What’s Wrong with the World

Please persevere and continue to do incredible things, Dr. Beckwith!! I’m working on an educational YouTube video that is based on your brilliant book titled Defending Life A Moral And Legal Case Against Abortion Choice. It is going to take me a lot of time to finish the video. I want it (the video) to be a question and answer video that is highly beneficial for people that are looking for answerers to all types of pro-life questions. I hope that other people will finish other educational projects that are based on your aforementioned book before I do. It is going to take me a lot of time to finish the aforementioned project. We must try our best to educate people on the pro-life position (using the best educational resources available!!). We must never give up.

I don't really like making predictions but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Geisler's answer to his book title/question is no.

Speaking as an ETS member, I hope the amendment doesn't pass. I'd love for you to feel welcome there again one day, Frank. We have so much in common.

You're very kind, Michael. Thank you. I've purposely stayed out of this debate, and for that reason will not be attending the ETS meeting this year. However, I plan on attending after 2008, and perhaps delivering some papers. I have not resigned as a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, which meets in conjunction with ETS every year. So, I still hope to contribute to ETS for years to come.

Hi, Frank. I was looking at the proposed 11-clause statement that's being proposed ( http://www.dennyburk.com/AmendETS/?page_id=3 ). I can guess, but am not sure I'd identify all the problems (& I don't want to embarrass myself here!), so I thought I'd just ask: Which portions of the proposal are problematic for Catholics?

I must be wrong since the amendment page says:

The Tyndale fellowship unites around evangelical truths a broad group of Christian scholars from varying denominational and theological perspectives (Calvinists, Wesleyans, Baptists, Anglicans, etc).

But isn't #8 a denial of Wesleyan synergism; isn't it a statement that is only consistent with Reformed monergism?

8. The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners, enabling them to turn to God from their sin and to trust in Jesus Christ.

I was so dense that I read the main post as saying that the amendment would _allow_ Catholics to belong to the ETS. I get it now.

Wouldn't it be simpler for them simply to come out and say what they mean instead of trying to do it roundabout with doctrinal statements?

#10 is the most problematic, for the ETS itself. It doesn't really say anything at all, because "true believer" is undefined. Does it mean that all and only Marvel comics fans are members of the Universal Church?

Or, maybe they are saying that outside the Catholic Church, with the Bishop of Rome as her vicar on earth, there can be no salvation.

How does ETS feel about having an effectively meaningless statement as part of their statement of faith?

Speaking as an Eastern Orthodox, non-anti-Western, former Evangelical, it seems to me that the question the Evangelicals need to answer is not "Is Rome the True Church?" but "Is there, or can there be, such a thing as the 'true church'?" Evangelical ecclesiology does not seem to allow for that beast to even exist, except in the vague, rather nebulous sense of the "blessed company of all faithful people."

Wouldn't it be simpler for them simply to come out and say what they mean instead of trying to do it roundabout with doctrinal statements?

If they just came out and said "no Catholics allowed" that wouldn't be very charitable. The better route to go for those who would exclude Catholics (and I'm not a member but if I was I wouldn't be one of those who wanted to) is to give a positive, doctrinal description of what it means to be an evangelical.

It sounds uncharitable. But I don't quite understand how it is objectively any more uncharitable than trying to achieve "no Catholics allowed" in a different fashion. It's best to be honest: This happened because one of the founders stood up and said that they originally put in one of the phrases in the original very minimal statement of faith *because they wanted to exclude Catholics.* Now, that's straightforward enough, but as it happened, some Catholics believed they could still subscribe in good faith to the statement of faith. The whole point of the current amendment process is apparently to achieve the goal of making it clear that Catholics are excluded, based on the original purpose of the organization not to include Catholics. That is either allowed by charity among Christians or it isn't. But it isn't somehow _more_ allowed by charity if they do it by way of doctrinal statements that they hope Catholics will not be able to subscribe to than if they do it by saying outright, "No Catholics allowed." That's the purpose of the whole exercise in any event. The clearer the doctrinal statements are, the closer they are going to get to "no Catholics allowed." For example, they might say, "There is no positive teaching magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture." Or, "There is no vicar of Christ on earth." Those would exclude Catholics, all right, but at that point the difference from "no Catholics allowed" is invisible to the naked eye.

I say it's better to be straightforward.

These theologians obviously feel that what they mean by evangelical (and what ETS as an organization means by evangelical) is inconsistent with Roman Catholicism. When they see that some Roman Catholics "still subscribe in good faith to the statement of faith" than they have to conclude that their statement is ill defined. It seems better to me (not least for the health of the organization) to be more precise in what is entailed by evangelical than to define the organization by what it doesn't accept. Being more precise in their definition of evangelical allows them to put the focus on the positive content of what they mean by it. Which they obviously think has merit on its own than to just say that it isn't Catholic.

I know I'm doubly-dense, but could someone explain to me why these ETS members see "evangelical" and "Catholic" as mutually exclusive terms? The Catholic Church has effectively communicated the Gospel to Billions of members throughout the centuries; how much more "evangelical" can you get?

Regarding ETS membership by Roman Catholics, the amendments are unnecessary because when the ETS founders affirmed in the late 1940s that the Bible, and the Bible only, was the inspired and inerrant word of God, by "Bible" they meant the 66 books of the Protestant canon, not the Apocrypha, which Catholics count both as Bible and inspired, and which the ETS founders did not. To the ETS founders, the affirmation of inspiration and inerrancy did not include books outside the Bible. The apocryhpa, they believed, is outside the Bible. For a Catholic to subscribe to the original intent of the ETS founders would be either to deny Catholic doctrine and Catholic Scripture, or to fudge the original intent of the ETS founders.

If you affirm one theology in its original form, you cannot affirm the other. You can't really walk two paths at once, even if you want to. You must make a principled choice and live with the consequences.

Hi MarkC,

Evangelical (as it is used in contemporary theology and even culture) entails more than just doing evangelism. It usually entails something about biblical inerrancy, sola scriptura, solo fide etc. At least I think its safe to say that these are the things that the supporters of the ETS amendment have in mind.

But if evangelical is to be tightly allied with Reformed theology (or Calvinism) as the amendment appears to portray than Wesleyans (or Arminians) will also be increasingly shunned. It would be interesting to to know how ETS members would handle an N. T. Wright membership.

See, Mike D, I think you're making my point for me by pointing out the issues concerning Arminianism, Anglicanism, etc. I think that for the sake of clarity organizations like that need to get over their psychological weddedness to the idea that they _must_ state these things positively and then force the people they wish to exclude to _deny_ something positive. I think that's just a desire to "look positive." Of course, they are entirely free to say, "No Catholics allowed" and then to go on to say what they think is good and positive about being a Protestant, as a kind of explanatory note. But that still keeps things quite clear.

I suppose come to think of it that a statement of sola fide (just saying "Salvation is by faith alone") _might_ do the job, though, given that if I'm not mistaken the Council of Trent expressly condemned sola fide and said that salvation was by both faith and works. I wonder if Catholics would accept that as exclusionary in itself.

I think that for the sake of clarity organizations like that need to get over their psychological weddedness to the idea that they _must_ state these things positively and then force the people they wish to exclude to _deny_ something positive.

I suppose but it seems to turn on whether or not you think you're group's distinctives have enough positive merit to stand on their own. If the American Catholic Philosophical Association decided to get exclusive about their membership (I have no idea if they are or would want to be) they would state Catholic distinctives (papacy, magisterium, etc). I doubt they would feel the need to add "by the way we're not Evangelical Protestants". I doubt that would even enter their minds because they know that Roman Catholicism has plenty of distinctives that make it what it is. Simply stating Catholic distinctives would be sufficient and it allows the organization to not be defined by its negations.

The ETS members pushing the amendment must have something similar in mind; that evangelical theology has enough positive distinctives to stand on its own. Besides you should know that Protestants (protesters) don't enjoy being defined as "not Roman Catholic" :)

Here's something I posted on the AmendETS.com website several months ago. (You can find the entire entry here).

Points 4 and 5 seem to be inconsistent with each other:

“4. Since the fall, the whole of humankind is sinful and guilty, so that everyone is subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.

5. The Lord Jesus Christ, God’s incarnate Son, is fully God; he was born of a virgin; his humanity is real and sinless; he died on the cross, was raised bodily from death and is now reigning over heaven and earth.”

How can “the whole of humankind” be “sinful and guilt” while the Lord Jesus Christ’s “humanity is real and sinless”? If Jesus is fully human and the whole humankind is sinful, then Jesus is sinful. But if Jesus is not sinful, then the whole humankind is not sinful, for Jesus (per Chalcedon) is fully human.

Also, are doubts about parts of the 66 books acceptable under this new statement of belief? IN other words, does it include the old or new ending of Mark, the Trinitarian passage in I John 5:7, or the woman caught in adultery in John, all of which have been challenged as authentic?

#7 is also puzzling:
“7. Those who believe in Christ are pardoned all their sins and accepted in God’s sight only because of the righteousness of Christ credited to them; this justification is God’s act of undeserved mercy, received solely by trust in him and not by their own efforts.”

For it puts ETS in the peculiar position of excluding those present at the Council of Orange, which teaches infused rather than imputed grace. It also would exclude any Anglican members of ETS who would accept the view of justification offered by John Henry Newman in his Lectures on Justification (which he wrote before he became Catholic). Or perhaps Jonathan Edwards would not make the cut, since his view of “infused grace” sounds suspiciously Catholic.

One of the risks of this amendment is that if it loses, then some will draw the conclusion that what it was intended to exclude cannot be excluded. That is, by suggesting that ETS requires this change in order to affirm a particular understanding of theology, the absence of this change would seem to entail that that particular understanding is not excluded by the current doctrinal statement.

Frank

To quote Michael Myers' Linda Richman, "Now, discuss."

I think the "66 books" argument is the strongest case against Catholic inclusion in ETS. But I have two counter-arguments:

1. When I was president-elect of ETS, we amended the bylaws to include a statement that affirmed that ETS's view of Scripture should be seen through the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which does not define the parameters of the OT canon, but merely states: "It appears that the Old Testament canon had been fixed by the time of Jesus. The New Testament canon is likewise now closed, inasmuch as no new apostolic witness to the historical Christ can now be borne." But this leaves open the possibility that the OT does include the deutero-canonical books.

2. Why not include Catholics who embrace a high view of Scripture? Perhaps they will learn from their Protestant friends and vice versa. This cross pollination can't help but enrich each others perspectives. I know that the counter-argument is, "But that's what AAR and SBL are for!" But I think that misses a deeper point: serious Catholics and Protestants share much more with each other than they do with the wide range of religious traditions that are represented at AAR and SBL. These in-common interests include a commitment to Christian orthodoxy and a high of Scripture.

Frank

My impression of the sheer breadth of the new statement is that it's cracking a peanut with a sledge-hammer. If they wanted to include all that material for its own sake, then it could be argued point by point. But is all of that really required to exclude Roman Catholics, if that is their goal?

Even if they want to find some sort of "magic bullet" statement that will exclude Roman Catholics while sounding like a positive statement that can stand on its own (to refer to Mike d's comments), surely something briefer would suffice.

For example, perhaps they might affirm the God-given ability of laymen to interpret the Bible accurately without the assistance of magisterial teaching. That sounds a _bit_ negative but can be spun positively as "priesthood of all believers" or "individual soul liberty" or something of that sort, with the gloss just given about the individual's right to interpret. I would think no Catholic could sign on to that in good conscience, and their goal would be fulfilled, without the need to fight all the Calvinist vs. Armenian wars over again.

Mind you, I'm not here meaning to imply that it's a *good idea* to try to exclude Catholics from the ETS. My own preference is for a somewhat bigger tent. But why are they doing it in such a complicated way? I find that baffling.

"For example, perhaps they might affirm the God-given ability of laymen to interpret the Bible accurately without the assistance of magisterial teaching." That would, of course, defeat the whole purpose of having a statement of faith issued by those with the authority to do so in ETS. After all, if the assistance of magisterial teaching is unnecessary, then why have a statement of faith that has normative status, unless those who issue that statement are in a special position with the requisite insights to issue such statements? A passive-aggressive magisterium is still a magisterium.

Frank

Oh, I think that's easy enough. The idea would be just to say, "This is a private club with a defined membership. This is who we want in the club. We're not anybody special and have no special right to interpret the Bible, and of course Catholics, like anybody, can interpret the Bible for themselves. But we're just saying what this club stands for. If Catholics interpret Scripture to mean that private interpretations are dubious and that a magisterium is needed, that's their right. But that's not what this club is all about."

I'm just an outsider looking in, but what Lydia has stated above makes perfect sense -- at least, to me.

Dr. Beckwith: Why are you so insistent with including Catholics into the ETS? Although I find the determination in your efforts admirable, I just don't see (after what both Michael Bauman and Lydia has rightly mentioned in their previous posts) why any Catholic would even consider joining since many of the principles stated appear contrary to Catholic Teaching.

The ETS is, after all, for Evangelicals and, therefore, is governed accordingly.

For the record, I want to be clear that I think Frank's vision of a society that includes both Catholics and Protestants for cross-pollination purposes is a good one. But I suppose it's up to the membership of the ETS (I guess there will be some global vote?) on whether the ETS will itself choose to be such a society or not. My perspective here is just that I think some further grief down the line for everyone involved can be saved, if the ETS _does_ decide definitely to exclude Catholics, if they do so in an open and straightforward way without any dancing for the sake of "looking positive" or "not looking uncharitable." If it's uncharitable to exclude Catholics, they should conclude that independently and not try to do so. It doesn't, in that case, make it any _more_ charitable to do so by way of doctrinal statements that Catholics might plausibly sign in good conscience. And if it's not uncharitable, then why not call a spade a spade? Look at the trouble and pain that has arisen already as a result of not saying outright what they were trying to do.

The gap between the ETS statement and the RCC's magisterium is enormous in content, in purpose, and in function. The ETS statement is identificational, not magisterial. That is, it provisionally defines and provisionally identifies the group; it sets up provisional and movable membership boundaries. Thus, while it defines and affirms, it does not speak with anything like divine authority. Unlike the RC magisterium, if ETS members can muster the requisite number of votes, they can change the content of the identificational affirmation at will in any direction. They can change all of it, some of it, or none of it, as they wish. All they need is enough votes. The ETS is a deliberative and democratic theological society, with rules appropriate to the organization. Its rules are not to be compared to the RCC's magisterium anymore than are the rules of Boy Scout membership or the Scouts' code of honor. To employ the "M" word here seems to me an unjustifiable stretching of the term, one that works only if one papers over the important and enormous differences involved. The chief characteristic of the magisterium, is not that it defines membership and belief. That which sets it apart from all Protestant declarations must not be diminished, namely its divine authority. The ETS statement makes no pretense to such authority. The differences between the ETS statement and the magisterium of the RCC are far large than their superficial similarities.

Also unlike the RC magisterium, those with the authority to establish the boundaries of ETS membership are the members themselves -- not someone else -- not a select caste who is "in a special position with the requisite insights to issue such statements." This stands in sharp contrast to the Roman hierarchy, which does exercise such a function for those lower down the ladder, a hierarchy that need not submit its decisions to all the members of the church in order to make those decisions binding. They come TO all the the members as binding already, not to the members to establish if they are binding or not, and acceptable or not. Magisterial teaching is not conducted by popular vote. The fact that the ETS members intend to have a vote on the issue shows how very different their affirmation is from the RCC's magisterium -- in content, purpose, and function. In other words, it's not a magisterium, passive-aggressive or otherwise.

The Chicago Statement does not include the apocrypha. Any argument to the contrary must argue from silence, and be subject to all the weaknesses that accompany such an argument. In this case, given the clarity and consistency of Protestant and evangelical statements regarding the alleged canonicity of the apocrypha over the years, I think the weaknesses of the argument from silence are fatal and cannot win the day.

But, hey, I'm a Protestant. Of course I'd say that (wink).

Does the fact that a Catholic accepts the inspiration of the 66 canonical books plus the 7 deutero-canonicals really mean one is not "evangelical"?

Martin Luther wanted to exclude the book of Revelation from the canon. Would that mean he was not an "evangelical"?

The problem with merely stating "no Catholics are welcome" is it appears arbitrary and petty and does not get to the heart of what an evangelical really "is". What really is the crux of the issue? Why is it that Catholics should never be thought of as "evangelicals" no matter how "evangelical" their outlook?

Was St. Francis an evangelical? If not, was it because he accepted the inspiration of the books of Maccabbees (among others)?

Why does an identifying statement of the sort in question have to "get to the heart of the matter"? Catholics and Protestants have been arguing for a long time. There are plenty of different ways into seeing the "heart of the matter." It isn't clear to me that trying to "get to the heart of the matter" should take precedence over avoiding future misunderstanding and painful interpersonal problems when someone already a member of the ETS joins the Catholic Church. Better for it to be clear beyond all doubt one way or another so that this sort of decision-making doesn't come up again over and over in the course of the society's history.

That being said, does my idea of the individual believer's ability to interpret Scripture without a teaching magisterium seem to you to get more to the "heart of the matter," MarkC? If so, I suggest that it would be sufficiently clear for the purpose of those who wish to exclude Catholics from the ETS while at the same time alluding to a fairly central doctrinal or at least meta-doctrinal point of difference between Catholics and Protestants. And it ought to avoid excluding Methodists or Anglicans, too.

If they want to go the exclusionary route, that is. Perhaps it would be better not to go that route at all. But if so, that should be clarified as well.

Dr. Beckwith: Why are you so insistent with including Catholics into the ETS?

A very good question indeed. The answer, of course, is the V2 call for ecumenism among Trinitarian, Bible-believing Christians, as Dr. Beckwith as already said. Why is ETS so insistent (and yet, not) on excluding Catholics? Lydia makes a compelling point. If Catholics are persona non grata at ETS, then the society ought to just say so plainly. I wonder if Lydia's suggestion wasn't merely rhetorical, because of course that is precisely what ETS is trying to keep from doing. It would be a tacit admission that there is no doctrinal formulation that can simultaneously keep all the evangelicals in and the Catholics and Orthodox out. If all they can muster is the issue of the canon, it seems to me a thin, thin line. I mean, it would likely work, but would those at ETS be satisfied with it as the only positive doctrinal position separating them from Rome?

As Mr. Bauman has noted, of course, there is no direct comparison between the RC magisterium and what the ETS is trying to accomplish in its doctrinal statement. Or is there? ISTM that what ETS is trying its best to do is, by virtue of their authority as scholars, assist in the formulation of an evangelical creed, if you will. Certainly they won't mistake their club rules for a universal evangelical creed. But would it be, more or less, something like their idea of what such a creed might ought to contain? Oughtn't these proposed points of doctrine to be considered authoritative for evangelicals, at least in the mind of the framers?

No, I don't see why such a formulation should be considered "authoritative" for anyone, even by its framers. I'm not even sure what that would mean. It's really just a matter of identification of the group, of the membership's saying that this is who they are. The most they can do is _recommend_ a statement of such a sort to other people because they think it _true_. That's hardly giving up any Protestant principle. I'm sorry; I realize that the trope of saying that Protestants are committing some sort of self-contradiction when they try to formulate any sort of self-identifying statement is tempting to many of a more Catholic bent (not only Roman Catholics). But formally, it just won't work. There's no self-contradiction there, and you can't squeeze one out.

The more I think about it, the more I tend to think that some formulation referring to the lack of a need of a magisterium is perhaps the clearest way to go if the ETS wishes to make such a statement and is hardly a thin line, either. It's a pretty big and bright line.

The more I think about it, the more I tend to think that some formulation referring to the lack of a need of a magisterium is perhaps the clearest way to go if the ETS wishes to make such a statement and is hardly a thin line, either. It's a pretty big and bright line.

Yeah, that would pretty much do it. And it really ought to be there, because, as you note Lydia, it is thought to be true. And it is definitive. And it makes the separation plain and clear.

No, I don't see why such a formulation should be considered "authoritative" for anyone, even by its framers. I'm not even sure what that would mean.

Forgive me if I appear a bit thick on this point. It's just that, I assume that Protestants have dogmas that are authoritative for their belief, just like everyone else. I'm not trying to pursue a polemic here. I assume that Protestants have dogmas, even low church folks who might not make direct references to old creeds in their liturgies. They still believe in those old creeds, and if you were to stand up and say that God was not a Trinity or that Christ was not both/and, you'd find yourself out in the cold right quick. Even low Protestants have points of doctrine that they won't allow to be gainsaid. Now, this is just the sort of way that I understand 'dogma.' It's authoritative in your hermeneutical approach. If you start doing theology outside the Trinitarian framework, you've stopped doing Christian theology. I assume that everyone at ETS would agree with that. Once a Protestant assents to dogma, he might open himself up to further examination by a Catholic who wants to know on what foundation, etc. etc, but I'm not going to touch that with a ten-foot pole. I just want to understand what the ETS is doing. Because ISTM that any doctrinal statement has got to have some weight of seriousness behind it beyond just provisional parochial consensus. When I see the ETS' proposed doctrinal statement, I recognize orthodox evangelical Christian belief, I recognize authoritative dogmas that evangelicals begin with when they open the Bible and open up Christianity. I don't think that Protestants and Catholics are different in that regard. ISTM just the nature of the Christian religion that you have to have authoritative dogmas.

I think there's just an ambiguity (I can't type tonight; don't know why; forgive the typos) on "authoritative." The sort of Protestant idea is that there isn't some institutional body that makes pronouncements that other people are obligated to listen to in virtue of being Christians. That's very roughly stated, of course. So the ETS could be saying that they think various things are very important. They might think, for example, that inerrancy is very important or even that not being a Catholic is very important. Perhaps that an individual Christian's prerogative to interpret Scripture is very important. Or the Trinity, etc., etc. That would seem to fulfill one of the things you seem to mean by "authoritative." But they could also continue consistently to say that neither they nor anyone else constitutes a central body that defines that sort of thing. So their pronouncements are not "authoritative" in the sense of making _them_ authoritative--a lifted-up dogma-declaring body.

thebyronicman: Though I very much appreciate both the tremendous effort and clarity with which you have framed the issue; however, from my basic (although admittedly ignorant) understanding on the matter, the ETS was created by Evangelicals, for Evangelicals and thus (at least, in my albeit narrow view of the organization) should be governed likewise by Evangelical principles -- such as that which I believe Lydia had alluded to earlier concerning the prominent Evanglical Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura versus the Catholic's being both Scripture & Tradition.

That said, although I greatly admire the grand vision of Dr. Beckwith (as expressed also by Lydia), perhaps instead of forcing such an agenda on the ETS (whose foundation is evidently strictly a Protestant one); maybe Dr. Beckwith along with those with like minds should found an ETS-like organization that invites Christians of all stripes, including Catholics, for similar purposes concerning Scripture and the like?

Dr. Beckwith: Why are you so insistent with including Catholics into the ETS?

Because a Catholic may be an Evangelical. Here's an excerpt from my forthcoming book, Confessions of a Vain Philosopher: Reflections on My Return to the Catholic Church:

According to the Catholic Church, the Bible itself, though infallible, arose from the life of the Church, in its liturgical practices and theological reflections. It is a source of theological truth, to be sure, and uniquely the Word of God written. But the Church maintains, quite sensibly, that the Bible cannot be read in isolation from the historic Church and the practices that were developing alongside the Church’s creeds that became permanent benchmarks of orthodoxy during the same eras in which the canon of Scripture itself was finally fixed. So, for the Catholic, the Magesterium and the Papacy are limited by both Scripture and a particular understanding of Christian doctrine, forged by centuries of debate and reflection, and, in many cases, fixed by ecumenical councils. Thus, the Catholic Church and its leadership are far more constrained from doctrinal innovation than the typical Evangelical megachurch pastor.

For example, Gregory Boyd, a Baptist theologian and pastor of a Minneapolis congregation, denies that God knows the future, and bases this denial on a literal reading of Scripture. This is called the Open View of God or Open Theism. But two fellow open theists, Clark Pinnock and John P. Sanders, could not be removed as members of ETS in a November 2003 membership-wide vote initiated by founding ETS member, Roger Nicole. Sanders and Pinnock affirm both inerrancy and the Trinity, and they seem to embrace these views sincerely and without mental reservation. (For the record, I did not vote for their removal, as a matter of principle, even though I believe their views are seriously in error). Yet, in contrast to Pastor Boyd, Pope Benedict XVI, has far less power to steer his theology in any direction he may find consis-tent with his own professional theological project. For the Pope is constrained by settled doctrine—including Scripture, ecumenical councils, and prior ex cathedra papal pronouncements. Pastors and theologians like Boyd, Pinnock, and Sanders are constrained only by “inerrancy” and “the Trinity,” which means that they could embrace any one of a variety of heresies condemned by the ancient church and yet still remain an ETS member in good standing: Nestorianism, Monophystism, Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, denial of eternal sonship, or the pre-existence of the soul. And yet, someone, like me, who embraces the Church that claimed to have the ecclesiastical authority to condemn these heresies, and which provided to its separated progeny, including Evangelical Protestants, the resources and creeds that provide the grounds for excluding these heresies, has apparently no place in ETS. For example, St. Augustine, whose genius helped rid the Church of the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian heresies, would not be welcomed in ETS or as a faculty member at virtually any evangelical seminary, because the Bishop of Hippo accepted the deuterocanonical books as part of the Old Testament canon, the deposit of sacred tradition, apostolic succession, the gracious efficacy of the sacraments, the Real Presence of the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, the infusion of God’s grace for justification, and the authority of the magisterium.

This is why I still consider myself an Evangelical, but just not a Protestant one. Surely it is true that contemporary Evangelicalism has its roots in conservative Protestantism, but it has also been shaped by the Catholic and Protestant charismatic and Pentecostal movements as well as the spirituality and apologetics of authors like C. S. Lewis, who, though an Anglican, produced works that were “Catholic” in their tone and substance. This is why Lewis is one of the most beloved writers among Catholics. Moreover, if one thinks of Evangelicalism as a renewal movement that stresses personal conversion and spiritual development, evangelism, a high view of Scripture, and fidelity to Christian orthodoxy, then one can certainly be a Evangelical Catholic, as I believe I am. If the term “Evangelical” is broad enough to include high-church Anglicans, low-church anti-creedal Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, the Evangelical Free Church, Arminians, Calvinists, Disciples of Christ, Pentecostals, Seventh-Day Adventists, open theists, atemporal theists, social Trinitarians, substantial Trinitarians, nominalists, realists, eternal security supporters and opponents, temporal theists, dispensationalists, theonomists, church-state separationists, cessationists, non-cessationists, kenotic theorists, covenant theologians, paedo-Baptists, and Dooweyerdians, there should be room for an Evangelical Catholic.

Of course, if the ETS wants to permanently exclude people like me, I won't lose any sleep over it. And I suspect that there are very few Catholic scholars who have an opinion either way. But you have to remember that the ETS has many, many members with whom I have worked and continue to work. They are dear friends who I consider brothers and sisters in Christ. For me, keeping that connection--even if it cannot be official--will remain an important part of my vocation as a Christian philosopher.

Thanks Lydia. You've expressed what I understand to be the case.

Aristocles: I hear you on that point and thank you for your kind words. Protestants of all stripes can and do emphasize that reference to the tradition of Christian antiquity is necessary in forming and upholding right Christian belief and practice, and have a long history themselves of appealing to this Great Tradition as a judge upon us all in the here and now. This state of things presents a continued opportunity for ecumenical dialogue. As Lydia points out, we must be clear when we use the term 'authority' that the RCC takes a certain line with respect to the tradition that differs from the Protestant view. But as you say, the ETS is what it is, and they have the right to define themselves and order themselves in any way that they wish. This is ultimately why I agree with Lydia that they should do so clearly (as it seems they are trying to do right now). Evangelicals know themselves as Evangelicals, and not Roman Catholics. So in drafting up their doctrinal agenda, ETS, in order to clarify to would-be Catholic members (such as our esteemed Dr. Beckwith), that there is a definite line in the sand, well, just go ahead and draw it. Since those at ETS presumably know precisely what differentiates them from Roman Catholics, then it shouldn't be difficult to order the new statement appropriately.

From the beginning, Protestants have employed the word "evangelical" as a self-designation to distinguish themselves from the Catholic church. In most instances, they still use it that way. For example, the Protestant churches in Germany and in Switzerland, where the Reformation began, are still so designated today -- the evangelical church. Historically, the terms "Protestant" and "evangelical" there are interchangeable. In historic Protestant parlance, to call the RCC "evangelical," would be to call it the Protestant (i.e., not Catholic) Catholic church. To them, it would seem nonsensical.

Historically, the early Protestants chose that designation, etymologically rooted in the word for "gospel," because in light of the Bible they concluded that the gospel of Rome was not the gospel at all. By that self-designation, the Protestants were asserting that they were evangelical, were "gospel-ical," so to speak, and that Rome was not. At Trent, the RCC agreed that what the two sides trumpeted as gospel was, indeed, distinctly different, and they formally anathematized those who believed the other one. They were not such inept theologians in the 16th century as to be utterly wrong about themselves and about one another, some modern revisionists notwithstanding.

So, no, St. Francis was not evangelical; nor is the honorable church of which he was a part, at least not as Protestants normally use the word. I am not saying he and it are not Christian -- not in the least. But I am saying that the term "evangelical," in historical usage, does not apply to them.

That exclusionary historical usage has contemporary consequences, among them the notion that no matter how wide the spectrum of Protestant belief and practice, the word "evangelical" does not include Roman Catholicism.

And that precise notion, the centuries-old notion that "evangelical does not include Roman Catholicism," is partially what stands behind the current movement in the ETS to define things more expansively. If I were still a member of the ETS, I'd vote against the motion. (I was book review editor of their theological journal for 12 years.)

Another part of what stands behind the inclination to thicken the theological boundaries of ETS membership is not just the gospel differences (which they are convinced still persist), but the Bible and inspiration differences I mentioned in an earlier post. If you don't believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the 66 books of the Bible, and in the inspiration and inerrancy of them only, you don't get in -- even if your name is Martin Luther and you came back from the dead to apply for membership. The ETS has maintained that precise view since it began in 1949. That view has always been thought to exclude the Catholic view. The current move to amplify the doctrinal boundaries of the ETS is not meant to lower the bar to prospective members from the RCC, a bar set there by the ETS founders, it is intended to raise that bar and to make it more clear, rightly or wrongly. There is no move afoot to lower the original bar.

So, while I concur fully with Frank's properly ecumenical intention, I am convinced that what he wants cannot be had in the ETS, and that he and others would have to begin another theological society, with a different purpose and with different boundaries, in order to get it.

I think Bauman's comments above are pretty right on. It just depends on how we're using the term evangelical and as far as I can tell ETS is using it in the historical theologically laden way Bauman describes above. Not just in a way that means tends to go out and share the good news.

At any rate it sounds like Beckwith's next splash ought to be an orthodox ecumenical theological society. Dr. Beckwith try to have it in place pretty quickly so I can be active in it while I'm at seminary :)

Lydia,

Although he backed off a bit (I think) thebyronicman expressed the reason for my earlier insistence on not defining membership in the negative:

I wonder if Lydia's suggestion wasn't merely rhetorical, because of course that is precisely what ETS is trying to keep from doing. It would be a tacit admission that there is no doctrinal formulation that can simultaneously keep all the evangelicals in and the Catholics and Orthodox out.

Undoubtedly lots of Catholics and Orthodox folks would think something just like that. It seems to me that it would lead to more fighting not less. And if it is a "tacit admission" it would be one that I would bet no members of ETS would want to make.

Lydia asked, "... does my idea of the individual believer's ability to interpret Scripture without a teaching magisterium seem to you to get more to the "heart of the matter," MarkC?"

Lydia,

Catholics are taught to interpret scripture, following the Patristic model, according to the four senses of Scripture; the literal (not literalist) sense and the three spiritual senses - allegorical, moral, and anagogical. In this way, we search out what the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us, beyond even what the human authors have consciously asserted.

"God ... has qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:5-6).

With that said, we are not "free" to depart from historical Christianity, the Creeds, the Councils, or from the "living Tradition of the whole Church". This is what protects us from any sort of chronological or cultural provincialism, such as scholarly fads that arise and carry away a generation of interpreters before being dismissed by the next generation.

If the criterion is the individual believer's ability to interpret Scripture, and my interpretation of Scripture leads me to the conviction that I am an "evangelical" believer, how can that be disputed? Inversely, if the members of ETS are themselves constrained by the 16th Century Canon, and the doctrine of the Trinity, how does that differ from Catholics who interpret Scripture within the "living tradition" of the Church?

MarkC, I feel a little impatient at the tacit idea that we really don't know the difference and can't see the difference between Protestants and Catholics here. I think the other commentators "get it" when I've talked about the concept of authority in Catholicism. For that matter, most traditional Catholics know _perfectly well_ that all those Protestant notions of "private judgement" and such are incompatible with Roman Catholicism. If your reading of Scripture leads you to take the label "evangelical," it doesn't follow that you have no deep disagreements with Protestant evangelicals, nor that those disagreements are so hard to get a handle on that they cannot be stated in a self-identifying document by a Protestant group. Look: When you talk about "the living tradition of the Church" let's be honest--you mean, and you should mean, if you're a good Catholic, the teaching of the magisterium, including their teaching _today_ or _tomorrow_. You don't mean merely the doctrine of the Trinity or a canon set up hundreds of years ago. If the RC magisterium decides there's been a "development of doctrine" so that the death penalty may not be given in a developed country for purely retributive reasons when society could be protected from the further evil acts of the murderer by some means other than the death penalty, and if they teach that in an authoritative fashion so that you have to admit it's the teaching of the Church, you have to believe it. A Catholic makes a meta-commitment to abide by the teaching of the Church. A Protestant makes no such meta-commitment, period. If the members of the ETS are "constrained by" the doctrine of the Trinity, that's because they think it _true_ and _important_, not because they are committed on the meta-level to "thinking with the Church" and have determined that the Church teaches the Trinity.

It really annoys me when some Catholics insist on pretending that any Protestant who _in fact_ agrees with Catholics on particular doctrines is therefore secretly, unbeknownst to himself, accepting the Catholic view of the teaching authority of the Church. Balderdash. Just admit that there is a deep difference there regarding authority and leave it at that. It's not that I want to _argue_ about those points of disagreement but that it seems to me silly to pretend that they don't exist and to intimate that Protestants are somehow formally inconsistent for believing in the Trinity while not binding themselves to accept all the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. There just is no inconsistency there.

Lydia,

I know what a Catholic is and what a Protestant is (in regards to their relative commitments to historical Christianity). What I'd like to dispute is the notion that a Catholic is not nor cannot be "evangelical". The implication is that Catholics adhere to a diminished or truncated "Gospel", somehow different from what Paul preached or Peter or the other Apostles. To that notion I answer "Balderdash"!

I'll jump in here after observing this conversation for two days. I am assuredly out of my league. However, I would love if those who are trained in philosophy, especially as it relates to theology, would comment on something for me. GK Chesterton in his book Orthodoxy talked about how certain people were energetically sawing from the tree the branch they are sitting on. It seems to me that this is an excellent way to describe the doctrine of Sola Scriptura once it is practiced by anyone. I think it can be seen clearly in Martin Luther's, "Here I Stand" speech at the Diet of Worms. Luther states that Pope's and Council's have erred. Thus, they can't be trusted. Scripture Alone is infallible being the logical conclusion. Calvin stated that Scripture Alone lies beyond the sphere of our judgement. IOW, everything else can be judged. And it is precisely here that Chesterton's remark fits perfectly. Both Luther and Calvin and all Sola Scripturists to this day are sawing from the tree the branch they are sitting on. IOW, as one accepts that Pope's and Council's have erred, ie, there is no Divinely constituted Church that speaks for Christ and Scripture Alone lies beyond the sphere of our judgement then one must of necessity accept that what Luther, Calvin and indeed themselves say about the Gospel is subject to error, thus there is no assurance only subjectivism. After all, "Who's to say?" The entire result leads necessarily to skepticism. I'm not sure if what I've written amounts to a question. It's more of a comment. However, in my mind it's the elephant in the living room of all Protestantism.

For the record, I am with Lydia on this one. I think ETS is struggling with a practical problem as if it were a theological one. They founded an organization with a purpose and intent in mind. They defined the organization in theological terms and they have now realized that some people are fitting into that definition that they did not intend to be a part of the particular organization. I do not even see it as uncharitable to say that this is not what we had in mind so let us be clear. No Catholics, No Open Theist, no cat lovers, or whatever. It is merely organizational freedom of association.

I work in fundraising and organizations and foundations make distinctions like this all of the time without explanation or apology. When a private organization tells me that they only give to Catholic causes it never occurred to me to demand that they explain why. It is their "club" they can do what they want. The "No Homers Club" on The Simpson's was fine with me.

I think ETS needs to decide what they are (inclusive beyond Protestants or not) and state it plainly. They are not obligated to couch every decision in some theological justification. I don't think it raises those policies to the level of magisterium as much as it makes them look pretentious and silly. As if they are saying the ETS is too smart to say that we do not want Catholic members so we are going to craft clever arguments to prove that Catholics and ETS members are fundamentally different. What a dumb waste of time.

Jay said, "I think ETS needs to decide what they are (inclusive beyond Protestants or not) and state it plainly."

In that case, ETS ought to change it's name to better match the reality of what it is: the Protestant Evangelical Theological Society (PETS). Or, better, why not PETA? They could adopt the slogan "I'd Rather Go Naked than Be Catholic" ...

MarkC

If the goal is to exclude Catholics, then state it. If the goal is to engage Frank in a debate that Catholics by definition are not Evangelicals then engage the debate in open forum. Do one or the other.

My point is that private organizations have a freedom of association and they can determine the requirements of membership. If that is what is happening then all of the theological posturing in unecessary.

But if there is a real need to address the definition of Evangelical and whether or not Frank can be both Catholic and Evangelical then do so. Make the case and engage Frank in his arguments.

No need to change the name no matter what they decide. Let me be clear on one point as well, I do not see excluding Catholics as anti-Catholic any more than I see Catholic organizations excluding me as anti-Protestant. It is merely the freedom of association in practice. If they decide that Frank's vision for an inclusive intellectually rigorous Christian organization is not their vison for ETS so be it. No reason to freak out because ETS has decided to clarify how they identify themselves.

Unless they do so in such a clumsy manner that they magnify their problems which appears to be a future possibility on this current path.

Thanks, Jay. Well-stated.

MarkC, and everyone: I definitely do not mean _any_ disparagement to Catholics by suggesting that the ETS could, without self-contradiction, make some minimal statement (perhaps just a practical one, perhaps the meta-doctrinal one I've suggested about a magisterium) that would include Protestants but not Catholics. I don't think they mean, or at least they don't need to mean, any disparagement to Catholics either. It's a matter of historic word usage, as Michael Bauman has pointed out, that 'evangelical' has not usually referred to Roman Catholics. That needn't be an insult. It needn't imply a "truncated version of the gospel." I don't think the word is worth fighting over, as if it's such a wonderful compliment to call someone "evangelical" that it's an insult to say that he's not "evangelical." We should just make it clear what we mean and get on with our activities. I understand the emphases Frank means to make about, for example, a personal relationship with Christ and evangelism. But some people don't use the term that way but rather in such a way as not to include Catholics.

Right on Lydia - and in terms of the method ETS should use to achieve their ends I think I may have come around to your view.

Some people use evangelical as a swear word or a synonym for [insert something here like Wal-Mart fascist] so its pleasant that everyone here, in one sense or another, sees being evangelical as a good thing.

They are not obligated to couch every decision in some theological justification.

No, they aren't. But then, they are calling themselves an evangelical theological society. So it doesn't seem to me unreasonable to think that they might have a precise definition of what makes the society evangelical. Once we knew what they meant by 'evangelical', then we'd know generally what type of theology they were doing--evangelical theology. Perhaps the sort of precision I as a Catholic would like to see is by the nature of the case impossible for evangelicals. But ETS isn't generally run by post-modernists, and so it seems clear that they have always considered a primarily doctrinal/theological self-definition, to be proper. As commenter Jay Watts has mused above:

"I think ETS is struggling with a practical problem as if it were a theological one."

Well, that's for ETS to decide, and perhaps this is the moment of truth for them. Mr. Bauman's last long post helped to clarify for the sake of this thread what evangelicals traditionally mean by the term 'evangelical.' Assuming that definition holds as a general rule, you'd think Catholics wouldn't want any part of ETS. But as Mr. Beckwith has, I think successfully, shown, what an evangelical thinks of as distinctively evangelical theologically is not something so remote from Catholic belief as has been traditionally thought. It seems then that evangelicalism is both a package of doctrinal positions derived from scriptural scholarship and a way of conceiving of the church. I don't know which comes first. ISTM that of the two, it is the latter which most differentiates evangelicals from Roman Catholics, traditionally. In these days of American liberalism and the various ecumenical moods, the lines have gotten a bit blurry.

To Lydia,

I agree there is a real tension, paradox even, or you might even say contradiction, in the popular Catholic polemic against protestants. On the one hand, we denigrate you for not placing enough emphasis on the authority of settled tradition and formal ecclesial structure, on the other hand, we're liable to accuse you of (or alternately praise you for) secretly or unknowingly doing precisely the opposite--of leaning on tradition and authority for the doctrinal positions you take that we agree are orthodox. If Pelikan has written of "The Riddle Of Roman Catholicism," a Catholic might just as easily speak of "the riddle of Protestantism." What a conundrum we pose to each other.

Dr. Beckwith:

But you have to remember that the ETS has many, many members with whom I have worked and continue to work. They are dear friends who I consider brothers and sisters in Christ. For me, keeping that connection--even if it cannot be official--will remain an important part of my vocation as a Christian philosopher.

I hear what you're saying and, as I have said, your vision (re: an ETS organization that involves Catholics as well) is a grand one which I, myself, do indeed admire.

However, that doesn't mean that because the ETS is fixed on excluding Catholics (since, after all, they are a Protestant organization and, therefore, have the right to be governed according to Protestant principles), that you should sever your ties with our separated brethren or even surrender such a beautiful vision.

Instead, you might consider, as I previously proposed, founding an organization of your own for like purposes as the ETS -- only difference is that it will include Catholics as well as Protestants.

Just a thought.

God continue to bless you in your Journey of Faith!

Just thought I'd throw this in there. From a post I did recently on J. I. Packer and Anglicanism (who in case you don't know is about as evangelical as it gets). Packer says:

Evangelicals, though historically hesitant to call themselves catholic because of what they see as incomplete Christianity among those, Roman and Anglican, who claim the name, are as catholic in purpose as anyone else, and their reluctance to use the label is a pity, just as it is a pity that self styled Anglican Catholics who love the Lord Jesus should hesitate to call themselves evangelicals. The essence of evangelicalism, as today’s scholar’s usually define it, is bible-based, cross-centred, commitment- oriented (I forgo the word conversion here, since it begs questions), and mission-focused: four qualities that, one way or another have marked the Christian Church as such since it began (if you doubt me, look at St. Paul!). To suspect those who call themselves evangelicals of being standoffish within the church to the point of sectarianism, as has been done in times past, is unworthy and untrue.

It seems to me, from this quote - the latter parts at least, Packer would be on the side of Beckwith here.

thebyronicman & Lydia:

Many of the things you both have stated in the preceding posts are certainly legitimately thought-out positions which carry much validity in their own right; however, the inevitable differences between our respective "traditions" will be what continue to divide us -- even historically. How much more scripturally?

Perhaps it is for this very reason why the ETS is so adamant in purposely excluding Catholics even in light of the possibility of Catholics actually being "evangelical" in the sense that thebyronicman has rightly mentioned.

I believe Michael Bauman's rather good explanation on the matter encapsulates the core of the issue:

"So, no, St. Francis was not evangelical; nor is the honorable church of which he was a part, at least not as Protestants normally use the word. I am not saying he and it are not Christian -- not in the least. But I am saying that the term "evangelical," in historical usage, does not apply to them.

That exclusionary historical usage has contemporary consequences, among them the notion that no matter how wide the spectrum of Protestant belief and practice, the word "evangelical" does not include Roman Catholicism."

I rather don't mind allowing Protestants the exclusive right to the term 'evangelical' if they would be willing to allow catholics the exclusive right to the term 'catholic.' What's good for the goose. What do you say, Dr. Bauman? Shall the two of us and J.I. Packer all get together and hammer that one out for everyone?

It might be fun, byronicman. But my expectations are subdued. I suspect that if the three of us got together, we'd end up affirming at least four positions (wink)

I suspect that if the three of us got together, we'd end up affirming at least four positions (wink)

Indeed. Well, one day we shall all find ourselves in perfect agreement.

it seems to me silly to pretend that they don't exist and to intimate that Protestants are somehow formally inconsistent for believing in the Trinity while not binding themselves to accept all the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. There just is no inconsistency there.

It's not necessarily inconsistent, but such a position at least undermines any basis for believing the truth of whatever they believe.

Would a Protestant believe the doctrine of the Trinity because he independently reasoned to such a position? I doubt it. He would believe such a doctrine because it is revealed in Scripture (and through reasoning based upon what is revealed in Scripture).

But this belief in the truth of Scripture requires a belief in the truth of those who put it together, both those who wrote it and those who determined this writing is Scripture, this one isn't. If, as Luther claimed, councils have erred, even in what is or is not Scripture (Maccabbees?), then how can a Protestant have a firm basis for believing in any of it? Or how can a Protestant say that the Book of Mormon (or the Koran, or any other writing) is not "Scripture" - he has already undermined his own basis for claiming what is or is not Scripture.

Bottom line, if it is not necessarily inconsistent to "pick and choose" what the Church is correct about, it certainly undermines any argument you can make that the Church is correct on a particulr issue - you've already agreed it was wrong on X, that opens the door to being wrong on Y. If you are comfortable with that sort of shifting foundation, so be it.

I'm glad both Protestant and Catholic can still dialogue in spite of their dividing principles.

One point that requires clarification is something that I just saw recently in which Lydia stated:

"When you talk about "the living tradition of the Church" let's be honest--you mean, and you should mean, if you're a good Catholic, the teaching of the magisterium, including their teaching _today_ or _tomorrow_. You don't mean merely the doctrine of the Trinity or a canon set up hundreds of years ago. If the RC magisterium decides there's been a "development of doctrine" so that the death penalty may not be given in a developed country for purely retributive reasons when society could be protected from the further evil acts of the murderer by some means other than the death penalty, and if they teach that in an authoritative fashion so that you have to admit it's the teaching of the Church, you have to believe it. A Catholic makes a meta-commitment to abide by the teaching of the Church. A Protestant makes no such meta-commitment, period. If the members of the ETS are "constrained by" the doctrine of the Trinity, that's because they think it _true_ and _important_, not because they are committed on the meta-level to "thinking with the Church" and have determined that the Church teaches the Trinity."

I believe Lydia may have been conflating Catholic Doctrine (e.g., Trinity) with pastoral teaching.

There are doctrines that remain constant and unchanging in the Catholic Faith such as that of the Trinity.

(As regards "Development of Doctrine", need we all be reminded the fact that the Trinity was such a case? It was not until the Ante-nicene period -- centuries after the Apostolic period -- that the Doctrine concerning the Trinity was later formulated to that which we know today.)

However, a pastoral teaching on matters such as the Death Penalty* is not on the same level at all as that of Doctrine.

For example, I hardly think that Lydia would consider Evangelicals having initially embraced and supported Abortion (i.e., the 1971 Southern Baptist Convention) to their present collective Pro-Life stance of today a development in doctrine.

At any rate, in the Catholic Faith, concerning things of a more pastoral nature, there would be room for discussion on such issues. These are merely a sociological judgment based on an estimation of the current world scene and, while Popes are protected in matters of Theology, and can even teach theological premises infallibly if they choose to do so, their understanding of the social realities all over the world and how to apply moral principles to all of those complex situations is not similarly guaranteed.

There are contingent factors around the world sociologically that go beyond the Pope’s teaching sphere and, so, there’s kind of a fuzzy border between the moral principles and how they get applied in concrete individual situations, and its in that area that the limit of the Church’s Teaching Authority is reached in that fuzzy area, because the Church intends to propose basic principles for us but then it’s up to the laity who are on the ground, in concrete circumstances, to try to figure out how to apply those in particular cases.

* Incidentally, on the matter of Catholic pastoral teaching on death penalty, Cardinal Ratzinger (now, Pope Benedict XVI) issued a memorandum in the past in which he pointed out that presumably because of the ambiguities that surround the question, there can be a legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics regarding when Capital Punishment should be used.

Aristocles, it's my understanding that the Church _could_ teach authoritatively on that question, as she teaches authoritatively that (e.g.) abortion is always gravely immoral. That is, the Church has authority to teach on matters of morals as well as on matters of faith. That doesn't mean that the Church _does_ teach decisively on every moral matter. As you say, it seems that the death penalty may be being left "grey" right now, as are many other matters. But it would be the kind of thing that could happen later, then requiring the assent of all faithful Catholics.

C Matt, no, I entirely disagree with the idea that the Protestant somehow gets all tangled up in radical skepticism, must either take the canon by accepting the _authority_ of the Church or else has no reason to accept it, and so forth. A group or institution need not be infallible to do a good job in some particular case or in some particular area. I do not have to swear undying epistemic allegiance to the Encyclopedia Britannica to take it as a source of information on some topic. Mathematical certainty is not required for rational knowledge. And believe it or not, it actually is possible to make an independent check on the provenance of the canonical books! (Shocka.) This allows one to get an idea of how good a job the original canon-makers did. Quite a good one, actually. The dichotomy between absolute epistemic allegiance to an external authority, on the one hand, and radical skepticism, on the other, is a classic case of a false dichotomy. I'm sorry to say that ever since the 17th century Roman Catholic apologists have been using this strategy as Counterreformation apologetics. That hasn't been good for Catholicism itself.

But perhaps that should be all I say on that topic at this time.

Lydia's right. Ecclesiology is not the same as epistemology.

Theological knowledge is possible outside the Catholic church, even very high, very complex, and very far-reaching levels of theological knowledge. After careful research and debate, one might conclude that on the issue of canon the RCC was mistaken, as indeed Protestants do conclude when they reject the apocryphal books that Rome endorses. Protestants might also conclude that on some other issue Rome is quite correct, as they do regarding, say, the Trinity.

Not only is high-level theological understanding possible outside the Roman magisterium, it is necessary. Without high levels of theological insight, you wouldn't be able to tell which church, if any church, were the right church to listen to in order to get your allegedly reliable theological knowledge unless you had first carefully sorted through the complex historical and theological web of the competing claims of churches that say they are the one true church and the fullness of the faith. For example, should one, so to speak, go to Antioch or to Rome? Or somewhere else? Or nowhe