I finished reading "Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic." It tells the story of the President of the Evangelical Theological Society who resigned when he decided to return to a full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Francis Beckwith initially planned to wait till he finished his term as President of the ETS. However, his plan got a kick in the pants when his nephew asked Francis to become his sponsor for his confirmation. In order to be a sponsor, Francis had to be a full Catholic, which he understood to mean in his case, he had to return to full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, which he had been contemplating for a while, but which he speeded because of his nephew's request.
ok how he became an evangelical in his later teens, with many ties to Maranatha ministries, but also eventually attending attending Fordham, a Jesuit college where he received a doctorate. He later taught at Whittier College and Trinity International University before settling at Baylor.Beckwith relates how many of his evangelical friends think he became a traitor, though some remain friends. I am an evangelical who doesn't think he is a traitor. I think of Catholicism as a branch of Christianity, much as Walter Martin did. Though many pressured him, as an expert on cults, he refused to declare Roman Catholicism as a cult. Though there are differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestants (including non-denominational churches who are usually Protestant, though they claim to be neutral), I tend to think they have much more in agreement than they disagree, especially since they agree on all points in Nicene Creed, which I have touched on before in this blog.
I was baptized a Roman Catholic in infancy, took First Communion, was confirmed, and participated as an alter boy, before departing as a Catholic in my early teens. I was saved as an evangelical in my late teens, so there is much I can relate to in Beckwith's story. Though I initially tended to reject my Catholic heritage for some time, I am reconnecting with it in my later life, and tending to find the differences are not as great as I once thought, especially in light of the Joint Declaration on Justification, and some of the documents issued by Evangelicals and Catholics Together. I do not mean to minimize the differences that still exist, but to put them in their context.
First of all, I am Christian, regardless of the denominational differences. I would rather focus on the similarities and unities, especially on the basis of something like the Nicene Creed, rather than focus on what I consider the minor differences, relative to all to what all the branches agree on in something like the Nicene Creed. I do not agree with everything in Beckwith's book, which I might describe in another post in this blog.
However, I hope to do what I can in my brief life to promote a Historic Christianity that brings unity to Body of Christ based on an orthodox faith based on doctrines expressed in the Apostolic and Nicene Creed based on the teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and the Church Fathers.
18 comments:
On what basis are we to use the Nicene Creed as a point of unity? The church of Rome certainly doesn't. While it is true that Catholicism shares many points of the creeds in common with historic Protestantism, even this is disputed in many ways.
We confess in our liturgy that we believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church; to Rome, this means the papacy along with the bishops, successors to the apostles; to Protestants, this means all those who confess Christ as Lord and hold to the doctrine of the apostles. So even the Creeds carry disagreements. For those of us who hold to a Lutheran, evangelical belief in the gospel, we refuse to consider how we are made holy and right with God to be a "minor" difference with the church of Rome.
I admire Dr. Beckwith a lot. I enjoy his writings, and yes, I still believe him to be a Christian, despite theological errors. However, pretending there is unity where there is not, does an injustice to his conversion (if there's no substantive difference, why convert at all?)
Dear Rudolph:
Thanks for a fair minded review of Dr. Beckwith's conversion story.
It is rare to get a Protestant to acknowledge that we are still brothers in spite of theological differences.
I too acme back to the Church after a 31 year hiatus in evangelical christianity after "getting saved" as a young teenager and unfortunately being forcefed a lot of anti-catholic propaganda.
Now that I am older, and have learned about what Catholicism really is vs what I thought it was, I could do nothing but come home to the Church. I have written my story if you are interested, it's rather long, but may have some things you could to relate to.
Please feel free to write me if you wish to discuss more about Catholicism.
God bless you again for your fair minded review and have a blessed Christmas
Russ Rentler, M.D.
www.crossedthetiber.com
Hello Matthew,
First, thank you for your comment. You ask good questions.
Second, I want to say I very much like and admire Luther, his writings, Lutheran theology, and Lutheran doctrinal writings, and agree with much, if not most, of it. (I attended a Lutheran church for several years.)
Third, To try to answer your question: On what basis are we to use the Nicene Creed as a point of unity? - The last time I recently visited a Lutheran Church, they recited the Nicene Creed during the liturgy. As far as I know, Lutherans agree with everything in the Nicene Creed, as well as Catholics.
Fourth, as far as how we are made right with God, I would refer to the fairly recent Joint Declaration on Justification issued by the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation (though I am not endorsing all parts of it.)
Fifth, I hope I made it clear I don't expect a complete unity. I appreciate the differences, which I think not only add life to Christianity, but also is fundamental to Luther's emphasis on the freedom of conscience.
Sixth. I hope you take the time to look at my postings on the Nicene Creed, and give me your thoughts on it as a Lutheran.
Hi Tiber (or Russ).
Thank you for your kind comments about my review of Beckwith's book.
Second, about your comments about a Protestant, have you read the documents put out by Catholics and Evangelicals together, or the Joint Declaration on Justification? (Not to imply you haven't>)
Third, I am interested in your story. Send me a link.
Fourth, I am learning more about Catholicism all the time from my Catholic friends and pastor (priest), which reminds me of what I learned in my youth.
Fifth, I do rediscover the grace in the sacraments (I think you mainly mean the Eucharist) which I partake on a Catholic basis on about a monthly basis, since I play in a guitar mass at my local parish on about a once a month basis, but also participate in weekly in other (Protestant) churches which also mostly teach the Real Presence of Christ as participatory in Holy Communion, though some only teach a remembrance (though many churches, including the Roman Catholic also teach a holy remembrance, though more than that.)
Hey Rudolph, it's Russ, but I started blogging as "TiberJumper" anonymously initially when I started blogging in 2006.
Yes there is so much grace in the sacraments, the Eucharist in particular because it is Jesus truly who we are receiving, and I find Him in the confessional as well, which I liken to "whispering in the ear of God."
I play guitar too, started playing in Mass in 1971-73, then left the Church shortly after, but kept playing guitar :)
God bless!
written conversion story
audio link mp3 here
shameless self promotion here:
www.russrentler.com
Oh Yes ,I have read portions of the documents of Catholics and Evangelicals together but not in their entirety.
The Nicene Creed is a Catholic document. The fact that you too recite it, in your church basically establishes that you agree with the Church's magisterium authority to some extent. Same goes with your belief that the bible is the inspired work of God. The Pope just went to England to recognize Cardinal John Henry Newman....."To be steeped in history, is to cease being Protestant". If you read any of Newmans work you will understand why this is a true statement.
In order to have the real presence of Jesus at communion....you should have a priest that is authentically ordained acting Un Persona Christa. Come on Home... We would love to have you.
God Bless...and Merry Christmas
Rudolph,
Thanks for the reply. Yes, we do recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday. However, that doesn't mean we all interpret it the same way. As stated in my first post, we mean something different by a one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church than what Rome means when she recites the same words. Lutherans and Catholics would agree on the vast majority of it, but there are still areas we don't. Not to mention other communions, such as Baptists, who would most definitely not mean the same thing as Rome when they say "we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins."
As for the JDDJ, orthodox, confessional Lutherans reject it. The Lutheran World Federation is a largely liberal body that takes heterodox positions on any number of issues, so their opinion on justification is circumspect. JDDJ did not reject the canons on justification of the Council of Trent, which is a direct repudiation of the Lutheran (and, indeed, biblical) doctrine of justification. The two cannot be harmonized unless the Lutheran party backs off of what our confessions state, which is what the LWF did.
Dear Dixon2882,
First, on your point about the Nicene Creed being a Catholic document, I agree and disagree. Let me explain. I do not agree it is a Roman Catholic document. I agree it is a Catholic document, Catholic in Latin meaning universal. I think it belongs to all orthodox Christian churches. I think this is why I find it recited at various Protestant churches, or agreed upon by them, or at least not disputed by them.
Second. I only said that when I visit the Lutheran church, they recite it every Sunday. I didn't say it was my church, though I feel a close affinity with Lutherans and visit their churches.
Third, I have a complex position on the Magesterium. I agree the Church has a teaching authority based on the Bible, especially in their own church. I do not agree that the Roman Catholic Church can dictate teachings for all Christian believers, or for all churches. Though I understand the Roman Catholic Church affirms that it never contradicts Scripture, so that there is never a tension between Scripture and Roman Catholic Tradition, I do not agree with that position. When there is a tension, I have to go with Scripture, though I have a high regard and respect for Tradition.
I have not read Newman, and I should sometime. However, I do not completely agree with his statement to be steeped in history is to cease being Protestant. I know many Protestants who are steeped in history who remain Protestants. (Though I must say I know many Protestants who do not understand Catholicism, and who do want to. I think they could stand a better understanding of it.)
Fifth, many Protestants also believe in the Real Presence at Holy Communion, including Lutherans, Anglicans/Episcopaleans, and Presbyterians, among others. The Anglicans/Episcopaleans have priests authentically ordained to consecrate the host.
Sixth, thank you for the invite home. However, I am a Catholic.
Response to the last comment by Matthew,
Thanks for the comment by a confessional Lutheran.
First, I don't know if we all have to interpret the Nicene Creed the same way. To be honest, up till now, I never heard anyone talk about an interpretation of the Nicene Creed. When I read it recently among a mostly Catholic group, with believers from other denominations, including Lutheran, the Catholics told me they had never thought about it, they just said it by rote.
Second, I somewhat agree that Lutherans would understand the part in the Creed about a catholic church differently than Catholics would. Yet they don't say it differently (I have been at churches where it is changed to a Christian church rather than a catholic church.) Baptists don't like the reference to a catholic church, though when I tell them catholic means universal in Latin, their objections seem to vanish.
Second, as I mentioned before, I would rather focus on the agreements than the disagreements, though I don't want to overlook the valid differences.
Third, I haven't yet found a Baptist who disagrees with the statement about baptism. If anything, they point out the Nicene Creed is not authoritative, though they do not disagree with anything in it.
I understand that confessional Lutherans rejected the Joint Declaration on Justification. (I am not endorsing the document.) I have asked pastors at both the local Missouri and Wisconsin Synod to explain the rejection. So far, I have not heard an adequate explanation, though one pastor sent me a document from Concordia Seminary. I replied, but never heard again. The document said things that made it sound like the author had not read the Joint Declaration.
Fourth, I understand the LWF has liberal member churches, but also has conservative member churches, who had considerable influence on the Joint Declaration.
Have you read the Joint Declaration on Justification?
(I mean that as respectful question.)
In response to the creed, I am not sure that it's unimportant what the words themselves mean when the Creed is recited. Baptists will, of course, recite the section on baptism; but do they actually believe that it means what it says? Baptists do not believe that baptism gives remission of sins. Even though they are largely in unity with Catholics and Lutherans on the Creed, they wouldn't even agree that 95% of us are even baptized! The Reformed churches, would also state that baptism doesn't forgive sins, for that matter. When Lutherans and Catholics recite this, we do believe it grants remission of sins.
Another problem arises when we say that the Creeds serve as a basis for unity and that is, by what authority does any communion say it's a basis for unity? What is the guideline for doing so? It seems rather arbitrary. I would certainly agree that anyone who cannot confess a part of the three ecumenical creeds is probably not a Christian. However, it doesn't automatically unite any church body simply because of the wide divergence of beliefs found in churches today. I understand your point in arguing that it does, I am just a bit hesitant to go to the lowest common denominator because I've seen what can happen as a result of approaching it that way and it has ravaged the mainline churches.
Yes, I've read the joint declaration. No offense taken by the question. I, too, have met people who have criticized it without actually having read it.
The problem with the JDDJ is more in what it doesn't say than what it does say. First, as I mentioned, it does not repudiate anything that Trent stated. Rome could never agree to do such a thing since it holds that Trent was an infallible council of the church. One immediately has to wonder how a document that is alleged to be faithful to our confessions on justification if it contains nothing that Trent condemned.
Canon IX: If anyone says that the ungodly is justified by faith alone in such a way that he understands that nothing else is required which cooperates toward obtaining the grace of justification . . . let him be condemned.
Canon XII: If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy, which remits sin for Christ’s sake, or that it is this trust alone by which we are justified, let him be condemned.
Canon XIV: If anyone says that a man is absolved and justified because . . . he confidently believes that he is absolved and justified . . . and that through this faith alone absolution and justification is effected, let him be condemned.
When you compare these statements to the Book of Concord on justification, the problem is apparent. Of course Rome claims that justification is by grace through faith, as the JDDJ states; Rome, however, can never confess the sola attached to those terms.
In response to Matthew's last comment:
First, I didn't say what the words of the Nicene Creed mean are unimportant - just that I have not heard anyone before talk about an interpretation of the Nicene Creed, or differing interpretations of it. That doesn't mean no has. I just haven't run into it yet. If you can cite me to a formal discussion of that, I would be interested.
Second, if you find me a Baptist that formally disagrees with the Baptism portion of the Nicene Creed, I would be interested.
Third, yes I know Baptists hold different views on Baptism than other Christians. I don't want to overlook those differences. Yet I would rather look for those points on baptism where they agree with all other Christians - such as we all have to be baptized by water to be obedient to our Lord.
Fourth, I should explain that while I want to look for unity, I appreciate unity and diversity in the Body of Christ. Perhaps I will post something where I explain that more.
Fifth, thus,I do not agree with an ecumenicalism that tries to level all differences, or gives up on orthodox doctrines for the sake of unity.
Sixth, I am not worried about a formal and authoritative unity. I am more focused on an informal and De facto unity, as in one Body of Christ.
A response to Matthew's comment on the Joint Declaration on Justification. (My last comment, was to his previous comment on Nicene Creed - apparently it got moved by the time of posting.)
I want to make it clear I do not completely endorse the Joint Declaration on Justification, and I am still studying it (I only ran it across it a year ago.) However, I am very impressed by most of the statements in it, and was surprised by many of them with the Roman Catholic Church agreeing, apparently despite the statements made by the Council of Trent. Yet, I remain cautious.
I understand, as you say, that the Roman Catholic Church, at least since Vatican I in 1870, says that ecumenical councils such as the Council of Trent, are infallible. I also understand that the Catholic teaching of the infallibility of the Magesterium, and thereby of popes and ecumenical councils existed sometime before that, though not clearly defined. So I am not sure if the Council of Trent would have believed it was infallible (though I tend to think they felt this way.)
At the same time, I notice that it seems the Roman Catholic Church can adjust or restate prior statements as though no conflict ever existed, but yet at the same time, claim that no conflict ever existed, apparently because they have reinterpreted what the past statements mean. As a student of law, I have seen decisions of the United States Supreme Court do much the same, so it is rare for the Court to explicitly state it is overturning a prior ruling.
As you probably know, the Joint Declaration said the condemnations in both Trent and the Lutheran documents no longer applied given the statements in the JD. Since the infallibility of the Ecumenical Councils, such as Trent, depended on the anathemas, is this an implied rejection of the later defined infallibility of Trent by the Roman Catholic Church?
I have to agree it would be better if the Roman Catholic Church had rejected Trent in this document. However, I understand this difficulties involved, since it took that Church so long to recognize it's error in the case of Galileo. I tend to more want to focus on the matters of agreement in the current document, which you seem to want to avoid.
It is not so much a different interpretation of the Creed itself. It has more to do with the intent of the church that is confessing it. We know full well what the bishops at Nicea believed about baptism when they stated "we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins." However, their meaning and the meaning of those who recite it do not always correlate.
By the way, your response to DDixon is spot on. Couldn't agree more.
Your observations about how Rome interprets its past councils is well taken. There is no doubt in my mind that the bishops at Trent would have found it preposterous that their anathemas only applied to the reformers and not to those in later years who followed them. Ultimately, such historical revisions by modern church councils demonstrate the clear problem of believing that the church is infallible. It results in the sola ecclesia position, wherein, what Scripture and/or tradition declare is ultimately irrelevant. The only truth, then, is what the magisterium happens to be teaching at the present time. It is a full usurpation of any kind of authority external to the church.
In regards to the JDDJ - it is not a question of avoiding unity. The statements made by the Catholic party in the document are nothing new. It was never an accusation on the part of the reformers that Rome held that grace and faith were unnecessary. It was their charge (reaffirmed by the inherent semi-Pelagian view of the canons of Trent) that grace and faith were insufficient to justify sinners before God. The JDDJ does nothing to deny that view. Rome still teaches that initial justification is by grace alone (in baptism), from there on, once justification is lost, only the meritorious works of penance, the treasury of merit, saintly intercession, the sacraments, etc. can restore and aid progressive justification. These things haven't changed in 600 years. So why would I seek unity with it?
A response to Matthew's first comment on Dec. 28: I don't exactly know what the Nicene bishops meant by this passage, though I have a rough idea. It might be worth a deeper study.
However, I would point out the Nicene Creed was first written in Greek. While a few English versions (translations) say "the remissions of sin," most say "the forgiveness of sin." The doctrine I wrote in the blog this addressed was - efficacy of baptism - forgiveness of sins. The Presbyterian pastor I ran all this past had no objection to this understanding of the language.
I would guess all Christians see a close connection between baptism, which usually closely follows faith in Christ. They might not agree about adult versus infant baptism, but the Nicene Creed does not address this issue. Also, while they might not agree whether the act of baptism saves, I tend to think on a certain level, they all agree that faith is the crucial element in salvation, though they might express that differently with regard to salvation. I am not looking for a perfect agreement on all points. Again, point me to a substantial Baptist who seriously disagrees with the Nicene Creed on this point.
Response to Matthew's 2nd post on Dec. 28th: The exact language in the Paragraph 41 of the JDDJ is: "Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration." I think that would take a careful comparison of Trent and the Lutheran Confession, on the one hand, and the JDDJ, on the other hand. I haven't yet undertaken a careful study like this, but plan and hope to do so. I haven't yet seen anyone do a detailed comparison, which I would find interesting, though the group that worked the JDDJ issued many documents during the decades before the statement was issued which may well have reviewed and compared Trent and the Lutheran Confessions.
Paragraph 42 goes on to state: "Nothing is thereby taken away from the seriousness of the condemnations related to the doctrine of justification. Some were not simply pointless. They remain for us 'salutary warnings' to which we must attend in our teaching and practice."
I don't know whether Paragraph 15 is something new for Catholics, but I never saw anything stated so clearly in Catholicism. "In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works." I would be interested to know if a statement like this is in Trent (which I have read portions, but not undertaken a serious study of it).
In any case, to answer your final question, the reason to seek unity with the Roman Catholic Church, and other branches of Christianity, is because Jesus prayed that all his followers might be one. John 17:20 & 21.
Post a Comment