News is circulating that Jason Stellman has finally made official what many surmised — converted to Roman Catholicism. The link to his piece is now dead, which may suggest a vast right-wing Protestant conspiracy. But various bloggers — eager beavers that they are — have offered extensive comments on various quotes from Stellman’s first public statement. These in turn give a feel for some of his reasoning. (My own knowledge of Stellman’s reflections come from the anonymous ghost of Reformed orthodoxy past.)
If the quotations are accurate, Stellman offers nothing really new so far. He still thinks sola scriptura will not yield an authoritative interpretation of Scripture (which Rome seems to do). He also questions the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.
The alleged deficiencies of Protestant soteriology deserve some comment. At one point Stellman writes:
Having realized that I was using a few select (and hermeneutically debatable) passages from Romans and Galatians as the filter through which I understood everything else the New Testament had to say about salvation, I began to conclude that such an approach was as arbitrary as it was irresponsible. I then sought to identify a paradigm, or simple statement of the gospel, that provided more explanatory value than Sola Fide did. As I hope to unpack in more detail eventually, I have come to understand the gospel in terms of the New Covenant gift of the Spirit, procured through the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ, who causes fruit to be borne in our lives by reproducing the image of the Son in the adopted children of the Father. If love of God and neighbor fulfills the law, and if the fruit of the Spirit is love, having been shed abroad by the Spirit in our hearts, then it seems to follow that the promise of the gospel is equivalent with the promise of the New Covenant that God’s law will no longer be external to the believer, but will be written upon his mind and heart, such that its righteous demands are fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. And again unsurprisingly, when I turned to the early Church fathers, and especially Augustine, it was this very understanding of the gospel that I encountered over and over again.
What is striking about Rome’s teaching in Stellman’s account is its consequence for how we think about sainthood. According to Protestantism, I (all about me) am a saint already here and now by virtue of faith in Christ and the imputed righteousness and holiness that come by through saving faith. This is why most Reformed creeds and catechisms teach about the communion of the saints. Believers who gather for worship, are members of the church, baptized, and participate in the Lord’s Supper are saints. This is also the language of the New Testament. Paul addresses that sad sack of believers in Corinth as saints (2 Cor 1:1), as well as the believers in Ephesus (1:1).
Roman Catholics, in contrast, reserve the language of sainthood for those Christians who have been canonized. At one (of many) Roman Catholic websites, the process by which a believer becomes a saint receives the following description:
Canonization, the process the Church uses to name a saint, has only been used since the tenth century. For hundreds of years, starting with the first martyrs of the early Church, saints were chosen by public acclaim. Though this was a more democratic way to recognize saints, some saints’ stories were distorted by legend and some never existed. Gradually, the bishops and finally the Vatican took over authority for approving saints.
In 1983, Pope John Paul II made sweeping changes in the canonization procedure. The process begins after the death of a Catholic whom people regard as holy. Often, the process starts many years after death in order give perspective on the candidate. The local bishop investigates the candidate’s life and writings for heroic virtue (or martyrdom) and orthodoxy of doctrine. Then a panel of theologians at the Vatican evaluates the candidate. After approval by the panel and cardinals of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, the pope proclaims the candidate “venerable.”
The next step, beatification, requires evidence of one miracle (except in the case of martyrs). Since miracles are considered proof that the person is in heaven and can intercede for us, the miracle must take place after the candidate’s death and as a result of a specific petition to the candidate. When the pope proclaims the candidate beatified or “blessed,” the person can be venerated by a particular region or group of people with whom the person holds special importance.
Only after one more miracle will the pope canonize the saint (this includes martyrs as well). The title of saint tells us that the person lived a holy life, is in heaven, and is to be honored by the universal Church. Canonization does not “make” a person a saint; it recognizes what God has already done.
Though canonization is infallible and irrevocable, it takes a long time and a lot of effort. So while every person who is canonized is a saint, not every holy person has been canonized. You have probably known many “saints” in your life, and you are called by God to be one yourself.
To move from membership in a Protestant church into fellowship with the Bishop of Rome (i.e., the Pope), then, is to lose one’s status as a saint. In fact, the Protestant convert could likely never recover his former status, given the requirements for canonization and beatification.
This difference may not be enough to give Stellman former saint’s remorse, but it does underscore an important difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. We view sainthood and sanctity differently, and the basis for that difference has much to do with the sole sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness for any Christian who might claim to be a saint.
This may also be an important perspective on those old debates about the priority of justification. Sanctification, imperfect as it is in this life, is not sufficient to make one a saint, at least not according to the communion that regards justification, according to Stellman, as a life-long process of having the love of God written on the believer’s heart. But justification (of the Protestant variety) is enough for sainthood since I personally receive all of Christ’s righteousness in faith and that is the only qualification in which I could take comfort for sanctity.
244 Comments
D.G.,
First, I want to thank you for the good discussion. I’ve enjoyed reading your exchange with Bryan and I hope the dialogue can continue. If I could say something in response to the question you posed to him, “Which Tradition?”
Your view of Christian history seems to be divorced from your strong belief in the sovereignty of God. The first seminary class I took, “The Ancient Church”, which I took through Westminster Philadelphia with Dr. Richard Gamble as my Professor, stressed the providential hand of God in protecting the Church. Dr. Gamble painted a historical picture where all the forces to be were at work against orthodoxy, and yet, by God’s grace, orthodoxy prevailed through the Councils of the Church. Dr. Gamble made it clear that the theology hammered out in the early Councils of the Church were not simply victories for the most erudite and convincing theologians, they were victories for the Holy Spirit, because it was the Holy Spirit at work preserving the Church. Yet, I see that you don’t believe this, which makes me sad, because the whole fun of Church History is watching God’s hand at work. Do you believe God ever protected His Church from theological error? Do you believe anything has been infallibly interpreted? Is there a single doctrine you can hold up and say “this has been infallibly interpreted”? What about the trinity? What about the two natures of Christ? Although Westminster West prides itself on being conservative and truly Reformed, it has skepticism built into the fabric of its deepest theological commitment. If there is no infallible authority outside the Bible then you have no grounds to assert a Reformed interpretation of Scripture over any other interpretation.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jason, just send those books here before you land on the other side. I can always resell them on Ebay.
Jeremy, I am not sure why you would say that I don’t believe in providence or God’s sovereignty. I do. But as a historian I cannot point to God’s inscrutable designs or means. To do so would be presumptuous if not blasphemous. That means that if you study the past and follow the clay feet of all figures, councils, and texts, you cannot find a clear blue line of correctness — that is, if you do as a historian. As a theologian or churchman or church member you may. That’s a different role. But it is a real abuse of history to think that the study of the past reveals God’s designs beyond what he has revealed in Scripture (which is history of a different but still complicated order).
In other words, I believe God protects his church. I’m just not sure that anyone can show it and most of the time when people try historically it turns out to be a version of David Barton.
As for infallible authorities outside the Bible, what pray tell do you have in mind? The pope? A council? A Harvard professor? Last I checked all human authorities (minus Christ) are fallible. But God does reveal that he delegates authority to under-authorities, like pastors and elders. Have you not read the pastoral epistles? And on your view, every teenager has a perfect right to reject his parents’ curfew if he finds out his father and mother are fallible, or if he can’t vindicate his parents’ authority from history.
D.G.,
What about starting with the Nicene Creed? In college I first realized that my PCA Pastor wasn’t “comfortable” with the wording. I believe now, however, that it is an infallible statement of faith. It takes certain theological questions off the table for ever, but only if we believe in infallible interpretations. Where would you correct the Nicene Creed? How do you understand the role of the Holy Spirit in the formation of that creed?
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
D.G.,
To your question about why I questioned your belief in God’s sovereignty. I don’t doubt you believe God is sovereign in salvation, I question how you see it in salvation history. Your view of history seems to staunchly embrace ecclesial deism. I’m not sure how or why you would disagree with me suggesting that. Have you had a chance to read Bryan’s article “Ecclesial Deism”?
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
DG: “If you think history is going to vindicate either side, then you haven’t studied much history.”
JM: Just to be clear, I do not think that any study of history (no matter how early) would positively vindicate a claim to accurate doctrine. After all, only 20 years have passed since Reagan/Bush, and the GOP’s claim to their legacy makes no sense. Even if the Judaizers had won and circumcision was practiced for all Gentile Christians from Clement to Benedict XVI (and there had been no Reformation) I would still object based on Galatians.
However, since Catholics do show that included among the earliest church practices are veneration of Mary and talk of apostolic succession, I think it’s necessary to have an alternative or complicating account. Asserting that 1500 years of venerating dead saints like Polycarp doesn’t matter because it’s unbiblical may ultimately be the better argument, of course, but forgive me if I find it to be worrying. It might not logically mean that the practice is OK, but it’s suggestive. Otherwise, the Reformers wouldn’t have tried to establish that the ECF were on their side.
Jeremy McLellan: However, since Catholics do show that included among the earliest church practices are veneration of Mary and talk of apostolic succession, I think it’s necessary to have an alternative or complicating account.
RS: Why is it that we think that those closest to the apostles and closest to that time period would necessarily be safe guides to the teaching of Scripture? It is no more surprising that idolatry was found in the earliest times than it is that some would make a golden calf just after they left Egypt. It is no more surprising that there would be talk of apostolic succession in the earliest times when the Bible itself speaks of those who wanted to be of Paul and others who wanted to preach Christ to cause Paul trouble. Do we dare bring up the practices and the doctrines of the Corinthians or the churches in Revelation? Just because these were churches that Paul started does not guarantee that they were faithful churches with great doctrine and practices. It is just as likely that the earliest of churches were under attack by the evil one and so were corrupted from the earliest of days since that is what we see in Scripture.
Let us imagine that in the year AD 3000 a historian by the name of G.D. Heartless was running around. He only had limited access to history because nunclear war had destroyed a lot of books and computer information, but he studied the doctrines and practices of the churches he could find. He found out that some practiced speaking in ecstatic tongues and holy vomiting (Vineyard in the 1990′s or so). He reasoned that since these people were 1000 years closer to the apostles they must have the truth. Then he found a book by Jonathan Edwards on Religious Affections and it was even closer to the apostolic times. Dr. Heartless. however, lived in a very rational time and could not understand what Edwards was talking about. But then he found a piece of writing by a man named Pelagius and he was really, really close to the apostolic times. This guy must have been telling the truth since he was so close to the original time period. What should Dr. Heartless do? How is he going to deternine what is true and what is not?
Could it be the case that the devil fought very hard around the time of Jesus and the apostles and sprinkled a lot of error in the truth in order to deceive people both then and now and for the rest of history? What if he could get the eyes of the people off of Scripture and focus on history as the way of telling the truth when in fact he sowed great error into the doctrine and practices of the church from the beginning? Maybe the necessary alternative account is simply “thus says the Lord.”
Bryan Cross: I understand why you think that the Bible teaches JBFA. But when informed by Tradition, the meaning of “justification by faith” in Scripture does not correspond to the meaning of JBFA as put forward by the Reformers, as I explain in “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?.”
RS: In your article (“Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?”) you go on and on about faith and the nature of faith. However, if I may say, you have missed the whole point of the Reformation’s teaching on the reason justification is by faith alone. I might add that more importantly you have missed the teaching of the Bible on it as well. Let me quote from the Historical and Theological Introduction of the 1957 edition of Luther’s Bondage of the Will.
“The doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace; but it actually expressed for them only one aspect of this principle, and that not its deepest aspect. The sovereignty of grace found expression in their thinking at a profounder level still, in the doctrine of monergistic regeneration–the doctrine, that is, that the faith which receives Christ for justification is itself the free gift of a sovereign God, bestowed by spiritual regeneration in the act of effectual calling. To the Reformers, the crucial question was not simply, whether God justifies believers without works of law. It was the broader question, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christ’s sake when they come to faith, but also raising from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith. Here was the crucial issue; whether God is the author, not merely of justification, but also of faith; whether, in the last analysis, Christianity is a religion of utter reliance on God for salvation and all things necessary to it, or of self-reliance and self-effort. Justification by faith only is a truth that needs interpretation. The prinicple of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia.”
They (Johnson and Packer) go on to say that “these things need to be pondered by Protestants today. With what right may we call ourselves children of the Reformation? Much modern Protestantism would be neither owned nor even recognized by the pioneer Reformers. The Bondage of the Will fairly sets before us what they believed about the salvation of lost mankind. In the light of it, we are forced to ask whether Protestant Christendom has not tragically sold its birthright between Luther’s day and our own. Has not Protestantism today become more Erasmian than Lutheran? Do we not often try to minimise and gloss over dotrinal differences for the sake of inter-party peace? Are we innocent of the doctrinal indifferentism with which Luther charged Erasmus? Do we still believe that doctrine matters? Or do we now, with Erasmus, rate a deceptive appearance of unity as of more importance than truth? Have we not grown used to an Erasmian brand of preachig from our pulpits–a message that rests on the same shallow synergistic conceptions which Luther refuted, picturing God and man approaching each other almost on equal terms, each having his own contributions to make to man’s salvation and each depending on that dutiful co-operation of the other for the attainment of that end?”
Bryan Cross: I understand why you think that the Bible teaches JBFA. But when informed by Tradition, the meaning of “justification by faith” in Scripture does not correspond to the meaning of JBFA as put forward by the Reformers, as I explain in “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?.”
RS: In your article (“Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?”) you do not show faith as part of the bigger picture of the sovereign grace of God. Since God is sovereign and grace to be grace cannot have work or merit, there is no other kind of grace but sovereign grace. Faith must receive a sovereign grace if it is to receive grace at all.
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.
RS: What does God start with? He starts with sinners who are dead in sins and trespasses and are by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:1-3). What does God start with? He starts with sinners who are worthless and useless (Rom 3:9-18), have done and can do not good, with not one of them being righteous (v. 10) and none of them seeking for God (v. 11). So God starts with those who are born in sin and in all they do they fall short of His glory. There is nothing of merit that these people can do to provide the smallest part of righteousness or of merit to add to the infinite righteousness of Christ.
So what does God do? He justifies this group on the basis of grace. Notice this once again, sinners are justified (declared just) by grace. What reason does this text give us for why God shows grace? Some of the older translations render this verse as God justifying freely. The modern translation says that God justifies as a gift. John 15:25 helps us out here as it uses the same words and has basically the same grammar. In that it said that they hated Jesus “without cause.” In other words, there was no cause in Jesus for them to hate Him, but instead they hated Him because of themselves. So in Romans 3:24 we have the words of Scripture telling us that God declares sinners just by grace without cause though the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.
God sent Christ and set Him forth as a propitiation for sin. Was this sending and this suffering of the wrath of God caused by something of merit or of goodness He found in sinners? No, the text said that it was for the demonstration of His righteousness. This leaves sinners without one reason or ground to boast on unless they boast in the cross of Christ.
The grace that saves sinners found all of its reasons, all of its causes, and all of its motives within God Himself. For sinners to be saved by grace “freely” is to say that they are saved by grace which saves them apart from any cause found in them. God saves for the demonstration of His righteousness which is also to say that He saves to the praise of the glory of His grace. There is no grace that is not a sovereign grace that saves for reasons found in God Himself. There is no faith, therefore, that can come from the sinner and add to what God has done. Faith must be in and receive a sovereign grace or it is a work of self and so not a true faith at all. If faith comes from a will that is free of the sovereign grace and power of God then it is a faith that comes from the flesh and as such is a work of the flesh. A faith that is not a product of the monergistic work of God makes salvation to be something less than grace alone. I would urge you to think through your writings on faith again. A faith that is not from grace is a faith from the flesh and a work of the flesh makes grace no longer to be grace (Rom 11:6). In other words, it destroys the Gospel of grace alone (in conception) and as such is an attack on the Gospel.
RS,
You cut me off when quoting me. Please don’t do that. In addition to the first paragraph that agrees with you, but you skipped, I continued with exactly what your “response” entails: “Asserting that 1500 years of venerating dead saints like Polycarp doesn’t matter because it’s unbiblical may ultimately be the better argument, of course, but forgive me if I find it to be worrying. It might not logically mean that the practice is OK, but it’s suggestive. Otherwise, the Reformers wouldn’t have tried to establish that the ECF were on their side.”
Obviously, I do not treat the Apostolic Fathers’ beliefs and practices as authoritative or indicative of a purer Christianity than our own, but the Reformers certainly felt it was important to establish some continuity, or at least debunk the claims of a clear line of pure doctrine and practice. Maybe you’re willing to concede the entire Catholic emplotment of doctrinal development, but I’m not.
Jeremy,
If you’d like to chat offline, you can contact me at j(dot)stellman(at)comcast(dot)net.
Bryan, if you comhave your infallible guide in the RCC (what a joke, man), why do you like to link (in reality, quote) yourself all the time? Given the argument, who gives a plug nickel what you think?
Jeremy, not to be flippant, but so what? So some Christians venerated Mary (though you wouldn’t be able to tell that from Peter or Paul’s epistles, which should count as some kind of historical evidence, not to mention the churches endorsing these writings as canonical despite their silence about veneration of Mary). So what. You see lots of stuff in history. Is history authoritative? We see lots of charismatics today. In 2000 years will their practices be authoritative?
In other words, I think you are buying a view of history (not to mention signing off in the peace of Christ) that Bryan Cross promotes. I don’t buy it. I think God will protect his church. That doesn’t mean that God will prevent all forms of error or heresy or idolatry.
Think about Ephesus. Paul helped to get that church going. It was an important outpost for Christianity. Where is that church today? Where is that city today? What does this do to your view of God’s providence?
As I say, history is tricky business. But if you are going to put your trust in the past, you are going to be confused.
Jason, no trolling for converts here.
D.G.
When Jason sends you his books I’ll buy them from you, I got folks who are interested. On the flip side, if Judas can walk, eat sleep and minister with the incarnate son of God, and not only reject Him but hand him over to be killed, why can’t those who come right after the apostles get it wrong and some even purposefully so? Why can’t sin and satan, be an overarching cause for error in the ECF, where there is error or divergence, if Paul, Peter and John lay these two causes as the root of the doctrinal heresies that plague their churches while they still lived, what gives that we should have what amounts to a history in a vacuum, free from such inconveniences right after the apostle’s died. Is the argument that God wasn’t superintending history while Paul was writing out the epistles, but got serious about it after the apostle’s died, because well, they died and He needed to pick up the slack?
Sean, I suppose it is a version of Clark’s quest for certainty (can’t remember the initials). I don’t mean to minimize this desire. Evangelicalism isn’t going to produce it, unless you constantly get the Holy Spirit buzz. And Reformed Protestantism has its challenges. But if you think going to Rome is going to resolve doubts, especially if history becomes the comforter, I’m thinking you are setting yourself up for a boatload of doubt. Better not go to an actual parish or read what other RC’s say. Just stay on-line with CTC.
Speaking of initials, what is ECF?
Jeremy – If history impresses you maybe we should allow slavery again. It was around for a lot longer than not. Polygamy goes way back, too.
Jeremy McLellan: RS, You cut me off when quoting me. Please don’t do that.
RS: I did not take you out of context and you did not contradict the part I quoted by what you said after that.
JM: In addition to the first paragraph that agrees with you, but you skipped, I continued with exactly what your “response” entails: “Asserting that 1500 years of venerating dead saints like Polycarp doesn’t matter because it’s unbiblical may ultimately be the better argument, of course, but forgive me if I find it to be worrying. It might not logically mean that the practice is OK, but it’s suggestive. Otherwise, the Reformers wouldn’t have tried to establish that the ECF were on their side.”
RS: But what you continuted with is not exactly what my response entails. You continuted to say (as seen from just above) that “because it’s unbiblical may ultimately be the better argument.” You didn’t say that it is a better argument, but that it “may ultimately be the better argument.” You then go on to say that you find it “worrying” and that it is “suggestive.” That is not exactly what my response entailed.
JM: Obviously, I do not treat the Apostolic Fathers’ beliefs and practices as authoritative or indicative of a purer Christianity than our own,
RS: It is not obvious since I don’t know you and I am not sure how many that read here know you. In fact, according to your own words, you find things like this worrying. Now Jason is trying to get you to talk to him offline. Is he wanting to do that because he finds you so staunch in the Reformed faith or because he is reading your words and thinks there are some cracks here and there?
JM: but the Reformers certainly felt it was important to establish some continuity, or at least debunk the claims of a clear line of pure doctrine and practice. Maybe you’re willing to concede the entire Catholic emplotment of doctrinal development, but I’m not.
RS: But thinking something is important is not the same thing as being necessary. I would think that it would be more important to find some agreement with some of the ECF (Early Church Fathers) in a doctrinal sense than with the practice. But showing something as biblically wrong is necessary whether the error has been perpetuated for two thousand years or simply started yesterday.
D.G.,
“Better not go to an actual parish or read what other RC’s say. Just stay on-line with CTC.” How do you know this? Do you attend a Catholic parish or are you just making stuff up?
My parish for one if full of converts from every corner of Evangelicalism (including Reformed), but the leaders in our Church are solid craddle Catholics who love Christ as their Savior. I would love for you to meet them.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
ECF – Early Church Fathers
Here is the Apostle Paul’s instruction to Timothy on how to interpret church history going forward….
“But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come:
For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.”
Paul’s point is that “such men” will mark church history as it’s leaders (2 Tim. 3:7). “Such men” profess faith in Christ and lead churches. “Such men” are unbelievers and destined for doom (1 Peter 2:8).
By AD 63 the churches on Crete were upwards of 30 years old (Acts 2:11). As such we might suspect they were somewhat mature. Yet the apostolic judgment is that their”many” leaders are completely corrupt (Titus 1:10).
By AD 95 the churches of Western Turkey were almost entirely apostate. The apostle John’s letter from Christ to 7 churches reveals on 2 of them were pleasing Him without reproach, or less than 30%. And these churches were under the oversight of apostles.
Given Crete’s need for total reformation, Paul’s inspired teaching on future apostasy, and John’s delineation of present apostasy, why would anyone expect a positive trajectory through church history?
Jeremy Tate: My parish for one if full of converts from every corner of Evangelicalism (including Reformed), but the leaders in our Church are solid craddle Catholics who love Christ as their Savior. I would love for you to meet them.
RS: Jeremy, many people love Christ for what they think He has done for them, but that does not mean that they have the true love of Christ in them and so love Christ. If those men are solid Catholics in any sense, then they are solidly outside the biblical Gospel. Trent placed an anathema on the biblical Gospel. Don’t be deceived any longer about that. Remember, if a place denies the Gospel as Roman Catholicism does, this does not mean that people cannot be very kind in the outward sense and very religious. Remember that the Pharisees were religious and they gave alms, but they received the harshest words from Jesus. Don’t be deceived by all the Erasmians running around today who don’t think that doctrine is all that important. Paul told us something very important in Galatians 1:8-9 that all should listen too: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” What Rome says and what historical Protestantism says cannot both be true. Logically speaking, one of them is very wrong or both of them are very wrong.
While the language RC’s use may appear to be close to what traditional Protestants use, they are miles apart in reality. It seems that while you are trying to be a RC now you are still keeping a foot in the Protestant water too. Understand that despite the politically correct ways of RC’s in the United States, Trent condemns historical Protestantism and historical Protestantism condemns Trent. There is no way to go between the horns of these two positions. Jesus did not appear very nice to the Pharisees, but He was perfect love. I may not appear very nice, but what I am saying is truly best for your soul. Quit playing around with the heresy of RC’s, repent and believe Christ alone by grace alone in the Gospel. Perhaps the sovereign God may grant you repentance, but He is under no obligation to do so. Remember Hebrews 6.
D.G.
Ted is right. ECF is my shot at shorthand for early church fathers. I thought I’d try my hand at making it up in the blogosphere. If it works for the CTCers……………..
Jeremy,
I’m one of those cradle catholics. You guys have carved out your own niche within the american scene, which is fine, Rome accomodates most everything else under the sun. But you guys need to really be honest with these people you’re trying to proselytize, and stop with your selective use of the ‘deposit’ and rose colored interpretation of the magisterium’s superintending of the maturation of it. My B.S. meter is about as sensitive as Cross’ question-begging one, and poor Bugay’s is even worse than mine and he’s gonna have to undergo treatment for PTSD if he has to deal with anymore of CTC’s version of the ‘tradition’. Teach them the mass, and when to stand, sit, kneel and the various incantations, try to steer them away from the charismatics, and go ahead and get them their starter rosary beads, and let them get on with what Rome is about.
Sean,
You are really not “one of those craddle Catholics” because the craddle Catholics I was referring to are the ones who have remained in the Church and taken leadership roles in working to make the parish a vibrant place of worship centered on Jesus Christ. From what I understand, you are the type of craddle Catholic who has left the Church and joined a sectarian group, from which you condemn all things Catholic. My children love the Church and through her they have come to know Jesus Christ in a way Protestantism could never offer. Were you raised in a nominally Catholic family or were you raised in a family in love with Jesus and the Church?
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Sean,
I’m not sure you are “one of those craddle Catholics” because the craddle Catholics I was referring to were the ones who remained in the Catholic Church and worked hard add vibrancy and a deeper focus on Christ to the parish. From what you have written it sounds like you have left the Catholic Church and joined one of the 30,000 plus Protestant sects. Were you raised in a family in love with Christ or in a nominally Catholic family? I see in Catholic families children who are coming to know Christ through the Church in a way Protestantism could never offer.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy Tate: From what you have written it sounds like you have left the Catholic Church and joined one of the 30,000 plus Protestant sects.
RS: This is a bogus argument. The tent or Roman Catholicism and its Erasmian and even universal way of thinking simply will not be honest about all the people it is counting as its members. One could argue that of what you call 30,000 Protestant sects, very few are actually Protestant but they are simply not willing to call themselves Roman Catholic. If they would kiss the ring, you would let them right in.
Jeremy Tate: Were you raised in a family in love with Christ or in a nominally Catholic family?
RS: Being in love with Christ sounds a lot like someone falling in love in the secular American way. That is far different than what the Bible teaches.
Jeremy Tate: I see in Catholic families children who are coming to know Christ through the Church in a way Protestantism could never offer.
RS: Yes, but historical Protestants don’t want to know Christ in that way as it is not in accordance with the Gospel of grace alone. Roman Catholicism offers a Christ were people have to contribute something to their salvation, can never have true assurance, will suffer in purgatory for thousands and perhaps millions of years, and can fall from grace at any moment. Indeed this is a way historical Protestantism could never offer.
Richard,
Hi, the Catholic Church affirms salvation by grace alone. The problem is sola fide. They are different.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy Tate, I’ve been to enough RC parishes (at funeral masses) and on the road to see that Rome has as much baggage as the mainline. Last week I was in Richmond and found on the street outside the Cathedral a newsbulletin that would suggest a social justice theme that most political conservatives and George Weigel would find objectionable. And have you ever been to Our Mother of Consolation in Philadelphia? I have. Plus, I dedicated a book to three RC friends — arguably the best colleagues I’ve ever had. And you should hear them on the problems in U.S. parishes.
All of this is to say that going to Rome doesn’t solve the problem of defects in the church.
Jeremy Tate, btw, if you’re going to go back to ECF (thanks Sean), why not go to Orthodox Christianity? They confess the Nicene Creed the way all the early church did — without filioque. Plus, they venerate Mary. There may be more early veneration of Mary among the Orthodox than among the Romans. Rome looks like a late voice in the adoration of Mary. Just look at J.N.D. Kelly’s, Early Christian Doctrine.
Jeremy,
You are right, I left the hodge-podge and mishmash of the ‘tradition’ and a doctrine of salvation which left me to my own earnestness and the sacraments and the priesthood for a more surer testimony that wasn’t dependent ultimately on what was going on within me. I found broader evangelicalism not a vast improvement over Rome, in some cases worse being left to myself and my ‘prayer closet’, not even having the sacraments as a bailout. But you misconstrue my nominality. I was sent to study for the priesthood at 13 and lived amongst priests and the religious while pursuing studies, I finally abandoned those studies completely by the time I was nineteen. So, what you may have created on the CTC blog and your anglo-catholic communities, may in fact be a better experience than your protestant one. But these are divergent paths we’ve both taken based on a choice and choices and subsequent choices we will make going forward. Your Sola Ecclesia path doesn’t inoculate you from that choice and choosing, regardless of Cross’ question begging flag throwing otherwise. But do me a favor, stop selling your ‘brand’ as Rome, it’s but a small corner, and there’s those of us out here who are gonna call you on it, every time. Now, if you start selling them the Mass and the priestcraft as the undergirding of the faith and Rome, you’ll be exhibiting a lot more honest brokering than a lot of what you guys have been proffering.
Sean,
My “brand” as you refer to it is simply fidelity to the Magisterium. Sadly, there are many Catholic institutions who today only see the Magisterium as one of many voices, but I believe the new young wave of priests and nuns is profoundly marked by renewed fidelity to the Magisterium. The old liberals are dying out. Nobody wants to give their life to a watered down version of Catholic Christianity. The high enrollment at orthodox seminaries and the low enrollment at the old liberal seminaries proves this reality. With the ever rising tide of secularism and the growing presence of Islam, Christians cannot continue to be fragmented. Thousands of evangelicals and Reformed Christians are realizing this and are coming home to Rome. And true, they often make the most faithful Catholics.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy, let’s just say that Vatican II would make fidelity to the magisterium anything but “simple.”
Jeremy,
That’s a lot of fealty to be rendering. But, it’s interesting that y’alls experiment isn’t much different from the protestant churches who are gonna get back to the church of ACTS. And it’s refreshing to hear the tacit admission that the unity you cobbled together is not representative of the vast number of faithful RCers and just about as tenuous as anyplace else that has a bunch of sinners.
Sean,
On the “tacit admission” – I am only admitting that there are a large number of Catholics who do not understand what the Magisterium is and do not submit in their belief as they ought. That does not change the sacramental unity of the Church and it does not change the historical fact that Catholic liberalism has run its course and is dying out. It is an exciting time to be Catholic and I enjoy being in fellowship with Christians who I would have been weired out by in their previous form of Protestantism. My best friends are a former charismatic pentecostal and a former dispensationalist. In our seperate Protestant corners we would have done nothing but argue, but we all left the man-made traditions for the authority of the Church Christ founded.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
OK Jeremy. All I can say is good luck with all that. I do hope you won’t entrust your soul to the magisterium, keep a healthy dose of cynicism and a good sense of humor handy. That’s one thing Rome bequeathed to me that I’ve put to good use out here in protestant land as well. Ultimately though, we all take our stand and make a choice and continue to make choices and like I said, by faith, I believe I’ve landed on a more sure testimony of our Lord.
My best friends are a former charismatic pentecostal and a former dispensationalist. In our seperate Protestant corners we would have done nothing but argue, but we all left the man-made traditions for the authority of the Church Christ founded.
Only now to have arguments with those who believe that their communions are an expression of the true church, founded upon Christ, and reject Rome as a church entirely. Polemics are inescapable, and it would be better to embrace them and understand their benefit in defining belief structures than saying, “Well now that I am part of the RCC, all that ‘arguing’ stuff is beneath me.”
RS: “…But what you continuted with is not exactly what my response entails…”
JM: You’re right, I can see that now. It seemed at the time like you were bracketing off my support of Sola Scriptura so you could assert it, creating a false argument when we are actually in agreement.
RS: “Now Jason is trying to get you to talk to him offline. Is he wanting to do that because he finds you so staunch in the Reformed faith or because he is reading your words and thinks there are some cracks here and there?”
JM: I’ve given Jason no reason to think me un-staunch in the Reformed faith, and if there is a “crack” in my thinking it is in how to view the relationship between “true Christianity” and early church history, which he probably wants to seal. Perhaps like you he also makes too much of my careless wording of history being “worrying” and “suggestive.” I find historical Reformed support for American slavery “worrying” and “suggestive” in the same sense, especially since Sola Scriptura was used to support it, but I think they were wrong.
So far, the Protestants on here (especially Ted) have done a much better job explaining from Scripture why the Christianity that emerged after the Apostles needs to be taken as UN-authoritative. If Jason really wants to try to convert me, he’s going to have a bad time.
Erik Charter: “If history impresses you maybe we should allow slavery again. It was around for a lot longer than not. Polygamy goes way back, too.”
JM: Yes, you could go back…all the way to Scriptura. Please do not bring up slavery or polygamy when arguing with Catholics, especially since one very ornery Reformed theologian keeps supporting it.
RS: “You didn’t say that it is a better argument, but that it “may ultimately be the better argument.””
JM: OK, it is the better argument. Are you in agreement that there is a 1500 year gap?
Jeremy T. says – “Thousands of evangelicals and Reformed Christians are realizing this and are coming home to Rome.”
If this is about a scorecard I think more are moving the other way. I have known lots of people who have been “raised Cathlolic” who have become Protestants once they started to think for themselves, but no Protestants who have become Catholics (well one, and she married a guy who was raised Catholic who became Protestant long enough to find a wife in a Baptist student group…). Literally that’s the only one in 35+ years in Methodist, Baptist, Christian & Missionary Alliance, E-Free, and finally United Reformed Churches. Most of Cathloic converts I’ve encountered on this site are highly-educated, former Reformed guys who read a lot (and there just aren’t that many of those people). I don’t think what is happening amongst them is happening with garden-variety evangelical and Reformed folk.
Jeremy Tate: Richard, Hi, the Catholic Church affirms salvation by grace alone. The problem is sola fide. They are different.
RS: Jeremy T, the Roman Catholic church does not affirm salation by grace alone though it may use the language. Once sola gratia is understood, there is no way to escape sola fide. Rome wants to define grace in a way that includes works, but in doing so it makes grace no longer to be grace. Beware!!!!!!!!!!
Jeremy M quoting RS: “Now Jason is trying to get you to talk to him offline. Is he wanting to do that because he finds you so staunch in the Reformed faith or because he is reading your words and thinks there are some cracks here and there?”
JM: I’ve given Jason no reason to think me un-staunch in the Reformed faith, and if there is a “crack” in my thinking it is in how to view the relationship between “true Christianity” and early church history, which he probably wants to seal. Perhaps like you he also makes too much of my careless wording of history being “worrying” and “suggestive.” I find historical Reformed support for American slavery “worrying” and “suggestive” in the same sense, especially since Sola Scriptura was used to support it, but I think they were wrong.
RS: I would agree that he sees cracks, but I am not arguing that you have them in reality. At times, however, the way things are worded it does appear that way.
Jeremy McL., why do you think Rome is the oldest or most historic form of Christianity? Isn’t that really reserved for Eastern Orthodoxy? After all, the Nicene Creed of Nicea has no filoque clause. If you’re thinking about history, what about the 500 year gap for Rome (between 500 and 1054)?
Jeremy McLellan quoting RS: “You didn’t say that it is a better argument, but that it “may ultimately be the better argument.””
JM: OK, it is the better argument. Are you in agreement that there is a 1500 year gap?
RS: No, I am not in agreement that there is a 1500 year gap. I would argue that some of the groups that Roman Catholicism branded as heretical were actually those who held to the core of the true faith of the Gospel. I would also argue that God has kept little pockets of His elect here and there. But I would also argue that many things that people fight over today are not essential and so even if some of those things went back that long it is virtually meaningless. It could also be true that God does reveal more truth (opening the eyes of His people to greater truth as history goes on) at times. Some examples of those in history that Rome branded as heretics could be the Donatists, the Waldenses, and men like Wycliffe and Hus. John Gerstner argued for years that Aquinas would be with the modern Protestants on justification. Of course Aquinas used different language, but it is not all that implausible.
If we go back to Luther we find him ready to swallow hard and put up with the Pope and various things if only Rome would proclaim the true Gospel. I would argue, though without a huge amount of evidence, that there were those under the rubric of Rome who did not believe what Rome taught. John Gerstner debated a RC priest one time and the priest basically agreed with Gerstner on justification. Gerstner told the man that he did not believe what Rome taught and asked him how could he stay with Rome. The man had no answer.
The Waldenses were reputed by some to have been started in 1160 by Peter Waldo, yet others say this group extended back for centuries to the Novatian movement of the 3rd Century and from there all the way back to the Apostolic Age. This group specifically and clearly would not identify with Rome. They are considered by many to be an early group of Baptists. All of that to simply say that of course I don’t accept that there was a 1500 year gap. Those who win the battles of ecclesiology with the sword are able to write the books. Rome could proclaim all as heretics who did not take their side in ecclesiology or doctrine and burn their writings. This explains a lot about why there may appear to be a 1500 year gap and why Rome asserts it, but there was not one. It was simply a time when Rome controlled the religious and through that a lot of the political world as well. Opposition from orthodox people was stamped out and writings were burned. So Rome can say that the Church was united and more or less believed the same thing for 1500 years, but that does not tell the whole story.
Richard Smith,
I cannot imagine how Scripture could possible be any more clearer on this point; “…and not by faith alone.” Go back and examine James 2:24 in context. The Reformed interpretation of this passage begins with the conviction that James couldn’t possible mean what he seems to be saying and so the interpretative gymnastics begins.
Or what about Jesus? “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. – Mattthew 7:21 But then again, Reformed people don’t like to look to the words of Christ when it comes to understanding justification. He is pretty much dismissesd on this complicated subject. Man cannot be justified without agape, without love for God. Scripture is all to clear on this point.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
“Reformed people don’t like to look to the words of Christ when it comes to understanding justification. He is pretty much dismissesd on this complicated subject.”
Get ready Richard, for the Jesus vs. Paul paradigm and then the next move to the protestants misunderstood Paul and there is no Jesus vs. Paul. But, I know Jeremy your commune doesn’t look like the one I grew up in.
On that cherry bomb, I gotta go. My silence won’t be tacit admission to your rebuttal Jeremy.
Self-referential linking is usually utilized as a lazy way out of answering a good question that would further the conversation in the combox. So its unfortunate to see some commenters use their comments as bait for people to click on their egregiously long blog posts. If a commenter doesn’t want to have the same conversation again, nobody is forcing them to post.
It doesn’t really further the conversation if someone links to their self-published internet essays of Frameian proportions and then they bow out.
Plus, it just doesn’t seem very ecumenical to do that….
DG,
Sigh…I don’t think that. Since Jason and CTC are on the block, I’m asking about the RCC. If your post was about Pelikan’s conversion, we’d be talking about Orthodoxy. I actually do think the OC is more historically defensible than the RCC, and I know a lot more Reformed folks who have converted to Orthodoxy than the RCC (including an ex-girlfriend). But the Orthodox do still regard the beliefs and practices of the early church as indicative of an oral tradition that is not a restatement of Scripture, so the need to develop a response is the same. Ted’s seems to be a strong one.
Jeremy Tate – Don’t you need to interpret Scripture in light of Scripture? Could not the works that James & Jesus speak of be those works that are done by those who are already justified as part of their being sanctified? Isn’t it true that those Christ justifies He also sanctifies? If works are a part of our justification how can we ever do enough of them? Who decides when we have done enough – God Himself, the Pope, a Priest?
Jeremy Tate – If your answer is we all come up short in this life and that’s what Purgatory is for please spell out a Biblical case for the existence of Purgatory?
Jeremy Tate: Richard Smith, I cannot imagine how Scripture could possible be any more clearer on this point; “…and not by faith alone.” Go back and examine James 2:24 in context. The Reformed interpretation of this passage begins with the conviction that James couldn’t possible mean what he seems to be saying and so the interpretative gymnastics begins.
RS: Well, I guess I am not Reformed since I think James is quite clear on what he is saying and no interpretative gymnastics are needed. Maybe you are just not clear on what James is saying.
James 2: 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?
26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
RS: If we look at v. 24 it says that a man is justified by works. Okay, that is what it says. The text is clear and really not ambiguous. It says that what a man is justified by is works and what a man is not justified by is faith alone. Then verse 25 is also just as clear when it says that Rahab was justified by works in the same way. So James is quite clear in saying in verses 24-25 of chapter 2 that people are justified by works and they are not justified by faith alone. The question, however, is whether he is talking about being justified before God or not since he just said in verse 22 that Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
So, Jeremy T, I don’t think that you are not being honest with the text. You either need to admit that a person is justified by works or by faith. The text does not say that a person is justified by a mixture of both. I am not doing gymnastics here nor do I have to twist around with my interpretation. I simply say that verse 24 says that what a man is justified by is works and what he is not justified by is faith alone. Then verse 25 says that Rahab was justified by her works though indeed we only know of one work that she did. I say that there are two justifications being spoken of here and you say there is only one. But do you really want to assert that people are justified before God by works? After all, that is what James teaches if you want to avoid twisting around too much.