Francis Beckwith wrote:
"After all, if Catholic soteriology were merely a Roman invention, its presence in the Eastern Churches in one form of another would be unlikely. And yet it is there, in spades: seven sacraments, infused grace, etc. So, in a sense,the universality of this soteriology shifts the burden to those who claim it is 'unbiblical.'"
Why do you have to refer to the soteriology "in one form or another"? Because there are many differences, in addition to the similarities.
And why should we think that the soteriology in question was "universal"? Roman Catholicism and the Eastern churches you seem to have in mind aren't the only groups that existed at the time or that have claimed some sort of pre-Reformation lineage. Anglicans, Waldensians, and others have made such claims as well. Even in Roman Catholic circles, there was a wide diversity of soteriological beliefs at the time of the Reformation and in earlier generations. See here. Somebody like Thomas Bilney could believe in the papacy and transubstantiation, yet be sympathetic to a Protestant view of justification. For some examples of soteriological diversity in patristic times, see Augustine's comments in The City Of God 21:17-27. See, also, here.
Was belief in seven sacraments, to take one of Francis Beckwith's examples, universal in apostolic times? No. In patristic times? No. In the Middle Ages? No. The Eastern Orthodox bishop Timothy Ware writes:
"Only in the seventeenth century, when Latin influence was at its height, did this list [of seven sacraments] become fixed and definite. Before that date Orthodox writers vary considerably as to the number of sacraments: John of Damascus speaks of two; Dionysius the Areopagite of six; Joasaph, Metropolitan of Ephesus (fifteenth century), of ten; and those Byzantine theologians who in fact speak of seven sacraments differ as to the items which they include in their list. Even today the number seven has no particular dogmatic significance for Orthodox theology, but is used primarily as a convenience in teaching." (The Orthodox Church [New York, New York: Penguin Books, 1997], p. 275)
If the concept of Roman Catholicism's seven sacraments becomes popular, not universal, so late in history and under such dubious circumstances, what significance does that popularity have?
What about "infused grace"? Many groups could be said to believe in some form of infused grace, involving a combination between grace and justification through works. The concept of justification through works is popular, and not just in professing Christian circles. Any group of professing Christians is likely going to include grace in its view of justification, even if it contradicts the Biblical definition of justification by grace by means of the inclusion of works. A professing Christian, whether a Mormon, a Roman Catholic, or whoever, is going to claim to believe in justification by grace. The fact that the groups Francis Beckwith mentions have believed in some form of "infused grace" isn't of much significance. Such beliefs were popular prior to the Reformation, but some professing Christians believed in concepts such as justification through faith alone and the preservation of the saints (eternal security) in pre-Reformation times as well. See the articles linked above for some examples. Again, why should we think that the Roman Catholic view was "universal"?
Whatever good points might be in here are lost among the ham-fisted silliness.
ReplyDelete* I doubt Beckwith's point is in the particular count of seven sacraments. Rather his point is about a sacramental world view.
* Anglican lineage is via Roman Catholicism. Waldensian lineage is a fantasy.
* Confusion of a sacramental world view and salvation by works is a blunt attack. The Jews were saved by painting the blood of the lamb above their doorposts, but it hardly makes their salvation a result of their personal merits. Would they be saved if they didn't paint the blood? No. Were their children saved because they were meritorious in this good work? No. A sacrament is a gift received.
Mandalay reads me right.
ReplyDeleteImagine, for example, I said that Nebraska and Indiana share the same idea of republican form of government and someone said, "No they don't. Nebraska has a unicameral legislature where Indiana does not." Such a response would miss the real point.
If you read Catholic theology looking for loopholes, you will miss the theological riches behind the ecclesiastical bling-bling.
MANDALAY SAID:
ReplyDelete"Confusion of a sacramental world view and salvation by works is a blunt attack. The Jews were saved by painting the blood of the lamb above their doorposts, but it hardly makes their salvation a result of their personal merits. Would they be saved if they didn't paint the blood? No. Were their children saved because they were meritorious in this good work? No. A sacrament is a gift received."
Of course, that equivocates over the meaning of "salvation." "Salvation" from the 10th plague has reference, not to salvation from hell, but deliverance from death (the death of the firstborn).
"Anglican lineage is via Roman Catholicism. Waldensian lineage is a fantasy."
As I recall, Mandalay is Eastern Orthodox, so I don't know what he's defending Roman Catholic apostolic succession.
"As I recall, Mandalay is Eastern Orthodox, so I don't know what he's defending Roman Catholic apostolic succession."
ReplyDeletePerhaps a Star Trek illustration will be helpful:
As I recall, Mandalay is Vulcan, so I don't know why he's defending the Romulan understanding of the common origin of both peoples.
Orthodox soteriology, barring the outside Latinizing influences, has nothing to do with Romanism's idea of created grace, nor do we have the same concept of what a sacrament is (e.g. look at Schmemann's works). In Orthodoxy, the righteousness that you have is identical to the righteousness of the Godhead. Is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, the eternal Logos, a created similitude, or is it the very power of God that saves sinners. The whole idea of merit, satisfaction, and indulgences are foregin to Orthodoxy (and really anti-thetical).
ReplyDeleteRomanism needs to learn to stand on its own two feet and stop drawing on us for its protection in order to brow beat Protestants. Orthodoxy doesn't have a thing to do with Roman Catholicism.
Beckwith is simply wrong. Catholics (and Protestants) like to use Orthodoxy as fodder for their debates without having any substantial knowledge. With all due respect, I haven't seen any good reason to think that he has any significant grasp of Orthodox theology. Usually this goes along with a lack of serious engagement with orthodoxy as an option when considering Rome.
ReplyDeleteA big clue, the first sign that someone doesn't really have a substantial grasp is that they cite Bp Ware's popular book on practically every subject as if its some papal decree.
As for the Anglicans, Christians existed in Btiton for centuries without control or jurisdictional authority over them from Rome. The See of Alexandria sent missionaries to England in the 2nd century only to return home since the church had already been established there. The major bishopricks of the Brits were founded not via Rome, but probably through Paul through his ministry to Lydia and Brittiania house.
I still think even if we say there's a universal "sacramental world view" (a concept I find dubious) in the early church, the simple fact that there was disagreement as to what constituted a sacrament cannot be glossed over.
ReplyDeleteIt's not simply disagreement of the nature that Beckwith has said is found in the legislative branches of IL and NE. There is disagreement as to what a sacrament actually does. It would be more like a disagreement between what a legislative branch does, not how the legislative branch is made up. In other words, it would be like disagreement between whether the legislative branch makes laws or enforces laws.
That the same terms are used by multiple groups in no way means that those multiple groups are stating the same thing. Engwer's use of Mormons, for instance, shows that. All Mormons believe in salvation by grace, yet "grace" is defined vastly differently than even Roman Catholics define it, let alone Protestants. We all use the same words, but we don't mean the same thing.
So when we see, as Engwer quoted Ware, that John of Damascus only spoke of two sacraments, then it is obvious that he does not view the sacraments in the same light as modern Roman Catholics.
To go back to the government analogy, it would be like saying that some governments write laws with the legislative branch, and some write laws with the legislative *AND* executive branch. Therefore, there is a universal aspect of governments writing laws. Therefore we are justified in holding that the judicial branch can also write laws because branches of government writing laws are a universal thing back to the beginning of government.
But this belies the fact that in governments where the legislative branch writes laws, the executive and judicial branches are used for completely different reasons than in any such government where those branches could also write laws.
In other words, suppose that someone only thinks that baptism is a sacrament. His view of marriage is not the same as the Roman Catholic view, and it's disingenous to say that someone who only believes in sacramental baptism believes in the same sacramental system as those who add marriage, etc.
I would be interested in knowing the Orthodox opinion of a document produced by three Biola University profs: http://faculty.biola.edu/alang/EO/Report.pdf
ReplyDeleteI read this many years ago. They seemed to have done their research and accurately portrayed Orthodox theology. If so, then what they suggest about Orthodox theology does not seem substantially different from Catholic theology. Granted, Catholic theology uses far more philosophical language that Orthodox theology. For this reason the Orthodox sometimes see Latin doctrine as almost over-precise and intellectualized. I can see that and appreciate that criticism. In any event, I was wondering what you Aristotles thought about this document. :-)
If you don't feel comfortable posting here, you can always email me privately: fbeckwith[@]mac.com
Mandalay said:
ReplyDelete"Whatever good points might be in here are lost among the ham-fisted silliness....I doubt Beckwith's point is in the particular count of seven sacraments. Rather his point is about a sacramental world view."
How do you get "a sacramental world view" from his words "seven sacraments"? If the number seven is irrelevant to his point, then why did he mention it? Explain how it's "ham-fisted silliness" to think that his mentioning "seven sacraments" is meant to include the number seven.
You write:
"Anglican lineage is via Roman Catholicism. Waldensian lineage is a fantasy."
You'll need to argue for those conclusions rather than just asserting them. Even if we assume that "Anglican lineage is via Roman Catholicism", the issue of whether Roman Catholicism or Anglicanism developed correctly from the time of their departure, or both developed incorrectly, would remain unresolved. Beckwith's mentioning of Roman Catholicism and "the Eastern Churches" is insufficient to lead us to his conclusion. You keep adding arguments to Beckwith's and keep giving us your own explanations of what he supposedly meant. It's not "ham-fisted" or "silly" for me to fail to anticipate another person's reworking of Beckwith's case. What's ham-fisted silliness is your reworking of that case and your expectation that I should have anticipated the reworking.
You write:
"Confusion of a sacramental world view and salvation by works is a blunt attack. The Jews were saved by painting the blood of the lamb above their doorposts, but it hardly makes their salvation a result of their personal merits."
It doesn't have to be "a result of their personal merits" in order for something other than faith, which I've called "works", to be involved. Claiming that sacraments aren't works, or claiming that everything done to attain eternal life is a sacrament, for example, doesn't reconcile your view of salvation with what scripture tells us about the subject. For example, if scripture tells us that justification is attained through faith alone, prior to baptism, then telling us that baptism isn't a work doesn't reconcile your view of justification with scripture. Or if Roman Catholicism were to require obedience to the Pope for salvation, and a Catholic would claim that obedience to the Pope is a sacrament rather than a work, such a reclassification of obedience to the Pope (a sacrament rather than a work) wouldn't answer every objection to the concept of salvation through obedience to the Pope. My argument against the Roman Catholic view of justification doesn't depend on whether we call something a sacrament or a work.
And you've given us no reason to think that your classification is correct. Roman Catholicism uses terms like "works" when describing how eternal life is attained. You seem to be assuming that I'm using the terminology in a manner that misrepresents Roman Catholic soteriology. Where's your argument? I didn't just mention works. I also mentioned grace. How is that an inappropriate "blunt attack"?
Dr. Beckwith,
ReplyDeleteSpace does not permit in this venue an analysis and explicaiton of the errors of the report. It is more or less a hatchet job and no informed and intellectually disposed Orthodox person I have ever known that has read it takes it seriously. The errors are substantial crosing methodology, the historical, theological and philosophical. In other words, its a joke, a very bad joke. It was a tool used to oust Orthodox faculty and to prevent the hiring of any more.
Francis Beckwith wrote:
ReplyDelete"Imagine, for example, I said that Nebraska and Indiana share the same idea of republican form of government and someone said, 'No they don't. Nebraska has a unicameral legislature where Indiana does not.' Such a response would miss the real point."
What if you said that "unicameral legislature" was something the two states had in common, then somebody else claimed that what you meant was to refer to a legislative form of government, without regard for whether the legislature is unicameral? And what if you accepted that second person's clarification of your argument? We'd probably conclude that either you communicated your point poorly or you were accepting an alleged clarification of your argument that was actually a changing of your argument.
I accept your clarification. I don't accept Mandalay's suggestion that it was "ham-fisted silliness" to read your comments as I did. But you're not responsible for Mandalay's behavior.