So last night was a crazy night of much thinking because Francis Beckwith showed up and spoke of "Abortion and American Politics" at Biola. After his lecture, us philosophy majors at both Talbot and Biola had the privilege to speak to him further at the philosophy house. The topics of the night were Catholicism, the relationship between church and state, abortion, and Prop 8. Even after Beckwith left, some philosophers stayed and discussed church and state for another hour or so (we had a very lively discussion, ha).
I think I'll post on some of those topics later, but in this post I wanted to reflect on Beckwith's conversion to Catholicism a while back just a little.
I remember when that happened, I was a little mad because he desired to continue to be the president of ETS while being a Catholic. And I distinctly remember how angry the theological community got over it.
But having Beckwith personally explain to us his whole journey in about half an hour really humanized him in my mind. During the time of that controversy, he was going through some tough stuff, and he thinks that up to this day he can sign the ETS doctrinal statement. I agree - an open theist can also sign it in good conscience (it's a pretty flimsy doctrinal statement).
One also remembers the whole uproar that happened with J. P. Moreland's paper at last year's ETS meeting in San Diego about how Evangelicals are overcommitted to the Bible (which most of them are in the sense JP defines it). It's just crazy to see how ridiculously offended people can get for non-essential doctrines and truly hurt another brother in Christ (which is the greater sin here!?). I'm not sure whether Beckwith is a brother in Christ, though I lean strongly towards no. But my point is that there's too little love in these situations.
Who knows what the next doctrinal storm surrounding one figure will be? Whatever it is though, I have resolved to try be loving toward them and to understand where they're coming from. God knows I myself have been maligned pretty badly because people are predisposed to have a martyr complex that requires them to blame others instead of understanding where that person's coming from. I can't even imagine what these guys felt, or what God felt for that matter who is made furious by harsh criticism of another brother based on complete misrepresentations.
It's sad that the apostle Paul's exhortation goes unnoticed by many Christians today:
"If I speak in human or angelic tongues, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging symbol. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing...And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor. 13:1-3, 13)
I Want Your Advice!
1 day ago
11 comments:
How could you possibly urge 'love' on one hand and on the other hand say that Beckwith 'probably isn't a brother in Christ.'
You cannot 'love' somebody here and anathematize them there because they don't have the same doctrinal theology that you have.
How about this…Does Beckwith claim to love Jesus and serve His will the best he can? I bet he does.
I love my brother, I also love my neighbor. However, I cannot love both equally.
I love my brother in a completely different way. We are blood related, and we know each other very well.
My neighbor is a stranger to me and so I can't have the same relationship with him.
This is the simple distinction Sam is making.
I can say that I love Jesus and with all of my heart and soul, but if I don't truly know him, it's all for naught.
Misplaced love is the problem with Beckwith. The god he loves is one who requires a co-redemptrix, a vicar on Earth, sacraments as spigots for grace from which people must drink in order to be saved, a eucharist which is literally in every sense Jesus' flesh, and I can go on.
These are the sort of things the Apostles fought against when they wrote the epistles. If we erase distinctions and make love some kind of equalizer, we lose all of our identity. Worse so, we violate God's mandate to eagerly contend for the once and for all given Faith.
Mig,
So, again, because Frank Beckwith has a different theology, one that is equally defensible biblically and historically (if not more so), he isn't a 'brother in Christ.'
So, how much does a person have to agree with your articulation of the gospel in order to be a 'brother in Christ?'
Hey Oso, thanks for commenting,
First, you seem to think that I was somehow treating Dr. Beckwith uncharitably in my post. I think most people would agree that if that's the case, you missed the entire point of my post. Love is paramount here, even if I don't think that he's my brother in Christ.
Secondly, my "anathematizing" was in passing and definitely not done in the manner that you appear to imply. Again, the whole point was about treating others with love and respect and giving them the benefit of the doubt sometimes in the middle of a controversy.
And finally, your second comment appears to assume that I (and Mig) agree with you that the Catholic church's positions on many views is equally defensible Biblically and historically. Obviously, if I agreed with you on this point, then we would be merely discussing different denominations that can charitably disagree over non-essential issues.
But Mig made a pretty good list there about the Protestant church's disagreements with the Catholic church. I personally do think that people can be really off on many beliefs and be saved. For me, the main questions, however, are three: does this person believe in the perfect atoning work of Christ? Does she believe in salvation by grace and not of works? and do they believe in one God (and we can kind of add the Trinity in here)?
The first and second of these is where the Catholic church fails in my view, and thus, it's not a question of love in this case but a question of which God it serves. I submit that the Catholic view of God is too foreign to Scripture for me to acknowledge that a brother can rightfully worship him.
Samuel,
does this person believe in the perfect atoning work of Christ? Does she believe in salvation by grace and not of works? and do they believe in one God (and we can kind of add the Trinity in here)
...
The first and second of these is where the Catholic church fails in my view
1) Do Catholics believe in the perfect atoning work of Jesus Christ: Yes.
The Catechism states:
615 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous."443 By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities".444 Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.445
2) Does she believe in salvation by Grace and not works: Yes.
(The first canon of the Council of Trent states:
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.
3) Is she Trinitarian? Yes (she defined the Holy Trinity after all).
As far as Mig's list is concerned...
Co-Redemtrix isn't Catholic dogma. And, it doesn't mean what you think it means even if it were a Catholic dogma. Catholics do agree wholeheartedly that Jesus is the one and only mediator between man & God. No question ... the bible teaches this ... the Catholic Church teaches this. No subordinate co-deities, no additional redeemers. Read the Catechism (official teaching) if you don't believe me.
The doctrines on the Eucharist are biblical in every way and the constant teaching of the Christian faith since the very beginning.
For the record, I don't think Sam was deny that the Catholic church did not adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity (it would be very obvious that it does since Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant branches of Christianity affirm the original ecumenical councils).
Also, I do think there to be a difference between Catholic Dogma, and how they are practiced by parishioners. For example, I've heard it said that the Saints are to be "respected" but not "venerated." However, when the every day person goes and prays to a saint the "veneration" is alive and well. Excuse my ignorance in the terminology...
Oso Famoso,
Hey thanks for the comments but I don't intend to debate Catholicism on a comment thread. We will disagree that certain Catholic doctrine can truly be exegeted out of Scripture of course. My point, however, is that if Catholics believe what I think they believe, then it's hard to see how they can be saved.
Though, more than any other religion/sect, I allow that misinformed Catholics may have enough essentials right that they may be saved. In those cases I just hope they are.
Sam, read the catechism and Summa Theologica before you place your judgements on the Catholic Church.
By the way, how do you reconcile the fact the Protestantism has only existed for 500 years and the view that Catholicism does not equal Christianity?
You right a pretty inflammatory message regarding the salvation of Catholics, and then you say you don't want to debate when someone discusses the correct teaching of the Catholic Church?
Ridiculous.
Anonymous,
Thanks for commenting. I'll take your comments in reverse order:
1) The salvation of Catholics was not the point of my post. Sure I raised the issue, but it was merely in passing and subservient to my focus on charity. That the salvation of Catholics was not central is obvious and I will say no more about this.
2) True, Protestantism per se has only been around for 500 years and the Catholic church way longer than that. How would I explain this?
Well, first you have to realize that you are equivocating on the word "Catholic". This means that you are using the word in more ways than one and not differentiating between the uses. I was talking about the Catholic church today and wasn't even alluding to the history of that church. That's not to say I thought they were saved back then either, but merely that you're misreading my statements.
Final, I say per se because I would explain this as saying that the foundational beliefs of Protestantism have been held before its official organization, even by some in the Catholic church. These people would be those whom theologians call the "remnant" and who were truly saved at that time. It's impossible to know who that was, however.
3) Your argument re-packaged: please don't even start or think about starting to pass judgment on the Reformation unless you've read these books:
- "The Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin
- The works of John Owen (16 volume set)
- The works of B. B. Warfield (10 volume set)
- "The Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther
- "The Justification of God" by John Piper
- "The Sovereignty of God" by A. W. Pink
- "Systematic Theology" by Charles Hodge (3 volumes)
- "Reformed Dogmatics" by Herman Bavinck (4 volumes)
- etc.
My point should be obvious: such a list is arbitrary and is not a necessary condition for knowledge of a subject.
Thanks for the reply... I think we can both agree with this— there are Protestants and Catholics who do not truly understand the message of the Gospel, and thus are not saved. I have actually read a lot of those books you listed, plus many others. I was raised Protestant and graduated from the great institution of Biola University.
I know you didn't directly say I was passing judgment on the Reformation, but there was an implication of it. Let me be clear regardless of your intent: I am not an über-Catholic SSPX type who says only under the Chair of Peter is Salvation. That is frankly absurd, and those are the types that really cause a lot of this mess.
It also really distresses me, as a Catholic, that you can imply that those faithful to my Church are probably not saved, and then refuse to discuss it. Your hero or whatever, NT Wright, despite his criticisms of Rome, does in fact believe they are saved. I urge you to read what he has had to say about the subject. Perhaps you already have and disagree with him on that particular subject.
Furthermore, the Catholic Church's teachings, as they claim, haven't changed but merely been expounded. So, from a Catholic's perspective, I was not misreading you, I was implying it's the same Church then as it is now.
Catholicism can be backed up by Scripture, albeit not your particular interpretation.
In other words, who made you Pope? :-)
My only point is this— Judge not, lest you be judged. It's fine to fight heresy, but to judge the salvation of those who profess the Gospel, in accordance with the ancient creeds (Nicene, Apostles, Etc), is a whole other situation entirely.
The problem is you are measuring whether Beckwith is a Christian in an erroneous manner. Try the Nicene Creed to start: that's as clear and succinct as you can get, and all sorts of people stumble over it. It has stood the test of time, and in one way or another every heretic and apostate is broken upon it. It is the symbol of the faith.
Post a Comment