From a sermon by Rev. William Weedon:
Do you have to change for God to regard you kindly, or does God’s kind regard of you have the power to change you? Think about that for a minute. The Reformation comes down to this question. Natively, we all think the first way. You spend your life in this world doing what you hope is enough good to bring about that kind regard that means God won’t send you to hell - which is where you end up when you lack that kind regard....
The other way of looking at the question - the place from which the Reformation took root and grew - was the joyous “a-ha!” that God’s kind regard has already been given to us and to all of us in His Son, and that believing this kind regard is a power - the only power that changes a person from the inside out.
The heart of the Reformation and the Gospel: complete and utter grace from God.
Hi, Melinda.
I can see your concern with the paucity of doctrinal knowledge of the Protestant-in-the-Pew with which this avalanche of vitriol seems to have started, but does this sort of 500 year-old, crypto-anti-Catholic diatribe get us anywhere?
I'm concerned about the utter ignorance of many Catholics in the pew too, but I don't feel I've got to 'go off on one' about the glories of the Council of Trent, and the errors of Luther.
It was predominantly bloodshed and misery on both sides.
In fact, there's little in STR where Catholics and Protestants disagree. Greg on relativism, faith and ice cream, abortion, as well as Tactics, etc., are great resources that I've been introducing to doctrinally ignorant Catholics to stir them up into zeal for the Lord and getting into learning about their faith.
I'm no liberal, but a staunch Catholic, and my only criticism of STR would be where Greg, instead of trotting out the toddler, trots out the mealy-mouthed Catholic priest.
BUT, we've all got them, just like 'you've' got John Selby-Spong and Harvey Cox, et al., I just think Greg's being a bit disingenuous with that example as if Protestantism hasn't got the same sort of 'flower-power' relativists in its ranks.
STR's a great website, and Greg's a truly gifted communicator and teacher.
Please don't get bogged down in this glorification of an unhappy time in Christian History. it isn't really something to celebrate, is it?
I don't think you want to either, really. We'd both rather celebrate:
"that God’s kind regard has already been given to us and to all of us in His Son, and that believing this kind regard is a power - the only power that changes a person from the inside out."
- Sanctifying Grace.
Posted by: James Findlayson | October 30, 2009 at 02:16 PM
If we would re-acquaint ourselves with Luther's irrefutable Bondage of the Will, I believe we would see how far Catholics, Lutherans, and Protestants of every stamp, have strayed from the true meaning of sin and Grace.
Posted by: Pro Life | October 30, 2009 at 05:11 PM
James...
Yes the "diatribe" is absolutely nessesary. Without it we do not have Christianity (apologies to Beckwith).
Its that very compromise that has allowed so many to see that God is not really soveriegn nor is He all that holy.
That catholics hold jesus is pretty high regard does not make them christian.
Instead of knocking the division we ought to be making every effort to expose just what those differences really are....in order to avoid the confusion.
As one very popular theologian has said..."If we do not understand who God is...and who WE are as we live out our lives Coram Deo...there is no way we can hope to understand the Christian faith.
I for one sincerely hope you are wrong when you say there is little disagreement between STR and catholicism. I am still trying to assess that angle.
Posted by: Vic | October 31, 2009 at 07:08 AM
Christians are called throughout the bible to remember. Remember their heritage, their history. I don't see the reformation as a celebration, but simply a day to acknowledge and remember a vital truth claim of the bible. Thanks for posting the questions on top...it made me think and better understand.
Posted by: benske | October 31, 2009 at 07:10 AM
On the celebration issue, we certainly can and should celebrate the Reformation. At the same time, I think all good Protestants will acknowledge that it should never have happened.
Contradiction? No.
I wish the American Revolution had never happened. I wish that the colonists and the crown could have worked out their differences in a way that would preserve the colonist's rights, but maintain the realm in peace. All other things being equal, peace and harmony are always preferable to war and strife.
But all other things are seldom (if ever) equal. As such, the question is seldom (if ever) war vs. peace or strife vs. harmony. The question always turns on the real alternatives. Among the real alternatives, the revolution fought and won was by far the best outcome. And we should celebrate July 4th for that reason.
By the same token, the strife and war that the Reformation ignited even with its incomplete outcome was far better than the alternative of a world where the Solas were never recovered at all. We celebrate the Reformation for that reason.
Posted by: WisdomLover | October 31, 2009 at 08:06 AM
Hi, WisdomLover, what makes Martin Luther different from Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism? They both base their 'reformation' on a perceived apostasy over roughly the same things...
I'm with Vic on making sure the differences aren't fudged. I'm no syncretist, but I'm just not sure celebration is appropriate here, in STR.
I think the reason STR isn't incompatible with Catholicism, is that I have bought 25-30 of Greg's talks and lecture series, as well as Greg's books, 'Relativism' and 'Tactics', and apart from some very minor issues, there is nothing an orthodox Catholic would be unhappy with, as most of it isn't doctrine, but excellent philosophical techniques and getting to grips with analysing and understanding the Pro-Choice/Atheist-Christian 'God talk'.
I really take my hat off to him as he's helped me no-end with how I communicate my faith. I'm far more effective as a Catholic evangelist now.
That's why the Beckwith affair is so sad. In terms of what he taught in relation to STR thought, I'm sure, even now Catholic, he wouldn't really say or do anything differently: 'true truth' is simply the result of good philosophy, surely? It won't change with theological allegiance.
I reverted to Catholicism because I couldn't help feeling that, as an Evangelical I was just a Christian form of relativist, as we all went around the room in our bible studies, each saying what the verse meant to us, as well as observing constant schisms because there was no objective authority.
If anything, doesn't good reasoning make one question one's theological allegiance? For why would one want to contradict truth for the sake of holding a theological view? Surely, the moment one does that, doesn't one have to reject reason as useless to Christianity, and thereby slide into relativism or Siger of Brabant's 'Two Truth' theory? If that's the case surely STR would have to pack up and go home?
Instead, STR provides a resource for any Christian who holds that reason and truth matter in issues of faith. You only need to listen to his excellent lecture series, 'Never Read a Bible Verse', to see this point at work...
That said, I didn't think STR was for theological debates and highlighting differences between Christians. I thought STR was about how to become an Ambassador, and bringing people to Jesus Christ, not celebrating the divisions non-believers cite as one of their reasons for not believing. Despite how pathetic that argument is, it still gives ammunition...
Here's Stanley Hauerwas on the issue...
http://tinyurl.com/yfdxnd3
Posted by: James Findlayson | October 31, 2009 at 01:45 PM
"what makes Martin Luther different from Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism? They both base their 'reformation' on a perceived apostasy over roughly the same things..."
You have got to be joking.
For starters, Joseph Smith was an Arian.
Luther, clearly, was not.
According to Luther, the apostasy of Rome centers on the idea that the church had set itself up as an authority that can speak the very Word of God. A position she has not retreated from to this day. (See the article that Beckwith mentions on his web site. It disingenuously claims that Luther was right about the fundamentals, but proceeds to say that he overreached on Sola Scriptura...turns out Rome does have final authority after all. I linked this a few threads back as well.)
According to Joseph Smith, the Great Apostasy was simply the fact that in the persecutions that followed the NT events all the true apostles died without being replaced. This meant that there weren't any priests to carry on biblical ordinances like baptism. I kid you not, no one was doing baptisms according to Smith.
The only way I can process this so that Smith is not a complete moron is to suppose that his view is that Christians were not doing them right. So they must all be invalid. So Smith was a Donatist.
Luther, of course, was not a Donatist. And the Roman church is neither Donatist.
But the big problem, according to Smith, that the Great Apostasy resulted in is that no one could add authoritative teachings to the the teachings of the Bible. Smith restored this by receiving additional revelations from God. This view differs from Rome in that the Pope and Teaching Magisterium make no claim of divine revelation or inspiration like the Apostles and Prophets had. But it is still a claim to an authority to be accepted as the very Word of God.
In other words, Joseph Smith had exactly the same beef with Christianity, as he experienced it in his day, that the Roman church had with Luther: they are both against that pesky Sola Scriptura doctrine.
This Sola is the central principle of the Reformation. And it is this, above all, that we celebrate.
Posted by: WisdomLover | November 01, 2009 at 08:01 AM
WisdomLover, I don't believe Smith thought the church ceased doing baptisms. Rather, he thought they ceased doing LEGITIMATE baptisms, since a legitimate baptism must be done by somebody with the proper priesthood authority.
Posted by: Sam | November 01, 2009 at 03:17 PM
"[Joseph Smith] thought they ceased doing LEGITIMATE baptisms"
Sam-
Right. I had to assume that as well. That's why he was a Donatist. The Christian view, endorsed by Luther of course, is that if the baptism is in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, then its a legitimate baptism regardless of the moral character of the baptizer.
Posted by: WisdomLover | November 02, 2009 at 03:07 AM
The Reformation was/is important. Along these lines I'd love to get an answer about Mr. Koukl appearing at an Apologetics Conference (of all things) with Roman Catholics.
See my question for details.
Thanks.
Posted by: iMark | November 03, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Regardless of the "moral character of the baptizer", what of the doctrinal nature of the church. There are full-Pelagian yet Trinitarian churches out there, is a Trinitarian baptism in to a gospel of rank heresy "legitimate"?
Posted by: M Burke | November 03, 2009 at 11:05 AM
"There are full-Pelagian yet Trinitarian churches out there, is a Trinitarian baptism in to a gospel of rank heresy legitimate?"
I believe the historic context of the Donatist heresy had to do with priests and believers who had buckled under torture or threat of torture and renounced Christianity. The question is whether baptisms performed in the past by such individuals were valid and whether baptisms performed by them in the future would be valid.
The question of baptism by a Pelagian does not quite fit into that historical context. So it is something I'm guessing about.
Underlying all of this is the assumption of baptismal regeneration. Baptism now saves us. If you don't have that, there is no question of validity or invalidity.
I suppose we could harden the example in one direction by asking whether the baptism would be valid if it were performed by an unbeliever, say Daniel C. Dennett, but done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost on a penitent believer. I think the baptism would still be valid, because the power to regenerate through baptism does not come from Daniel C. Dennett, but from the Triune God.
If push comes to shove, I suspect that a baptism performed on a penitent believer by Satan himself in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost would be valid for the same reason. The power to save through baptism comes from the triune God, not Satan.
But in both cases, where Dennett and Satan pour the water and speak the words, I'm assuming is that the Baptized person trusts in Christ for his salvation through the means of Baptism.
We could harden the example in a different direction. We might suppose that a fully orthodox pastor performs the baptism in an orthodox church, but when the individual being baptized hears the words "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost", he is thinking "In the name of my own righteousness, humility and holiness". In this case, I suspect that the baptism is not valid because the baptized person is not penitent and does not trust in Christ's salvation provided through the means of Baptism. This is also why, I think, dropping a mist of baptismal water on a city in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit would not result in the baptismal regeneration of millions.
Now, the case of the person baptized in a Pelagian, but Trinitarian, church can be looked at in two ways. If the issue is that the baptizer is not theologically up to snuff, I don't think it matters. If the issue is that the baptized person doesn't believe he needs the salvation offered through baptism, then I think it does.
Posted by: WisdomLover | November 03, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Just wondering...
Re”form”ation.
Good, or, er,
just another religious alternative “form?”
Solved some problems but created a whole bunch more.
There are now 38,000 denominations according to wikipedia. Wow!!!
Most still look a lot like Rome.
Was “the Reformation” a dangerous detour, leading people away from;
“Jesus being the “head” of the body, the Church,”
and “those led by the Spirit, those are the sons of God?”
Is Religion the system, and NOT the relationship?
Did Jesus reform “the Jewish Religious Sytem” He etablished?
Or did He leave it?
When Jesus left “The Religious System,”
He called others out of ”The System” with Him. Didn’t He?
Jesus is the head of the body (the ekklesia, the called out one's), the church.
“Disciples of Christ” were “called out” of the religious system,
into a relationship with Jesus.
They are “called out” of the worlds system,
into the Kingdom of God.
They are "called out” of self,
into the body of Christ.
They are “called out” of sin,
into righteousness.
They are “called out” of bondage,
into liberty.
They are “called out” of darkness,
into light.
They are “called out” of death
into life.
Doesn’t “Religious” reform mean to take one “religious” form
and change it, make it different?
Isn’t it still a form, still religion, NOT a relationship?
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness...
Peace...
Posted by: A. Amos Love | November 04, 2009 at 03:01 PM
AAL-
The 30,000+ number of denominations includes about 800+ denominations of either a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox variety. It also includes denominations that are not part of the Reformation. It includes non-denominational groups as separate denominations. It includes Mormons. It includes JWs. It includes groups identifying themselves as gnostic and non-Trinitarian.
This charge has been answered well by Eric Svendsen and James White. The bottom line is that there is about as much disunity in Rome as there is in the Reformation.
As for the rest, I really have very little idea what you are talking about.
Does your argument really boil down to the fact that the word "form" is (a) somehow bad and (b) a part of the word "reformation". Can I argue that your views involve UFOs because the phrase "ion ship" is in "relationship"?
What little I can glean from your remark seems to be saying that, in general, the idea of religion is bad, but the idea of a relationship with Christ is good. I'll have to say, I don't understand, and have never understood the formula "Christianity is a relationship, not a religion". As if the two are incompatible.
Christianity is a religion based on a relationship with Christ. That relationship comes through Word and Sacrament, not through some warm and fuzzy experiential haze. Because of the importance of the Word and the importance of the correct understanding of the Sacraments, theology looms large in Christianity, perhaps larger than in most other world religions. Theology is part of your relationship with Christ.
Posted by: WisdomLover | November 04, 2009 at 06:27 PM
iMark, I appreciate the question. Greg committed to this event before the list of speakers and topics had been made known. Here is a comment from him about the upcoming event:
Posted by: Amy | November 05, 2009 at 01:05 PM
I'm afraid, Amy, that maybe Beckwith's defection has poisoned Greg's charity?
Like what Greg advises against in his, 'Never Read a Bible Verse', Greg seems to have cherry-picked select quotations from Catholics, and not from our actual, and full, teaching.
Cardinal Ratzinger's document, Dominus Iesus, which was written when he was Prefect for the CDF, was criticised primarily because it was not inclusivist.
I could roll out plenty of Protestant theologians, like John Shelby-Spong, and say he's representative of Greg because he's Protestant.
In fact, if I were to be uncharitable, that's one of the problems of Protestantism: it's just relativism. Each of you goes round the Bible like an elephant, making you're own sense with your 33,000+ denominations.
I would love Greg to do a talk on why Protestantism isn't merely religious relativism, because I can't see any argument against that view because you have no central dogmas or magisterium, unlike Catholicism - or else Greg is incredibly proud in assuming he is the only Protestant who really understands Christianity, and the others aren't as reasonable as he is.
I think you're in a glass house on this one. If Catholicism is inclusivist, I'd rather that, than relativism.
Posted by: James Findlayson | November 07, 2009 at 01:50 AM
Once again, JF, there are not 33,000 denominations of Protestantism. And there is not one denomination of Roman Catholicism. See the links I posted just a few posts up. If you compare apples to apples, there's about as much disunity in Rome as there is in the Reformation.
On an unrelated matter, the equation of disagreement with relativism is sophomoric.
Posted by: WisdomLover | November 09, 2009 at 01:06 AM
Jesus warned us about making “the word of God”
of non effect through our traditions; Yes?
Mk 7:14
KJV - Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition...
ASV - Making “void” the word of God by your tradition...
NIV - Thus you “nullify” the word of God by your tradition...
What if "The Whole Religious system," for the past 1700 years,
has been/is totally corrupt?
Corrupt - Dictionary
1- having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly
in return for money or personal gain.
2- in a state of decay; rotten or putrid.
3- debased or made unreliable by errors or alterations.
Don’t condemn the messenger just yet.
Why was there a reformation?
Rome was/is corrupt according to scripture. Yes?
People wanted to serve and worship Jesus in truth. Yes?
Any Popes as the head of “The Church of God” in the Bible?
Why were there Pilgrims and the Puritans coming to the USA?
Church of England was/is corrupt according to scripture. Yes?
People wanted to serve and worship Jesus in truth. Yes?
Any Monarchs as the head of “The Church of God” in the Bible?
And every denomination since, tries to tweek Romes version of doing religion.
wikipedia says there are now 38,000 denominations.
So maybe they include JW’s and Mormans, didn’t they come from denominations?
Let's say wikipedia is wrong by 90%, that’s still 3,800 denominations. Yes?
Doesn’t that sound like a “tradition of men” to you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
Oh, you can change a few “titles,” pastors intead of priests,
suits and ties instead of collars and robes,
Presidents instead of Popes,
but basically it’s still Rome
still, “Tradition of men.”
Still "Religion" not Jesus.
Posted by: A. Amos Love | November 09, 2009 at 11:19 AM
AAL-
Since you are apparently determined no to read the articles I linked, the way the 30,000+ number is reached includes things like the following. If there are two non-denominational churches located in the same town on the same street right next to each other, and the teach and believe exactly the same things. And they practice their religious observances in exactly the same way. But they are not formally affiliated with each other, then they are two separate denominations.
In other words if we join you in your anti-church, anti-religion 'relationship' movement, every single body of believers will count as a separate denomination. Will that be a sign of the corruptness of the movement?
Posted by: WisdomLover | November 09, 2009 at 12:36 PM
>>was criticised primarily because it was not inclusivist.
James, a couple things: First, Kreeft is definitely an inclusivist (see here for example). Second, if the document you're citing was criticized primarily for not being inclusivist, then there must be many Roman Catholics (in a position to criticize) who are inclusivist, correct? So at the most, you're saying that some RC people are inclusivist, and some aren't, despite the fact that you have a magisterium. How do you see this as being different from having an authoritative Bible that some people interpret rightly one way and some wrongly another?
The fact that people can be mistaken about what a document, biblical text, person in authority says does not in any way mean that they believe that any interpretation would be equally correct--that there is no correct answer corresponding to reality (that would be relativism). In neither our case nor yours is this relativism. But even in your case, people must interpret documents. And as you say, people come to different conclusions. The only difference is, those documents are one step removed from the Bible.
It might be helpful if you explained your understanding of inclusivism because I think we might be using two different definitions here and that could be causing some confusion. Here's an inclusivist statement from Dominus Iesus:
In other words, it's Christ's work that accomplishes salvation, but it can be mediated through other religions. The people need not know explicitly of Christ. This is the inclusivist position. Is this your understanding of it?
Posted by: Amy | November 09, 2009 at 01:21 PM