How now shall we play? Cooperating is one thing. Ecumenism another. Can these two agree in the Southern Baptist world? Let’s consider the past and present for a moment.
Another former SBC president, Herschel H. Hobbs, pastor of First Baptist Church in Oklahoma City, hosted an ecumenical gather in his church. Roman Catholics, Nazarenes, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Southern Baptists were “eating, laughing, praying, and singing together” at what Hobbs called a “rally for the Agency for Christian Cooperative Ministry.” Hobbs, the host pastor and a member of the steering committee of the proposed agency, explained, “I feel that by being here, I’m no less a Baptist, but much more a Christian.” Beale, David O.. S.B.C House on the Sand? Critical Issues for Southern Baptists . Greenville: Unusual Publications, 1985. 141.
More recently I’ve documented some ways in which Southern Baptists are working with non-SBCers.
One event that took place in Campbellsville, KY.
Churches from such denominations as Southern Baptist, Methodist, Church of God and Presbyterian were among the 25 sponsors of Gage’s Sept. 14-17 crusade, according to crusade chairman James Jones. (Source)
One for world hunger.
For 15 years, Bostick has headed up the Heart of Texas Good Samaritan Ministry…is a North American Mission Board missionary. Most of her financial support for the food ministry comes from domestic World Hunger Funds via area Southern Baptist churches…the Brownwood food pantry and warehouse also is an inter-denominational effort that involves about 200 Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Nazarene and Assembly of God volunteers. (Source)
Another with Bobby Welch in South Korea.
[Welch] visited South Korea in his role as Strategist for Global Evangelical Relations with the Southern Baptist Convention’s Executive Committee…He also preached at First Glory Presbyterian Church…the first Baptist ever to preach at the church in northwest Seoul…Invited guests included representatives from the IMB, the Korea Baptist Convention, Korean Baptist churches and the BWA. (Source)
Considering the past and present examples above how should we react to such events? What does our statement of faith say around which we’ve agreed to cooperate?
Members of New Testament churches should cooperate with one another in carrying forward the missionary, educational, and benevolent ministries for the extension of Christ’s Kingdom. Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation for common ends by various groups of Christ’s people. Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament. (XIV. Cooperation: BFM)
I’d love to hear some of your reactions to these types of events. What is your reaction, especially, in light of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000? What should we strive for in the future concerning such events? Does this further the purpose of the SBC? If so, how?
For what it’s worth…
Mark
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m glad when I see Southern Baptists cooperating beyond the Southern Baptist bubble; the Baptist Faith and Message provides an official statement of desired cooperation with “Christ’s people,” even if they are of a different denomination.
This greatly furthers the purpose of the SBC because the SBC is all about expanding the Kingdom of God to the ends of the earth. The cooperation of ALL Kingdom people, then, is essential for global evangelization. The more Kingdom cooperation, the greater our potential.
Words like “Ecumenism” may be taboo, but it bothers me when people think this kind of Kingdom ecumenism is the same as the ecumenism of the past that might have been largely based on liberal theology with a lack of doctrinal backbone.
Mark,
What is your understanding of the difference between Ecumenism and cooperation Mark?
Bradley
Bradleys last blog post..::: Ancient Persian Imperial History :: pt 2 :: The Empire’s Peak
Cooperation seems to be more specific. For example, the SBC cooperates around core beliefs for a specific cause(s). Not only do we support the cause itself, but our understanding around the “hows” and “whys” of that cause is mostly united. It is actively working together to promote said cause.
Ecumenism certainly is a promoting of unity around a cause(s). It seems to be more of a general acceptance of each other with the cause being secondary though. The cause(s) are still sought after, however, without active promotion together. Different denominations might cross paths where working together is desired or even necessary. This would not be by design though.
Personally, when I think of religious ecumenism the first thing that comes to mind is compromise. Compromise of the Gospel, especially, the seemingly easy acceptance of Roman Catholicism these days. Yes, I know, liberalism is creeping around too.
Those are some off the cuff thoughts of the connotations of those terms.
Thoughts?
Mark
Mark Lamprechts last blog post..Dynamite Sermon Illustrations
Mark,
Thanks for your thoughts. Your distinction between gathering to accept each other (dialogue oriented) vs. gathering around a specific cause (action oriented) is very helpful. I would call both of these ecumenism.
What do you mean by “easy acceptance of Roman Catholicism”? Do you not consider Catholic’s believers in the deity, death, burial, and resurrection and Lordship of Jesus Christ? (i.e. believers in the gospel)?
Bradley
Bradleys last blog post..::: Ancient Persian Imperial History :: pt 2 :: The Empire’s Peak
It can be tough to distinguish between ecumenism and cooperation. That’s why I used the word “connotation”.
I do not consider the Roman Catholic church an institution that preaches the Gospel. A certain Roman Catholic could be considered a Christian if they believe the Gospel of grace through faith contrary to what their church teaches.
Mark Lamprechts last blog post..Dynamite Sermon Illustrations
Mark,
I see. Thanks for the “connotation” clarification.
What do you mean by “Gospel of grace through faith”? It is part of official Roman Catholic teaching that people are saved by grace alone through faith, so you must mean something more specific than that? Please explain?
Bradley
Bradleys last blog post..::: Ancient Persian Imperial History :: pt 2 :: The Empire’s Peak
Matt’s post above relates to this too where merit is concerned. Initial justification in the Roman Catholic teaching is by faith. Then, we have the persons own merit that adds to their justification and then salvation. This is not trusting in Christ and His work (merit) alone.
For example.
Mark Lamprechts last blog post..Dynamite Sermon Illustrations
Mark,
I think you nailed it. It appears that at the beginning Catholics preach the gospel, but they quickly abandon the gospel by moving away from grace to a works based/merit justification.
Any gospel not fully based on grace, from beginning to end, is a false gospel. Agreed?
NOTE: I wish I knew how to make parts of my comment “block” quotes like you did, but since I don’t, I put an @ symbol in front of all quotations.
Mark,
You may already know everything I’m getting read to say, but please bear with me.
Saint Augustine held, and Catholic dogma holds, that final justification (or the inheritance of eternal life at the final judgment) is by grace-wrought works of faith done by the merit of Christ, all of which is purely the grace of God (sola gratia). According to Catholic teaching, then, man has no merit attained merely on his own account—only that which is given to him by the merit of Christ through the grace of God.
Also, for St. Augustine and for Catholics, to merit something is different than deserving it, but refers to God’s rewarding of good works—itself an act of grace—which good works were done by grace in the first place.
The section on merit in the Catholic Catechism begins with Augustine’s famous quote:
@ “You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts.” *Catechism of the Catholic Church: With Modifications from the Editio Typica, second edition (New York, New York: Dobuleday: 1995), 541.
Indeed, as if a response to protestant objections, it is the chief emphasis of this section that merit is attained only by the merit of Christ through grace.
@ “With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator. … [T]he merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit. … [Adoption by grace] can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. … Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.” *Ibid., 541-42, par 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011.
Thus, when one read the councils of the decrees of Trent, one must notice how careful the wording is: they are not denying that good works are the gift of God, wrought through faith. They are holding the position that merit that results from good works is itself a gift from God and by pure grace.
@ “If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such a manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, [namely] eternal life, and in the case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.” *Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, trans. Rev. H. J. Schroeder, O.P. (Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1978), 46, can 32.
Also, St. Augustine taught that final justification (or inheritance of eternal life) was by merit that accrues from good works.
@ “Now from this body of death not everyone is liberated who ends the present life, but only he who in this life has received grace and given proof of not receiving it in vain by spending it in good works… It is after this life, indeed, that the reward of perfection is bestowed, but only upon those by whom in their present life has been acquired the merit of such a recompense.” On Man’s Perfection in Righteousness, ch. 17 in Schaff, vol V, page 164.
He writes further:
@ “Wherefore, even eternal life itself, which is surely the reward of good works…” Enchiridion, ch. 107 in Schaff, Vol. V, 271-72.
@ “If eternal life is rendered to good works, as the Scripture most openly declares…” On Grace and Free Will, ch. 19, in Schaff, 451.
Thus, the Roman Catholic idea of merit is something given by the merit of Christ by virtue of our being united with Him, and is a gift of God by pure grace alone. Does this count for anything to you, or are you still prepared to say that Catholics don’t trust solely in the grace of God? If the latter, how would you say that official Roman Catholic teaching is not the gospel on the one hand, and that St. Augustine did believe the gospel on the other hand (assuming you think Augustine was a Christian)? In other words, if Catholics who believe Catholic dogma cannot be considered gospel believers by virtue of their belief in merit and by virtue of the role of good works in the final justification, does this not also rule out St. Augustine from being a Christian (not to mention the pre-Reformation church that largely followed his teaching on justification)?
Also … Catholics do believe in the incarnation, death, burial, resurrection and lordship of Jesus Christ. That’s the basic gospel message (I Cor 15:1-4). It seems to me that you are confusing belief in the gospel with having a correct understanding of justification.
Your thoughts?
Bradley
Bradleys last blog post..::: Ancient Persian Imperial History :: pt 2 :: The Empire’s Peak
Matt,
Agreed.
But that raises a question.
Catholics understand all good works and merit as nothing but pure grace. Their understanding is that salvation is all of grace from beginning to end: grace prepares the sinner to receive the gospel; faith is given by the Holy Spirit; grace changes the sinner so that the sinner is “made righteous” (i.e. sanctified, made holy, etc.); by this grace and as a natural outgrowth of their grace-wrought faith, they do good grace-wrought works that God gratuitously rewards with eternal life by his grace, rewarding sinners with a glorified body they do not truly deserve (since all their so called “merit” is nothing but the grace of God).
That is the Catholic doctrine of salvation in a nutshell (minus a few Arminian details such as one can loose their salvation and a few sacramental details that are held in common with Martin Luther and many other Protestant Reformers and Protestant denominations … namely, that the grace of salvation is bestowed through baptism).
So your comment raises this question: Would you say the Catholic understanding of salvation is grace-based?
Bradley
Bradleys last blog post..::: Ancient Persian Imperial History :: pt 2 :: The Empire’s Peak
Matt,
I’m not confusing the Gospel with right understanding of justification. Have you forgotten about the Reformation and Trent? Those at Trent thought justification important enough to the Gospel to anathematize the solas. That is, my positions.
Further, we aren’t speaking about Augustine’s personal beliefs, but about the official Roman Catholic position.
We could look at a couple of quotes from Augustine.
Contrast those with Rome’s positions.
Even the Mormons believe, as stated in 2 Nephi, that they are saved by grace after all they can do. They too would agree with the 1 Cor. quote you gave above. I say this not to equate Rome with Mormons. I say this to show you that the understanding of the Gospel is more than just quoting Scripture and claiming to be “grace based”.
I don’t deny that Rome’s position does name grace. I believe they add something to grace as Trent seems to indicate against the Protestant position. Even Canon 32 you quote above states that by grace our good works merit eternal life.
This position of Rome’s concerning justification and grace is only the beginning. Other objections are the veneration of Mary (latria vs dulia), re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice at the Mass, purgatory, etc.
I hope you understand my position. I stand with the Reformers against the infallibly declared doctrines of Trent.
Mark
Mark Lamprechts last blog post..Bodies The Exhibition Visit
Mark,
Did you mean Bradley?
If not, I am unsure how my comment spurned that response. Maybe I am just misunderstanding something. It happens a lot!
Yep, sorry. I meant Bradley. I could edit…oh well.
Mark Lamprechts last blog post..Dynamite Sermon Illustrations
Mark,
Thanks for your thoughts and honesty.
So far, your grounds for accusing the Roman Catholic position of adding to grace appear to be based on the fact that they teach that we can merit eternal life by good works. You provide quotations to show this is what they teach. I was a step ahead of you, thought. I’ve already attempted to provide much needed clarifications on exactly how the Catholics understand the notion of meriting eternal life through good works. They understand that good works are simply grace “at work,” so that whatever merit we accumulate by good works is given purely by the grace of God on the basis of Christ’s merit. **I get this because as a Protestant I also believe that our good works come about purely by the grace of God.** So far, you haven’t addressed these quotations I have provided that demonstrate that Catholics understand both good works and merit as a gift of grace. Instead, you’ve provided statements that show what I already was assuming. Namely, that Catholics teach the meriting of eternal life by good works. Unless I’ve missed something, this does not appear to have taken us any further in our understanding of one another.
Maybe an illustration will help: The Catholic notion of receiving the reward of eternal life based on good works can be better understood if we compare it to Protestant notions of the judgment of believers. Protestants understand that varying degrees of reward will be given to believers. Our own understanding (as Protestants) is that our degree of reward in heaven will be based on our lives here and now (one might even say :: what we do with salvation/grace God has given us). According to protestant teaching, some believers will receive greater rewards than others, based on how they live (i.e. their works). Yet, at the same time, we wouldn’t say (as Protestants) that we therefore “deserve” such rewards, because whatever good we do in this life we do solely by the grace of God because of the work of Christ on our behalf. What we really deserve is eternal damnation. We will receive reward for our good deeds in heaven, but that doesn’t mean we don’t receive them totally by grace—we do. Everything—including the degrees of rewards that believers will receive in heaven—is given totally by grace, even thought it’s based on our works in this life. Just as Protestants allow for rewards to be given by grace, so the Catholics allow for the reward of eternal life to be given by grace. In other words, just because Catholics teach that eternal life is merited by good works doesn’t mean they understand such merit and good works to come about by something other than the grace of God. Sola gratia is compatible with the Catholic/Augustinian notions of merit, just as it is compatible with Protestant notions of work-based reward in the afterlife.
You say, “we aren’t speaking about Augustine’s personal beliefs, but about the official Roman Catholic position.” But Augustine is highly relevant to our discussion in several ways. For starters, Augustine laid the foundations for the Catholic understanding of Justification. No one was more influential on the doctrine of justification in the early development of Roman Catholicism than St. Augustine. More importantly, though, Augustine is relevant in a major way because if your objection to Catholicism sticks also on Augustine (since he also taught that eternal life is merited through good works) then you can’t logically consider St. Augustine a Christian. Yet another reason he is relevant is because you are already convinced that Augustine was a champion of sola gratia, so I want to show you that Augustine, just like the Catholics, understood even this meriting of eternal life by good works to be nothing more than God’s rewarding his own grace.
Augustine did not understand justification the way the Reformers did. He understood justification to mean “to be *made* righteous” by the infusion of grace (the imparting of the new heart, including faith and love), just as the Catholics believe.
e.g. Alister McGrath says:
@ “It is utterly alien to Augustine’s thought to speak of a forensic doctrine of justification, or of imputed righteousness in the Reformed sense of the term. The later patristic writers followed Augustine in their understanding of the nature of justification. Indeed it seems that this understanding of the nature of justification passed into the vernacular. … This understanding of justification can be shown to have been retained by all the scholastic writers up to the Council of Trent. … The basic meaning of the term “justification” as “making righteous” remained.” Alister E. McGrath, “Forerunners of the Reformation?: A Critical Examination of the Evidence for Precursors of the Reformation Doctrines of Justification,” Harvard Theological Review 75 no 1 (1982): 220.
As my quotations show, Augustine also believed that although initial justification could not be merited, after initial justification one must merit eternal life by good works. The quotations you provide from Augustine do not overturn this historical fact, and the quotations you provide must be understood in light of this fact. If you are interpreting Augustine’s strong statements of grace (that you have provided) as if they rule out the notion of meriting eternal life by good works, you have probably read your own Protestant categories into Augustine. It’s a common mistake. Augustine taught BOTH: 1) that salvation was totally by the grace of God, AND: 2) that eternal life was merited by good works. If you can’t understand how these could possibly fit together, and my illustration above was unhelpful in this regard, perhaps you should read more of Augustine and more of the ecumenical discussions that have recently taken place between Protestants and Catholics.
I hope that will help clarify my concerns and help us not speak past each other.
Thanks for your engagement with my thoughts.
Your Southern Baptist brother,
Bradley
Bradleys last blog post..::: Ancient Persian Imperial History :: pt 2 :: The Empire’s Peak
Swooping in on this conversation for no other reason than I have a spare 10 minutes, “ecumenical” behavior in the church is behavior which overlooks minor differences for the sake of a larger ecclesiastical objective. So for example, we refer to some of the councils of the early church (and even the medieval church) as “ecumenical” because they essentially represented all manner of beliefs for the sake of the church world-wide in order to set some point of doctrine to rest, insofar as that is possible. The word “ecumenical” means ” of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches”. So behaving in an “ecumenical” means that one has overlooked differences to join together on essentials.
“Cooperation”, as I understand it, would be the tactical or pragmantic execution of “ecumenism”. It is generally local and limited in objectives.
And here’s the problem as I see it, and as it relates to Mark’s overarching point vis. Roman Catholicism and “baptists”: there is no basis for ecumenism, therefore there is no basis for cooperation. Trent has anathematized all people who reject the deuterocanon as Scripture. You don’t have to go any farther than that to see how plain the differences between real Protestantism and actual Catholicism is. If that’s where either side demands a dividing line, there’s no sense talking about justification: there’s no basis for discussion.
When there is cooperation before ecumenism, we establish a false ecumenism. We sugar-coat deep and abiding differences. And we frankly dilute the Gospel in ways which do harm to the faith of others.
I’d be wary of any form of “cooperation” in which there is not a sound and clear statement of objectives involved. The matter of “cooperating” with unbelievers and the merely-cultural judeo-christians contributed to the current social problem we have as believers in politics today, where we are somehow equated with the republican party. That is our fault, and that the Gospel is seen as a gay-bashing, empire-making grab for wealth came in great part to our lack of care in establishing the basis for cooperation, and what it means for us to, for example, advocate in the political system for the right to life.
Frank Turks last blog post..Sometimes you give a guy a break
Bradley,
You said, “In other words, just because Catholics teach that eternal life is merited by good works doesn’t mean they understand such merit and good works to come about by something other than the grace of God.”
Isn’t this a key aspect of what the Reformation was about? Frank above shows why the Protestant and Roman Catholic faiths are incompatible without going to justification. The fact that Trent anathematizes the Protestant position of sola fide shows the incompatibility of the two positions. This is why I don’t understand what you’re trying to argue. It has all ready been “infallibly” declared dogma what Rome teaches.
The disagreement is really not about Augustine, Trent and McGrath’s treatment of the subject. My friend James Swan has a good article on these areas. Just look at the Trent’s canons on justification.
I’m curious, is this what’s being taught at Southern? That is, if I understand what you’re saying, that the Roman Catholic Gospel is acceptable as Christian? My pastor finished his PhD from Southern last December. I’m going to talk with him about this subject.
Thanks,
Mark
Mark Lamprechts last blog post..Top 9 Posts for May 09
Mark,
I’m afraid we are still speaking past each other.
1) I never argued that any Catholic position was “compatible” with any Protestant position. You are clotheslining scarecrows. I only argued that they have important “common ground” on salvation and justification. Your use of Franks comments are therefore irrelevant to my point.
2) You dismissed the relevance of Augustine without addressing my reasons for considering him relevant. For our dialogue to advance, you will need to engage these reasons. Otherwise we will continue to speak past each other.
3) I never argued that Trent was compatible with Protestantism. Again, you are clotheslining scarecrows.
4) No. This is not what’s being taught at Southern. No need to panic. What’s taught at Southern is the view that you are now espousing: that Catholics aren’t Christians because they condemned the gospel at the Council of Trent. I too once held this position. After doing my own research, however, I found this position to be untenable for a number of reasons.
5) Again, my arguments are as follows: 1) The Catholic understanding of salvation, including justification, is that it’s all by God’s grace. Belief in the inheritance of eternal life by good works does not undermine this aspect of the Catholic position, as I have argued. 2) If your accusation sticks against Roman Catholics, it also sticks against St. Augustine and the Pre-Reformation church that followed his doctrine of justification, which included the inheritance of eternal life according to works. And 3) Catholics believe in the triune God, Jesus Christ, trust in his incarnation, substitutionary death, burial, resurrection, and lordship. That doesn’t mean they understand justification the way we Protestants do (especially we Reformed Protestants), just that they still hold to the basic gospel message AS PAUL SUMMARIZED IT IN I COR 15:1-4.
6) Do you think I Cor 15:1-4 is an inadequate summary of the gospel?
I hope the above comments help clarify my train of thought. I think this issue is very important, so I’m willing to continue the dialogue so long as we don’t continue to speak past each other.
In Christ,
Bradley
Bradleys last blog post..::: Ancient Persian Imperial History :: pt 2 :: The Empire’s Peak
Sirs: John Gano preached from the same platform with George Whitefield, and they went to communion together (altho Gano’s memoirs does no specify what church). Whitefield said he would preach in St. Peter’s if the pope would led him. what I think these men had in mind was how about the other side being afraid that we might infect them instead of them infecting us. I remember professors being rather provoked over my positions on Scripture, Sovereign Grace, etc. A Heb. prof once asked me why I believed in irresistible grace. I answered, “Well, one reason would be Ps.65:4, where I think you will find the verb in the hiphil (the causative verb).” He opened his Heb. Bible to that verse, looked at it, said, “Your right,” closed his Bible and never again said another word about it. Interestingly enough he had signed that abstract of principles written by Basil Manly, Jr., in 1859 which is rather clear on the issue. So he was suppose to teaching in accordance with, and not contrary to, the teaching of irresistible or effectual grace. A little truth goes a long way. Why not think in terms of taking the whole earth with the leaven of the Gospel?
Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation
Very interesting post, thanks for letting me chime in with a Latter-day Saint view.
The Christian idea of “accepting Jesus” in your heart and specifically choosing to follow Him is a work indeed. This is required for salvation by Evangelicals. Salvation by the WORK of commiting to Christ.
Mormons believe that ALL are saved by grace and will be resurrected to immortality, a free gift of God to ALL mankind, purchased through the blood of Christ. We are SAVED from death by this grace. Those who reject Christ will be in “Hell,” which is better than not existing. Consider babies born in China millenia ago. They had no knowledge of Christ. Mormons (via the Bible) teach that these individuals will have the opportunity to accept Him eventually, if they choose. Protestants & Catholics teach these are damned. That is disturbing.
We must understand the difference between salvation and exaltation. Mormons believe that to be exalted requires more. This is to live where God lives and have the natural society of eternal family units, with the power to increase a kingdom the way a young couple can on Earth, as it is in heaven.
Also, I often hear people say Mormons aren’t Christians. The question is whether Christians are Mormon. Truly, there are many doctrines presented by Joseph Smith that have now become adopted by every wing of modern Christianity. These are teachings that Smith was ridiculed for and were not known then. Now they are common among Evangelicals. For a list see:
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/madsen_christians_mormon.htm
ethan,
About your list. Some of the things on that list Christians believed long before Joseph Smith was ever born. Other things on the list most evangelicals don’t believe.
“The Christian idea of “accepting Jesus” in your heart and specifically choosing to follow Him is a work indeed. This is required for salvation by Evangelicals. Salvation by the WORK of commiting to Christ.”
I think you are somewhat confused what Evangelicals believe about salvation. Not that all Christians are calvinists, but every calvinist I know would completely reject what I jsut quoted.