As one who grew up in a household split between a Protestant mother and Catholic father the Biblical issue which most tilted me toward the Catholic side was discovering that Protestants used an Old Testament different from what the writers of the New Testament used. As a teen-ager I couldn't get out of my head the fact that my "Bible-believing" relatives were all basically using a "censored" Bible--and yet bragged about using the "whole Bible." Not one had any idea of the controversy over "which Old Testament??"
Dr. Liccione,
Your comments concerning Trueman are spot on! I, to be honest, was somewhat surprised and very encouraged by Trueman's response, not least of which because some years ago he was very much against the NPP and especially as it concerned a move toward Rome. I got the sense that in his heart, his real objection Rome was not doctrinal or theological but experiential, e.g. I am not Catholic because the Papacy is a paper tiger argument! My prayers are with him hoping that as he continues to seek truth he will embrace the Church established by Christ.
Michael,
Good response. I'll never understand how the claim that Catholics are an institutional mess is supposed to be an argument against the Protestant inability to say what is in fact a mess. It's in sum what got me into the Church, despite all the great things I got from Reformed Evangelicaldom.
Michael,
A couple years ago I read both Oberman and a less scholarly author, Keith Mathison, who used Oberman as his guide in his book "The Shape of Sola Scriptura." It seems to me that they both err in seeing T1 as somewhat monolithic, whereas in fact, the T1 position actually spans a continuum from an almost "no tradition" extreme at one end (what Mathison calls T0), to a very 'high church' understanding of sola scriptura at the other, one that borders on T2.
This continuum creates a problem within Protestantism, as different groups of Protestants will invariably have different notions of what sola scriptura means. This problem makes it difficult for them to critique consistently a T2/T3 position (as an Orthodox, I hold to what you call T3 -- one fount of Revelation, not two, with Scripture being the epitome of the single fount.) What you end up dealing with is not a "Protestant" critique of T2/T3, but a given Protestant's critique of it, which of course isn't the same thing.
It's been a long time since I read Chemnitz, but I remember that for all of his various descriptions and definitions of "tradition," he never actually hit upon the T3 idea, and therefore his critique, in my opinion, fell short of the mark. He also wrote this: "The Catholic Church errs not by raising their traditions to the level of Holy Scripture, but by lowering the Scriptures to the level of tradition." (paraphrase) He's wrong, I believe, but considering his faulty understanding of 'tradition' it's no wonder that he (and other Protestants) see it this way.
Authority is one of the biggest issues that causes a Protestant to become Catholic. It was for me and also for many others I've spoken with.
Anyone who reads the Fathers can see that Christ gave His authority to Peter and his successors and that authority still resides in the Catholic Church. It's great to be Catholic!
In a fascinating little work graciously sent to me by Dr. Tighe, Dom Gregory Dix shows that the second-century Church assumed--and lived--the belief that the Roman See was the source and standard of doctrinal orthodoxy even before the New Testament Canon was jelled enough to serve as the ordinary source of Petrine proof-texts. IOW, the Apostolic Tradition (T3) preceded the crystallization of the NT Canon. Sola Scriptura would have been unthinkable (and flat impossible) for the primitive Church.
God bless,
Diane
P.S. BTW, my DH studied under both Heiko Oberman and his disciple Steven Ozment. He relates some interesting anecdotes WRT the former.
I just read that the great Presbyterian exegete, Bruce Metzger, passed away...God bless his soul. In the article, Metzger is noted as one who worked extensively on the role and use and development of the canon in the early Church. Does anyone know of his views in this regard?
The reason many protestants might believe that the RCC teaches a two source theory is that, in fact, the catholic church (in the sense of what everybody seemed to think) did teach a two-source theory for a long, long time, both before Trent and after and the canons of Trent, while not necessarily endorsing a two-source view, are easily compatible with it.
I find it strange that you would believe that all the protestant critiques of catholicism just spring from failures to understand it. Chemnitz was not only a smart person capable of reading the catholic position sympathetically--he actually attended the council of Trent. If Chemnitz believed that Trent established a two-source theory as dogma, it's a pretty fair bet that so did most of the fathers of the council of Trent.
So, as it turns out, I don't think its the case that the protestants are guilty of a willful misreading as that their point has been proven correct and the catholic church has, ex post facto, changed what it claims to have been saying all along.
But hey, that's just my private judgment.
s
You may be right, Scholasticus, but for whatever reason, Chemnitz doesn't really get near a T3 understanding. I don't know enough about Trent to know whether it taught T2, or whether its T3 just appeared to be a T2 understanding. Michael?
Dear Dr Liccione,
Many thanks for taking the time to offer a kind and thoughtful response to my post. You have certainly carried the discussion forward and I will post a link to this on the Reformation 21 website in the hope that it will continue to enrich the discussion.
With every good wish,
CRT
Dear Dr Trueman:
Thanks for stopping by! It's not often that I get a visit from a prominent pro—especially one that I've criticized. 
I look forward to your post and to what will doubtless be an "enriched" discussion.
Best,
Mike
scholasticus and rob:
Consider the following from Vatican II's Dei Verbum:
"9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known.
Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)
10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort."
The language used by the Fathers of Vatican II, who cited Trent in their footnotes and assumed continuity and consistency with Trent, allows Catholics to hold T2 but does not require it. The dogmatic texts are also compatible with the "two-mode" view, i.e. T3, which is what I hold because I believe it to be more historically accurate. The outline of Catholic-Protestant discussion on this topic is well drawn by Jimmy Akin.
Best,
Mike
"The language used by the Fathers of Vatican II, who assumed its continuity and consistency with Trent, allow Catholics to hold T2 but do not require it. The dogmatic texts are also compatible with the "two-mode" view, i.e. T3, which is what I hold because I believe it to be more historically accurate."
Thanks for the clarification, Mike. I'll check the Akin link. In my experience Protestants, in general, tend to believe that RCs and EOs hold to some form of T2 rather than T3, and often either don't know that T3 exists or don't see a difference between the two.
Mike (if I may),
It was a pleasure to stop by; and delightful to be critiqued in such a fashion.
Any chance you might blog on Newman's Grammar of Assent some time? I'd be very interested to hear what you, as a Catholic philosopher, have to say about that.
CRT
I refer the interested reader to Blackwell's "Galileo, Bellarmine and the Bible" which contains an exposition of catholic views on scripture just prior to and just after trent.
According to Blackwell the dominant understanding of the relation of scripture to tradition by such important catholic thinkers as melchior cano and roberto bellarmino was that the word of God was contained partly in the Bible and partly in the unwritten traditions of the apostles institutionalized in the magisterium.
my point is not that trent teaches T2. Actually, I do not think it does. My point is that many catholics for a long time seemed to think it did and the protestant critics of trent such as chemnitz were not simply attacking straw men.
now the question i'd like to ask is whether you think the t3 interpetation you are putting forward on the basis of vatican II contradicts the interpetations of cano and bellarmine? It seems to me that they do.
Rob, Carl, & Mike L.,
How would someone like Barth fit into this schema? One the one hand, he seemed to reject the T1 view that only Scripture is the Word of God, but on the other hand, he also seemed to reject the T2 view that Scripture and Tradition are distinct and equal. Would this make him a T3? I am curious to see what both sides have to say about this.
Thanks!
Drew
Can't really comment, Drew. When I was a Protestant, Barth was considered somewhat problematic among the folks I 'travelled' with and I was steered toward Berkouwer instead; consequently I never read much of Barth at all.
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your thoughtful post, and for continuing this conversation! Regarding your post, you write:
“On Trueman's view, which is hardly uncommon, the historic creeds are authoritative not in virtue of the ecclesiastical authority with which they were promulgated, but because they conform to Scripture interpreted independently of such authority. Now, I believe that such a conception of creedal authority entails that creeds have no authority at all. For the interpretation of Scripture apart from the teaching authority of the Church is always a matter of opinion.” Here I wonder what you mean by ‘opinion’ and ‘matter of opinion’? Does opinion here primarily mean that which has not been officially authorized by the teaching magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, or is there a sense in which opinion is being set in opposition to knowledge? Or is there another dimension to opinion that I am failing to consider? If opinion is primarily that which has not been authorized by the teaching magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, would the official pronouncements made by the Greek Orthodox Church that do not agree with the RCC be considered opinions?
As an addition to your comment on Luther and his famous description of St. James’ epistle as a “strawy epistle”—fair enough, but German Protestant Bibles do of course include the epistle in their Bibles and regard it as authoritative. My understanding is that the Protestant New Testament is identical to the Roman Catholic New Testament. Given this as well as the huge agreement between the Protestant and RC OT books, I wonder how many of the substantive differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics are based solely on Old Testament deutero-canonical books?
Now that my exams are finished (yeah!—my Cicero Latin exam was particularly brutal), I hope to do more reading in this important area and to summarize my readings in future blog posts.
Kind regards,
Cynthia
Hi Rob,
No problem...I was just curious. It does seem that Barth's popularity among Protestants isn't what is used to be. I was primarily curious what you as an Orthodox Christian had to say about it. Coming across Orthodox who have studied Barth is - through no fault of their own - a rare occurrence. I think that because Barth is so thoroughly Augustinian he simply isn't on the radar screen for most Eastern Christians...he just doesn't speak their language, I suppose. Be that as it may, the question of the relation between Barth's view of the Word of God and the T3 view that Mike L. elaborated could prove to be useful in finding common ground between Protestants and Catholics on the issue. It seems to me when I am reading Barth that you could replace "Scripture" and "Word of God" with "Tradition" and that the Church Dogmatics would almost sound Eastern in the experiential tone that Barth's writings have. Anyway, good thoughts.
Drew
Drew, I can't really recall any Eastern theologians who've discussed Barth, other than Joseph Farrell in his appendix to "Free Choice in Maximus Confessor," which is unfortunately out of print. Perry or Daniel might be able to help in this regard, though.
Hi Rob,
Thanks for the feedback. I thought that might be the case but I figured it was a worth a try. 
Good talking to you!
Drew
Diane:
In a fascinating little work graciously sent to me by Dr. Tighe, Dom Gregory Dix shows that the second-century Church assumed--and lived--the belief that the Roman See was the source and standard of doctrinal orthodoxy even before the New Testament Canon was jelled enough to serve as the ordinary source of Petrine proof-texts.
What is the name of that work by Dom Gregory Dix and do you know how I can obtain it?
Thanks and God Bless.
Reading materials on the nature of oral traditions in the first century and on, I am more convinced that the Church never practiced sola scriptura. Richard Bauckham has recently argued that the nature of Christian tradition was formal and controlled. They controlled tradition by writing letters, by holding councils, and by going to the apostles themselves. Reading the New Testament, the normative question was always, "Is this apostolic?" Again, they answered this by going to the authorities. I don't see how this practice changed after the death of the last apostle, the time Protestants say that sola scriptura became normative. In fact, Bauckham has publically stated that there are good Jesus traditions outside of the canonical gospels. I asked Bauckham whether unwritten traditions were normative after the death of the last apostle. And this is a piece from an email he sent me:
"Especially with the advent of the Gnostic groups and Gospels, the Fathers regarded 'the rule of faith' as a kind of orally transmitted summary of the true Gospel, though it had no fixed wording. They sometimes cite traditions of apostolic practice (e.g. Basil on the use of the doxology to the Trinity)." 4/6/07
Of course the issue is whether unwritten traditions are normative the same way the Scriptures are. But I don't see the notion that the written traditions are somehow superior over unwritten ones in the early church.
MER:
Dr. Metzger, from what I have been able to gather in my own study of some of his work and from others more familiar with it, had an interesting position on canonicity. Some have said he made a distinction between canonical works and works which were merely inspired. This, exemplified by his apparent acceptance of 1 Clement as inspired but not canonical, e.g., naturally put him at odds with most "conservative" evangelicals. He was also viewed with some suspicion for utilizing historical criticism. Dr. Metzger's thought was, succinctly, that canonical works were those recognized as both inspired and written by an eyewitness to the resurrected Lord. (Recognized by the growing Christian communities, that is.)
But I'm hardly an expert. I wish Dr. Metzger had examined the questions Dr. Liccione and Prof. Truedale address. It would have been interesting to see where he would have ended.
Nice post, Dr. L.
Er, Prof Trueman, sorry.
Dr. Metzger's thought was, succinctly, that canonical works were those recognized as both inspired and written by an eyewitness to the resurrected Lord. (Recognized by the growing Christian communities, that is.)
Mr. Burgess,
I find that criteria highly suspect in that, for example, the author of Hebrews is yet unknown but had been accepted as part of the Canon.
In short, I cannot fathom putting such trust in the Canon of the New Testament without actually trusting those who put it together, which is the Catholic Church.
Oh, I quite agree. And I should add that I was referring to his position on the formation of the NT canon only. By the way, if memory serves, Dr. Metzger believed either Luke or perhaps Apollos wrote Hebrews for Paul, but that early Christians were persuaded of Pauline authorship.
Thanks for interacting.
Interestingly, the formation of the canon -- and authorship of Hebrews -- was what got me to begin investigating issues of authority and eventually all other issues I had to deal with as I left Reformed Presbyterianism for Rome.
As a former Protestant, in my experience the creeds were treated with various degrees of authority. All my non-Anglican relations and friends of Methodist, Baptist, et al, beliefs, treated the creeds as matters of opinion, as guides to faith. None treated them with what I would call binding "authority". In the practice of their faith, the Apostles and Nicene creeds were not something to treasure, to memorize or to depend upon.
To me the hardest thing to accept in my becoming a Catholic was to accept "authority": the authority of the Church, the "dogma" (such a hard word), and the authority of the institution. It seems that once one crosses the line all the bugbears of centuries, disguised by academic niceties, are revealed.
Mike L.,
Regarding authority in the Church, does Dei Verbum teach that the Scripture is "over" the Church or vice versa? I've been reading Barth and Pannenberg lately, and I'm not sure if their take on this issue is in accord with or at odds with the official teaching of the RCC...help?
Thanks,
Drew
Or is there another dimension to opinion that I am failing to consider?
I think that you are not accounting for what Pio Nono calls "mere opinion." It might be illuminating to consider the difference between a textbook about law and the body of law itself. The former is someone's mere opinion about the law, and however good, reliable, and persuasive it might be, it lacks binding force. This is not the case with the body of law itself (statutory and case law). The latter binds one who accepts the rule of law granting formal authority to the pronouncement. When one accepts something solely to the extent it conforms to one's own understanding of the law, that is what is meant in Catholic parlance by "private judgment" or "mere opinion."
Effectively, the Protestant treats all councils as commentaries on the law rather than being law themselves, accepting them only to the extent they conform to the Protestant's understanding of what the law is. But the flip side is that he lacks any power to say what the law is. He can never hold out his own opinion or anyone else's as having the force of divine truth, because by his own admission, only Scripture has that force.
By definition, one can only give the assent of faith to what one knows to have the force of divine authority. That is why one cannot consent to councils in the Protestant view except by "mere opinion." One is not consenting to the decrees of a council based on their divine force but rather based on one's opinion about their conformity with what does have divine force. That's why T1 is ultimately a statement that one's belief in councils is a matter of mere opinion.
Be that as it may, the question of the relation between Barth's view of the Word of God and the T3 view that Mike L. elaborated could prove to be useful in finding common ground between Protestants and Catholics on the issue.
This was exactly the impression I had from reading Bruce Marshall's Trinity and Truth. He approached the issue of revelation and truth from a Barthian perspective, and my impression was "Wow! This is a Protestant with whom Catholics can really have a conversation!"
Naturally, he then converted to Catholicism.
Nonetheless, I think there are still folks on the Protestant side of the divide who are sympathetic to your aims. I'd commend Telford Work's fantastic (and award-winning) volume Living and Active: Scripture in the Economy of Salvation. He studied under Wainwright and Hauerwas, and he's incredibly sharp.
Terah,
It is *Jurisdiction in the Early Church: Episcopal and Papal* by Dom Gregory Dix (London, 1975: Church Literature Association), which was a posthumous publication, in book form, of a series of articles (comprising a review of *A History of the Papacy to AD 461* by Berenson J. Kidd, an anti-papal Anglo-Catholic) that Dix (who lived from 1901 to 1952, and who was a "papalist" Anglo-Catholic) published in the quarterly journal of the Anglican Benedictine community of Nashdom Abbey, *Laudate,* in 1937 and 1938. The book is long out of print, and only 5 or 6 libraries in America have even partial runs of *Laudate.*
I would also strongly recommend (even if it lacks the crisp wittness characteristic of Dix) *Communio: Church and Papacy in Early Christianity* by Ludwig (Freiherr von) Hertling, SJ (Chicago, 1972: Loyola University Press), previously published as "Communio und Primat" in *Una Sancta,* Vol. 17, 1962.
Jonathan,
Thanks for the feedback and the book suggestion! The funny thing about Barth is that he, unlike a few others like him, remained a committed Protestant to the day he died. Von Balthasar's book on Barth is most enlightening in explaining why, viz., Barth's irrascible denial of any kind of "analogy of being" or natural theology, which, IMHO, warps his Trinitarian theology into a kind "monergism" of an "Absolute Subject." If we may the schema of monergy vs. synergy in sanctification onto the different options on the relation between Scripture and Tradition, it is perhaps possible to see in the concept of "tradition" man's response back to the "revelation" of God in Scripture. Thus, if the RCC holds the two to be equal, Protestants may interpret this as implying a kind of "works-based" salvation, and this is, I am fairly certain, why Barth himself rejected Catholicism. However, the schema that Barth *seemed* to have settled with did not square with another aspect of Barth's teaching: the doctrine of the Word of God itself. The Barth, the Bible was not the revelation of God per se, but rather was man's response and testimony to the revelation of God which had already occurred. This understanding of the Word of God could very easily be identified with "Tradition," which would lead us directly into the T3 view. Now, all of this is speculation, but I do think it can be supported by a careful reading of vol. I.1 of the Church Dogmatics. Any thoughts?
Drew
Correction: "If we map," not "if we 'may.'" Thanks.
Drew, here is a brief synopsis on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition in the light of Dei Verbum:
Both Scripture and Tradition are revelatory, they act as the Word of God. The Canon, those books that the Church holds to be inspired and fixed, is inspired within the Tradition. But, the inspired tradition surpasses the objective content of Scripture. Scripture is understood more fully through Tradition because it actualizes scripture. With Tradition, God continues the dialogue of salvation with the bride of His Son, and in the Spirit the voice of the Gospel continues to be echoed in the Church. The Spirit leads believers into the Spirit of Truth and fills them with the Word. Scripture and Tradition are distinct yet united, an inseparable and interdependent whole. As a union, they both spring forth from the same stream of Living Water, both help to express the mystery and lead all to salvation.
Both Scripture and Tradition are the Word of God. Scripture is the Word written under the Holy Spirit. Tradition is the Word entrusted by Christ and handed down through the Holy Spirit in its full purity from Jesus to the apostles to their successors. In the light of the Spirit, the preserve and teach the Word, explain and spread it. Both Scripture and Tradition complete one another. If Scripture is unclear on a point, Tradition can elaborate on it. Each sheds light upon the other.
Divine Revelation=Sacred Scripture+Sacred Tradition. Both tend toward the same goal which is the salvation of men and union with God, hence both deserve the same loyalty and respect.
Relation Between Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium
Both Scripture and Tradition form one deposit and One Word of God. They teach of one mind and heart, in the teaching of the church, its common life, Eucharist and prayers. The Magisterium, as Christi Capitas, is the authentic interpreter of the Word of God, whether written or handed on. Jesus entrusts this to the living teaching office of the Church, to teach and preach in his name. The entire Christian people, united with the shepherds, are faithfully attached to the Word of God. The Church, as the Body of Christ, head and members, preserves the teaching of the apostles, with full harmony of mind and heart. The Church, in every age, imitates the apostolic Church, and preserves the revelation. However, the authentic interpretation belongs to the Magisterium to whom God has entrusted this authority. The Magisterium serves the Word of God (scripture/tradition) and she teaches nothing more than what has been handed down. She listens to God’s Word, and is the first to listen to the Word, as Mary ponders all things in her heart. The Magisterium guards the Word, adds nothing to it, loses nothing (just as nothing can be added to Scripture, the same rule applies to Tradition). Our revelation and understanding is perfected through the centuries (DOD). We express, formulate, the richness of doctrine through the centuries, the Magisteriu
We express, formulate, the richness of doctrine through the centuries, the Magisterium protects against deviation and heresy. She explains the Word, and proposes the Word to all men at all times. The Magisterium draws upon the fountain of living water which brings life to all men.
Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium are all bound together in an union as 3 distinct realities under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. All cooperate in the salvation of souls, and all act in mutual service to lead all men to union with God.
Criteria for Interpreting Scripture (DV 12 CCC 112-114)
1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture." Different as the books which comprise it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.
The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church." According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture ("according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").
3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
This answer was compiled from my MA comp exams in Systematic Theology.
Another recent book that has an interesting section on Scripture and Tradition is Thomas Oden's THE REBIRTH OF ORTHODOXY. Oden was a liberal Methodist who began reading the Fathers and found his theological liberalism to be untenable. He has since begun an effort to get other Protestants to read them too, primarily through his 'Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture,' which is a very good series of patristic commentaries.
In THE REBIRTH OF ORTHODOXY Oden proposes the Vincentian Canon to Protestants as a guide for them to begin to look at Tradition again. I don't think the argumentation of the proposal is totally successful, but it is a step in the right direction, as are the commentaries.
The thing about Oden that, IMHO, vitiates his whole enterprise (and that of others like him) is that he still supports the "ordination" of women and somehow thinks that it can be squared with his rebirth of purported orthodoxy.
Mr. Tighe,
Thank you for the sources!
I agree, Dr. Tighe. I was commenting merely on his efforts to encourage the reading of the Fathers among Protestants. Having said that though, it seems to me that one way out of a commitment to W.O. is by continued attentive reading of the Fathers!
Rob:
This is off topic, but as I don't have your e-mail address, this venue will have to do.
I recall your several times having commented, on this blog and elswhere, that you wanted to see a Catholic response to Fr. Andrew Louth on development of doctrine. Now since you didn't comment on it, I don't know whether you noticed that I've provided just that:
http://mliccione.blogspot.com/20...-louth-
and.html
Since the thread is long buried, it won't do people much good for you to react there. If you have a comment to make about that post, please e-mail it to me. I'll either reply by e-mail or post about it, depending on your preference.
Best,
Mike
P.S. My next DD post will take on Fr. John Behr.
Thanks, Mike. I'll check it out.
Rob
Drew:
I've got reasons why I think that won't work, and rather than making this thread too Barth-centered, I've laid them out on my blog, where you are welcome to comment:
http://crimsoncatholic.blogspot....ord-of-
god.html
Thanks Jonathan,
I will be sure to check it out.
Thanks again,
Drew
Actually the reversion of Dr. Beckwith doesn't matter at all beyond the rarefied air of religious blogs and think tanks. The average Protestant couldn't tell you who Dr. Beckwith is and neither could the vast majority of Catholics in the pews.
"Actually the reversion of Dr. Beckwith doesn't matter at all beyond the rarefied air of religious blogs and think tanks."
Not so, Dymphna. If Protestants who do know who Dr. Beckwith is begin to follow his lead and read church history, the Fathers, etc., there could be a ripple effect. It may not be a tidal wave but it could be something. As an Orthodox, I witnessed this type of thing in the conversions of Frank Schaeffer and Jaroslav Pelikan, and something similar could happen here.
Rob,
I agree with you. I also find interesting the changing intellectual demographic in American Christianity over the past 15-20 years. For the most part, those who might find cause to look into Apostolic Christianity because of a Beckwith a Schaeffer or a Pelikan are going to be intellectuals or at least moderately well read persons. As more and more intellectuals leave Evangelicalism and conservative Protestantism, we see it getting, frankly, stupider and stupider (if I might be so crass). I doubt Evangelicalism could produce another Beckwith. Or another Carl Henry. Or another John Stott even. There will surely be a plethora of Rick Warren's in its future. Also, consider the changing demographic among Catholics and Orthodox. There was a time in this country when your average fiercely devout Catholic face was that of a little old Italian lady. Now your average fiercely devout Catholic faces might be those of an urban 30-something couple with 5 degrees between them. In American and English Orthodoxy one sees the same thing. Perhaps 40 percent of American converts to Orthodoxy could be considered, loosely, to be intellectuals. One fear I have in this is that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy become too intellectually parochialized. One might like to think that where the intellectuals go the rest of the culture will follow but pop culture has forever ended that game, and the Anglican tradition in the last 200 years has shown that sometimes the opposite can occur. But in the end, in a culture which embraces the stupid, I would rather be in the company of people who bother to attempt to think once in a while than wave my hands to erotic Jesus is my dreamboat music.
"One fear I have in this is that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy become too intellectually parochialized."
I agree, Och, but I think this is rather a greater threat in American Orthodoxy than in Catholicism just because of sheer numbers. Because Orthodoxy in America is so much smaller, the influx of "intellectuals," although fewer in number, may have a higher concentration.
Commenting by HaloScan
