks for them to point to, and say “this is what Sola Scriptura gets you – intolerance!”. Well, frankly, Frank is right – and those who are willing to compromise the scriptural evangel for the sake of cultural apologia just don’t have a balanced view of either.
This isn’t a new idea. It’s not a new idea at all. It’s also not a new idea that there is some “middle ground” where we can all link arms and go forth and slay the dragons of naturalism, Islam, social injustices, political tyranny, or what have you. But please understand – the historic, protestant, evangelical doctrine of social reform is *only an extension* of the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
As someone who engages in apologetics with a dizzying array of different worldviews, it’s *just not possible* for me to say, as a believing apologist, that “well, Rome’s wrong on the central doctrines of Scripture, but I support her anyway, when she’s going the same direction”. I *cannot* do that, and stay consistent in the answers I give. I just can’t.
I can’t preach the Gospel, tell men that it is the only way, the only truth, and the only life – and say “but their only way, only truth, and only life is different, yet valid”. That does not compute! If I told that to a Muslim, you know what he’d do? Laugh in my face. When we present a Biblical apologia, or the Biblical Gospel, you just cannot say “we agree on all these peripheral issues, but not on many of the central doctrines of the faith” – and keep a straight face.
I tried as a younger man. I failed. 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. Our Gospel *should* be offensive to Rome. That’s why we’re Protestants. It *should* be offensive to the EOs, as they don’t hold to substitutionary atonement in any way familiar to Protestantism.
It’s just the way it is. Yes, it’s painful to shift your paradigm, and conform to what “evangelical” means. If you don’t, you lose the very point “evangelical” exists in the first place, as Frank rightly said. What’s the point of being an “evangelical” if your central focus isn’t the evangel?
The evangel of Rome is that you are saved only in and through the authority of Roman Church. The evangel of Eastern Orthodoxy is that you are saved only through liturgy and the theosis proper adherence to it brings. The 5 solas of the Reformation are the clarion call that pointed men back to *the Gospel*. Salvation is through faith alone, by grace alone, purchased by the substitutionary work of Christ alone, preached through Scripture alone, all to the glory of God alone. If we aren’t concerned about those key elements being central in every aspect of our Christian life, what sort of evangelical is it possible to be?
If Rome didn’t think “outside of her (the Church) there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins”, and therefore “that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” – what sort of Roman Catholicism would it be? To expect Rome *not* to be seeking to bring every man into subjection to the Roman Pontiff is like expecting water not to be wet. To expect Eastern Orthodoxy *not* to be seeking to bring every man into a “greater understanding of the mystery of Christ” through their liturgy is also to expect water to be other than wet. It’s what we’re about, respectively.
December 12th, 2009 | 11:50 am | #68
Craig,
I’d say we’re swimming in roughly the same intellectual waters. You answered in the right area, but with the aim a bit off from what I had in mind. And that’s what I wanted to draw out.
I figured you would phrase your answer in terms of “They’ve got the Bible and that’s enough”. Which is in the right area. But putting it that way has more to do with a Protestant describing his own position. A defensive, positive argument. (It’s also just a sketch, but I didn’t ask for an in-depth description.)
I was asking more about what a Protestant would say about your view. Our return offensive. As in, “You just critiqued our view, explaining what you think is missing, and asking if we understand we seem nonsensical to you. But what’s our basic critique in response?”
And you did say a bit in that area, too–”traditions of men” is something we’d say about your view. But I was actually thinking in terms of where you went next: The very idea of magisterial authority.
You’re looking for a particular kind of corroborating evidence, as you put it above–having to do with organizational continuity and a locus of magisterial authority. That’s why our view seems impertinent & nonsensical to you.
And that’s precisely where we would critique you. In:
(1) The philosophy that slowly lead you to require a living, infallible magisterial authority. (That includes your probable perception that the NT teaches us to expect a bishop-to-bishop organizational continuity, which would be the body of Christ’s locus of authoritative teaching & proclamation–preserved at an organizational level from going astray.)
(2) Your idea that the modern Roman Catholic organization has a historically meaningful organizational continuity with the apostolic church. (Along with the idea you may or may not hold: That the early church taught substantively the same things as modern Catholic distinctives.)
Now, I’ll stipulate for a moment that we’re dead wrong about all that. I’ll stipulate that we’re as wrong-headed as you think we are–philosophically, exegetically, and historically naive. I’ll stipulate all that, and ask you a question in return:
Do you really not understand why we view your questions in #16 and #22 as nonsensical, and missing the point?
When you ask questions like those, it makes me think you don’t understand the people you’re talking to. You’re aiming your attack at the undeveloped view you once held. But your questions assume the philosophy that we consciously reject. If you make arguments to establish that philosophy, you might make headway. But simply challenging us to “ante up” based on your assumed standards won’t convince anyone who has already considered your premises, and rejected them.
December 12th, 2009 | 12:24 pm | #69
Dear Jugulum: Thank you. At the risk of weaving perhaps a bit far from the initial thrust of this post, I will try to answer briefly.
Yes, I do operate from the premise that a Magisterium, or something virtually like it, is required for true Christian unity. Along with that goes the assumption that “Scripture only” is not a correct position (although I am pretty sure Catholicism agrees with 3 out of the 5 stated “solas” given by RK, above). Since you do not agree with either of these assumptions, I can see why you would not think my initial questions valid.
However, I would still stick with them. Just for a concrete example: Baptists and Assemblies of God have almost identical soteriologies. However, one large group within evangelicalism (non-Pentecostal) believes that the entire “second experience of the Holy Spirit” teaching is unscriptural and probably not a valid experience. Another large group (those accepting Pentecostalism) believes that it is, on both points.
This manifestation of the Holy Spirit strikes me as rather crucial if it is valid. But given “Sola Scriptura” assumptions, can this problem be resolved? Even more strongly: In principle, can it EVER be resolved, at least in this life?
If not, this and other divisive issues seem to make impossible Jesus’ prayer, “that they may be one.” And this frustrating of Jesus’ prayer seems to me to arise out of the very nature of Sola Scriptura–that is, given Sola Scriptura and a few years, it is unavoidable.
Hence my question: Which group has the closest and best biblical interpretation, and how do we know? It does not seem to me that this state of confusion could be God’s perfect will for His Church.
Thankfully, it is not (e.g., the Magisterium). But I do not therefore view Protestants as not possessing true Christian salvation. I was one, after all. It is simply that I do not view our schismatic state as God’s ideal. (And so we arrive back at square one, it seems: “It is not God’s ideal! And so if only you’d change–”)
December 12th, 2009 | 12:28 pm | #70
Craig,
Re: Your “intemperate outburst”
No problem. Believe me, my past foolishnesses far exceed it. We should strive for mature, temperate interaction. But there is something that is for more essential than avoiding all transgressions of tone. Two things, actually. First, the kind of personal humility that allows you to examine yourself and own up to flaws without getting defensive–and perhaps without prompting by anyone but the Spirit directly! Second, an up-front, open honesty of interaction–sincerely trying to engage and communicate fully.
A sweet, polite, measured tone can easily be an “irenic” layer of white-washing. Open, responsive pursuit of truth, edification, and communication gets to the foundation of being a loving minister of reconciliation, seeking the deep shalom of God’s manifest kingdom–for yourself and for those around you.
——-
Aside from that, I have an additional thought on your request for the closest denomination, and your reference to cessation of tongues.
There could be a denomination that is all-around more correct than any other. But that’s not required by Sola Scriptura. It doesn’t imply much (if anything) about organizational purity; it especially doesn’t imply that any one organization’s confession will be the best. (To illustrate: Baptists could be right about credobaptism, but wrong about congregational church government–and Presbyterians could be right about the presbytery, but wrong about paedobaptism. In that case, the two’s flaws would balance each other.)
Also, keep in mind that the sufficiency of Scripture does require some form of perspicuity–but it doesn’t imply that every point of doctrine will be equally plain.
December 12th, 2009 | 1:12 pm | #71
Rev. Paul T. McCain I knew Father Neuhaus and respected his zeal and passion for winning a hearing for Roman Catholicism among Evangelicals and non-Roman Catholics. FT has always been, among other things, an avenue for this possibility.
Possibly so. But I was the one who started this blog and I can assure you that the purpose was just the opposite: To win a hearing for evangelicalism among Roman Catholics and other non-evangelicals.
I said it not as a criticism, but rather, to point out the rather delicious irony that on this blog, a subset of the FT blog, we have people engaged in this kind of conversation.
FT Online has seven blogs, of which this is the most theologically oriented. If the goal of FT was to try to make Catholic converts then it was certainly an odd choice to start a blog comprised solely of evangelicals. It was also a rather odd choice for them to hire an evangelical as the web editor in order to carry out such a Catholic-centric mission.
RazorsKiss It’s not that I think this is “an underhanded plot” – I think it’s a rather obvious move.
So all of the evangelicals on this blog are unknowingly being duped into helping make Catholic converts? That is, in essence, what you are saying.
A more obvious reading would be that FT is trying to correct the misperception that we are a “Catholic” magazine and website by including more non-Catholics.
The reason folks like Frank get invited is to be the lightning rod for those they’re really looking for. “Don’t be like this guy! We can work together, we promise!”
I had to be rude, but this makes no sense at all. Frank was invited because he represents a significant area within evangelicalism. There were a number of other bloggers who were invited who did not accept, many of whom were “lightning rods” for other reasons.
December 12th, 2009 | 1:18 pm | #72
Craig,
Yes, we are going into a new thread of conversation. (That’s why I stipulated those points, rather than trying to argue them.) But maybe we can explore it a bit without derailing the comment section too badly. (And, by the way, I should add to my last comment: Thank you for your commitment to beneficial interaction. I appreciate it.)
“If not, this and other divisive issues seem to make impossible Jesus’ prayer, “that they may be one.””
Why? Because organizational unity isn’t achieved? Or because perfect agreement almost certainly won’t be reached?
On organizational unity: That goes back to the point already at issue.
On unity and agreement:
1.) I’m reminded of organizations like Together For the Gospel, where Christian unity exists across precisely that kind of difference of theology–Presbyterian, Baptist, dispensational, covenant, cessationist, and charismatic. For that matter, we’ve recently had men like John MacArthur (author of Charismatic Chaos) and C. J. Mahaney (leader of a group of charismatic Calvinist churches, Sovereign Grace Ministries) preaching at each other’s churches. They are united in Christ & the Gospel, in spite of their differences. (And as for myself: I am united with my brothers and sisters at my own church, even though it is definitely charismatic, and I’m more of a de facto cessationist.)
2.) If Christian unity means agreement, then your own church is deficient. Catholicism encompasses the liberal professors of various Catholic colleges and the most conservative traditionalist. It encompasses theistic evolutionists and creationists. Since Vatican II, it encompasses various degrees of inclusivism. You can say that you have organizational unity, but you lack unity of agreement. You can say that the Magisterium might someday adjudicate the differences–hopefully with enough clarity that Catholics don’t disagree over what the pronouncement means!–but you lack that agreement now. Yes, you still consider the Catholic church to be united? For that matter, the Magisterium may never speak to those issues. It has never tried to close off every disagreement. (Have they spoken on whether tongues have ceased?)
You can say that the Magisterium will address any sufficiently divisive issues. But (1) you’re still left with recognizing that unity does not require all agreement. (2) What is the standard for “sufficiently divisive”, and why do you assert that spirit-baptism passes it? And (3), what about pentecostal Catholics? If you still want to judge the validity of a rule of faith by whether it prevents division, you will need to explain why your own rule hasn’t gotten rid of them–or, for that matter, sedevacantists. You can claim that they’re just rejecting the Magisterium, but they’re sincere in their attempt to hold to what the Magisterium has taught.
You can say that they’re misapplying your rule of faith–but that’s the point. I can’t look at a disagreement between people who profess to follow the same rule of faith, and think it proves a problem with the rule. Is the problem in the rule of faith, or in the people?
Yikes, I’m looking at the clock, and this has eaten up my morning! It’s been good, but I have to set it aside. I might have to let you have the last word, depending on how my weekend shapes up.
December 12th, 2009 | 1:25 pm | #73
Who is this ‘Frank Turk’ these critics are talkiing about? I recognize the guy Joe and Jugulum have spoken of, but the rest of you have me very confused.
I’m going to ponder this thread today as I finish up some incidental Christmas shopping. I admit that I love it that Catholics, EO, soft ecumenists and fundamentalist separrationists all think I am pure trouble. That is as it ought to be.
More later.
December 12th, 2009 | 1:26 pm | #74
Funny thing, I just attended my Roman Catholic parish’s communal penace service, and I’m certain I heard the Gospel proclaimed.
Why doesn’t someone give a twenty-five to forty word defintion of the gospel and then cite the relevant parts of the Catholic Catechism that deny it?
December 12th, 2009 | 1:33 pm | #75
One last thing, Craig. I said something in passing, but didn’t draw it out, and I don’t want it to get lost in the noise. You had said:
“I have attempted to point out that the Catholic Church has given us the Bible, the Creeds, and the lineage of Christian history dating back to Jesus and the Apostles.”
That reading of history is part of the disagreement–whether the modern Catholic Church can meaningfully claim to be the same church. For that matter, I wouldn’t say that Protestantism started a new Church or churches–I would say the Church continued. (Of course, if you’re right that the true Church manifests as an organization, then what I just said is nonsensical.) And that’s aside from the issue of whether (or in what sense) “the Church” gave us the Bible.
December 12th, 2009 | 1:43 pm | #76
Frank,
Welcome back! Let the thread percolate in your mind to brew some fresh trouble. I’ll be interested to see how you condense it. (I’d say something about condensing fog into fresh spring dew, but that’s cloying, and I don’t actually agree with you that much.)
Mike_M,
I’m pretty sure there’s a clause somewhere in the catechism that says, “P.S., We actually deny the Biblical gospel.” I can try to track it down…
I could also say, “Read Galatians”, but that would be too cheeky. (Seriously, I need to go now.)
December 12th, 2009 | 1:45 pm | #77
Mike M,
This probably isn’t the place for that. That information is readily available all over the place.
At least start from the assumption that the 3 organizations discusses here, Evangelical, EO and Rome, have all held each other to be deficient and wrong in their understanding of the gospel.
It hardly makes sense to conclude now, that they’ve really all been the same all along.
December 12th, 2009 | 1:47 pm | #78
Mike M,
You could also look up the
Anathemas of Trent to find out what Rome thinks of the Evangelical Gospel.
December 12th, 2009 | 1:57 pm | #79
RazorsKiss, #46: “Steve Hays’ post today is apropo, methinks.
Who is your brother in Christ?”
Tim Challies had a post when Joe Carter called Andrew Sullivan his brother in Christ in this article titled “The Obligation to Assume.”
Excerpts: “This is how Joe began: “While I believe that he can be as intolerant as Fred Phelps, I consider Andrew Sullivan to be a brother in Christ. Our differences of opinion—and they are profound—are trivial when compared to that relationship.”
…
I will pass that over to get to the statement that I wish to discuss: “I consider Andrew Sullivan to be a brother in Christ.” This statement caused an immediate reaction among Carter’s readers, the majority of whom are, I presume, Christians. …
Carter went on to say that he would “even go so far as to say that Sullivan appears to be a very immature believer. But I’m not sure that I can say that he is not my ‘brother.’” He said, correctly, of course, that “I’m not sure I have the authority, though, to say that he is ‘one who is predestined to damnation.’”
[Carter] then provides a fairly lengthy explanation of what he meant by “brother in Christ.”:
Let me clarify what I mean by a ‘brother in Christ’ by defining what I don’t mean when I use that term: I don’t mean that I know their salvation is assured (only God knows the answer to that one); I don’t mean that I have evidence of his regeneration (he appears to have a long way to go on the road to sanctification); and I don’t mean that he is not on the road to apostasy. All it means is that I take him at his word: that he confesses to being a follower of Jesus Christ.
Obviously I take issue with Sullivan’s unrepentant homosexual behavior. But while I truly believe his sin has ensnared him in a trap of self-deception, I think he has convinced himself that his behavior is not a sin. This doesn’t let him off the hook, but I do believe it is different from someone who does recognize that they are committing sin and they do it anyway.
What it ultimately comes down to is that I am not ready to excommunicate Sullivan from the fold at least not yet. I may eventually get to the point where I no longer believe that he is really a ‘brother in Christ.’ But for now, I’ll still make room on the pew for Sullivan, Pat Robertson, and a few others whose ‘fruit’ I consider questionable.” [End Carter Quote]
…
(Challies) In the case we are examining today, Sullivan is not a member of a true church. This places him in the company of many today who consider themselves Christian but reject the local church as being fundamental to the nurture and development of their faith. Furthermore, his profession of faith is made within the context of Roman Catholicism. If he holds steadfastly to the doctrines of Catholicism, as he claims to, he cannot affirm such fundamental doctrines as justification by grace through faith alone, the very heart of the gospel. What are we to do, then, with a profession of faith made by a person who is outside the God-given oversight of a true church?
…
As I understand it, then, because of Sullivan’s unrepentant behavior, and because he has deliberately avoided placing himself within a true church, the proper context for all believers, I feel that we have no obligation to assume that he is a true believer. Of course this does not necessarily mean that he is unsaved. By God’s grace he may be. Neither you nor I can know for certain. But neither do we bear the obligation of assuming that he is a brother in Christ.”
Read it all.
December 12th, 2009 | 2:05 pm | #80
Martin Luther’s defintion (from Paul Althaus’s, The Theology of Martin Luther):
“The proper defintion of the gospel is that it is the promise of Christ, which frees us from terror of the law, sin, and death, and brings grace, forgiveness of sins, righteousness and eternal life.”
Any Catholic can agree with that statement, or am I wrong?
December 12th, 2009 | 2:25 pm | #81
Dear TUAD: You wrote, “If he holds steadfastly to the doctrines of Catholicism, as he claims to, he cannot affirm such fundamental doctrines as justification by grace through faith alone, the very heart of the gospel.”
You are correct that a Catholic probably would not put it that way. But a Catholic could say “justification by grace alone through faith”–since this would encompass “faith which works by love,” as well. Is that close enough to “the very heart of the gospel”? It’s even in Galatians!
Dear Frank Turk: Hello, love and peace to you in Christ, and Merry Christmas. :) (I am proud of myself for resisting the urge to write “Christ Mass.”)
Thanks for the various responses. If I may say one more thing: I slid out of the Evangel blog for a while (rather quickly, in fact) because I mistrusted the tone of the early discussions I read. This thread, in and of itself, has restored my faith in y’all. Blessings upon the participants.
December 12th, 2009 | 2:47 pm | #82
Craig,
Hmm… Your faith was restored from this thread? Does that mean that if Frank stays away, you’ll be halfway back across the Tiber? ;)
December 12th, 2009 | 2:55 pm | #83
Oh yeah, by the way: The Catechism of the Catholic Church allows for special charisms (such as glossolalia), under pastoral supervision. So, all Pentecostals and Charismatics out there: Proceed. And Merry Christmas to you, too.
December 12th, 2009 | 3:03 pm | #84
Joe: No offense, but I’d come to see a long time ago that you’re very ecumenical. That’s exactly what Rome wants to see. By dropping the only valid foundation for refusal to agree to Rome’s authority (as shown quite clearly by Craig), that leaves you with the irrational choice of foundation in inconsistency – or a switch to Rome or the Eastern Orthodox. By allowing you, and by extension Frank here, that would be (by the only sane explanation I can think of) the idea. As can be clearly seen, Frank is bad mojo for ecumenicalism. Which is both consistent and obvious.
I stopped reading your old blog because you were so ecumenical – and I couldn’t agree with you anymore. While I’m sure you meant well, those who would actually be aligned with the historical meaning of “evangelicalism” aren’t ecumenical. That was the point. As Frank said, the only valid usage of “evangelical” any more is to distinguish those who believe that the Gospel is central from those who do not.
December 12th, 2009 | 3:03 pm | #85
Hi Joe,
I’m absolutely equally certain of what you say as being true, a FT blog specifically for Evangelicals, to give RC readers and others a chance to hear and read Evangelicals commenting and discussing. It is precisely within the vision of RJN to do so, and I applaud FT for it. It is in the best spirit of RJN’s ecumenical vision.
But it remains true nonetheless that EVANGEL is well within the FT family, a web site surrounded by FT content, RCC advertisement and such.
Again, I find nothing insidious, negative, inappropriate or otherwise with this, but to think that FT is simply operating with the principle of the RCC being “one among many” stripes/brands of Christianity, or as we Lutherans would speak, one equal among many equal confessions would be incorrect.
There is nothing “underhanded” about any of this. I find it all refreshingly open, honest and entirely something that non-RCCs can participate in with integrity.
PTM
December 12th, 2009 | 3:08 pm | #86
RazorsKiss,
You are doing Joe a serious disservice, and betraying a fundamental parochialism that reflects poorly on any and all Reformational Christians. Let me share a quotation from a very profound Christian thinker, Hermann Sasse, one of the finest Lutheran theologians in the 20th century. And, perhaps also give Michael Spencer something to whine about when he sees the length of this comment. But I think it offers very good food for thought in the context of the whole Manhattan Declaration conversation, and the subsequent conversation on this post. I’d put this up as a blog post here, but apparently “Evangelicals” do not include Lutherans as blog contributors on EVANGEL.
“Currently there exists no Una Sancta, or no longer, or not yet; that has been the judgment of the world, also the Christian world, in every age and will continue to be so until the Last Day. Yet where one knows, however, what the church is, of which the New Testament speaks, the church that is the people of God, the Body of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit, one knows that faith in the holy, catholic, apostolic Church is not faith in a concept, that is, an ideal to be actualized, or not to be actualized. For the one Church of God, to read according to the Lutheran Confessions, is not a Platonic city, but rather a reality in this world that will be believed and that can only be believed by one that believes in God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Faith in the Church is part and parcel of faith in the Triune God, who gives us testimony about Himself in Holy Scripture. The article about the Church therefore belongs in the Creed as a true article of comfort . . . It is therefore that we Christians need this article. To that end we pray it daily in the Creed, ne desperemus, “that we should not despair,” as the Latin text of the Apology says [VII/VIII.9]. For indeed, without this article we would otherwise despair and whoever does not understand this article, he must despair when he views the condition of Christianity and inquires about the one Church of God.
……
“Our fathers in the Age of Lutheran Orthodoxy had no illusions about who the Pope was and about the Society of Jesus. Yet they believed that the Church existed in the mission churches of the Jesuits in America and East Asia even as we believe its existence in the communion of the Roman Antichrist that has again become so clear to us today [probably a reference to the events that would lead to the 1950 publication by Pius XII of Munificentissimus Deus and the promulgation of the assumption of Mary]–in conjunction with whom we do not overlook those figures of the Antichrist that are so similar to him in Protestantism–everywhere we believe it where the means of grace are still present. We know that we are bound together in the one Church of God with all those “that from this age to that in the world, from dawn to dusk, truly believe in Christ, that therefore have one Gospel, one Christ, one sort of Baptism and Sacrament and are governed by one Holy Spirit, even if they have different ceremonies” (Ap VII/VIII, 10f). And when we also can only believe in and not realize this bond in this life because we may not declare ourselves in solidarity with false doctrine, nevertheless this faith remains indeed a reality to which we can give expression even without a union.
“And thus the situation stands exactly with the churches of the Protestant world. … Whom would it serve if in every country a “United Church” were to assume the place once occupied by the old confessional churches? These unionist churches would be but new denominations with watered-down confessions or none at all, in any case with completely different dogmatic coloring. … No, from this senseless construction of unions that only worsens the division of Christianity the Church should declare itself free in order to set themselves to the task that alone can have the understanding of true ecumenical work: the new ordering of the relationship of the great denominational confessions to each other.
“Instead of wanting to make the Una Sancta, the One Holy Church, visible — which is just as impossible as the attempt to make the Trinity visible — for the Una Sancta is an article of faith and not an article of sight–the churches of Christianity should learn to live together with each other, and, except for publishing when required the necessary polemics on behalf of truth, to communicate with each other to make it clear that only really believes in the Una Sancta.
“As long as faithful confessional Lutheranism is present, its duty is to stand watch and bear witness against the surrender of that, which for Luther was the central idea of the Reformation, because it is nothing other than the Gospel from the One that is alone our Righteousness and who through the Means of Grace of His Gospel and the Sacraments instituted by Him, that of the washing of regeneration and that of His true Body and Blood builds His Church on earth. “His work no one can hinder,” not even the folly and self-will of men. For it is not our Church, it is His Church. And this church is called perpetuo mansura, everlasting, in contrast to churches that we men seek to build. We learned this from Luther and he learned it from Holy Scripture. It is in this sense that we desire to believe and comforting article of the Una Sancta, dear brothers. Believe it in the manner that Scripture teaches it to us, and nothing else. Believe it in the manner that we should believe all the articles of faith: not only in word, but also in deed.”
Source: Hermann Sasse, Letter to Pastors, Number 3: On the Problem of the Relationship Between the Lutheran and the Reformed Church (Erlangen, January 1949), unpublished translation.
December 12th, 2009 | 3:25 pm | #87
Rev. Paul,
I don’t think you’re seeing what I’m getting at. It’s one thing to knowingly endorse Romanism – which I don’t think Joe is doing. I do think, in accordance with some other guiding principles he’s expressed previously, that he’s unknowingly undercutting the centrality of the Gospel. Which is precisely what the Romanists want to see.
That was my point. I was aware that this wasn’t an “underhanded plot”, as you pointed out. I do think that it’s obvious for someone used to dealing with Rome’s tactics to see what their eventual goal is. If you’re an ecumenist, you don’t see tactics as the motivation at all. Which is expected.
December 12th, 2009 | 5:10 pm | #88
Mark M at #80
““The proper definition of the gospel is that it is the promise of Christ, which frees us from terror of the law, sin, and death, and brings grace, forgiveness of sins, righteousness and eternal life.””
I can get a mormon to agree to that too. Do they have the Gospel?
December 12th, 2009 | 5:25 pm | #89
Rev. Paul T. McCain I’d put this up as a blog post here, but apparently “Evangelicals” do not include Lutherans as blog contributors on EVANGEL.
None of the Lutherans (or Methodists) that I invited to blog here accepted. We’d love to include a Lutheran, and would be glad to include you as a blogger if you’d be interested.
December 12th, 2009 | 5:52 pm | #90
As they say in the KJV, “The other shoe hath drop’d.”
December 12th, 2009 | 7:26 pm | #91
Orthodoxdj: “Frank Turk doesn’t have a clue. He makes a lot of noise…unintelligible noise. Arguing with him is as fruitful as arguing with a picture.”
Orthodoxdj, do you have the gift of prophecy? Or are you more modest, and just noting that past performance is simply a reasonable indicator for future behavior?
Regardless, your comment is spot on.
December 12th, 2009 | 7:49 pm | #92
“I can get a mormon to agree to that too. Do they have the Gospel?”
Arthur, I think I missed the theme and trajectory of this entire post and thread. I was reading it after reading other posts about the MD and noticing the objections concerning the diminishing of the gospel or the MD lacking the centrality of the gospel, and I thought the concerns would be met by placing a simple and clear statement of the gospel in the declaration masthead; thinking the concerns were about the MD addressing issues that belonged to santification without preceding it with the gospel. Maybe, I’m confusing justificaton with the gospel, or something like that.
It appears there is no simple and pure call to the gospel like I hear presented on evangelical radio programs when I tune in on my way to work; rather, the centrality of the gospel is determined in relation to other doctrines or ecclisology(?) etc, where the gospel is always imbedded in an existing church doctrinal structure. So, I guess, there are no just-evangelical christians, but always evangelical Lutherans, or evangelical Calvinists, or evangelical members of the Orthodox church, nor is there any just-evangelical gospel as Darryl Little claims.
How does a protestant evangelicals exclude Orthodox and Roman Catholics without excluding other Protestant denominations?
December 12th, 2009 | 9:31 pm | #93
Joe, thanks for the kind invitation. I am definitely interested. Could you send me more information on what the expectations are, and how to go about blogging here? I notice many bloggers seem either to have a feed from their blog sites showing up here, or perhaps they just post here what they posted over on their site?
Please use my e-mail included with this post.
Thanks again!
December 13th, 2009 | 12:23 am | #94
Joe Carter: “We’d love to include a Lutheran, and would be glad to include you as a blogger if you’d be interested.”
Rev. Paul T. McCain: “Joe, thanks for the kind invitation. I am definitely interested.”
Dear Joe Carter,
I think Rev. McCain would be a terrific addition to the team of Evangel bloggers.
His comment regarding Frank Turk’s post “An Interview With The Devil Himself”:
“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.”
is not only concise and accurate, but has the added benefit of engendering delight and amusement as well.
Joe, please approve Rev. McCain right away!
December 13th, 2009 | 5:48 pm | #95
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 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.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact