Bryan Cross should quit while he’s unfalsified. I believe it was over at Green Baggins that Cross linked to one of his pieces at Called to Communion in which he tried to account for second-order differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants when interpreting the Bible. Not only do both sides come to antagonistic interpretations of the text, but they also approach Scripture differently:
In general, Protestants think differently about how to go about interpreting Scripture than do Catholics. When trying to understand the meaning of a passage in Scripture, Catholics have always looked to the Tradition; we seek to determine how the Church has understood and explained the passage over the past two millennia. We look up what the Church Fathers and Church Doctors have said about the passage. By contrast, Protestants typically do not turn first to the Church Fathers when seeking to understand the meaning of a passage or term in Scripture that is unclear. Protestants generally turn to contemporary lexicons and commentaries written by contemporary biblical scholars whom they trust. Only rarely, and perhaps as a final step, do they turn to the Church Fathers. The common form of the Protestant mind is ready to believe that the Fathers often got Scripture wrong, and to use their own interpretation of Scripture to ‘correct’ or critically evaluate the Fathers. That kind of a stance toward the Fathers does not dispose Protestants to be guided by the Fathers in their interpretation of Scripture. In short, the Catholic approach sees the Fathers and the councils as the primary guide to interpreting Scripture, while the Protestant approach sees the lexicon and contemporary academic commentaries [that one trusts] as the primary guide to interpreting Scripture, and that by which the Fathers’ theology and interpretation of Scripture are critically evaluated.
Cross goes on to account for this difference (and here verges into no-history land):
The explanation of the Catholic approach to Scripture lies in its ecclesiology, its understanding of the Church as a family extending through time back to Christ and the Apostles, and perpetually vivified by the Holy Spirit. And this understanding of the Church as a family spread out through many generations, has methodological implications with respect to interpreting Scripture. Here’s why. If you were to come into my home, you would understand many things said in my family, because you speak the same language that our broader society speaks (i.e. English). But you would not understand some things that we say to each other, because you would not have the inside-the-family point of view. You wouldn’t get the inside jokes, the allusions to past family events you hadn’t experienced. You would not have the internal lived experience of my family as the fuller context of our present communication with one another. To understand fully our intra-family communication, you would have to live with us for quite some time, learn our in-house catch words, the events and habits and stories that form the mutually understood background against which we expect our speech-acts to be understood when we communicate to each other.
Sorry to sound so ad hominem, but this is just plain silly. Entering the home of Bryan Cross is a very different matter from trying to understand Irenaeus. It sounds soothing and very family friendly. Who wouldn’t want to enter a religious communion where we are all siblings, know family dynamics, have assigned times for going to bed and taking out the garbage, and have parents who never make mistakes. Please, please, please sign me up for that.
But as family friendly as this form of communication may be, it will not do when trying to understand texts written almost two millenia ago in languages that (or at least versions of them) are in critical condition. If Bryan wants to understand Cyprian, chances are he is going to need to rely on a host of non-family members, people who teach ancient languages, compile lexicons, craft reliable and authoritative editions of texts, and — get this — historians who know something about social conditions in early Christianity. Believe it or not, a lot of these folks are not Roman Catholic and so aren’t members of Bryan’s family. He may want to restrict the study of the fathers to Roman Catholics (the Eastern Orthodox will want some input on this), but if he does he will be able to understand Tertullian about as well as your average high school graduate understands Plato.
And then lo and behold, even one of the church councils, the one held in Vienne in 1311, revealed the need for the lexical and historical investigation that supposedly prevents Protestants from being called to communion. Simply being part of the family would not allow editors of papal enclyclicals on-line to know exactly which parts of the council were constitutional:
In the third session of the council, which was held on 6 May 1312, certain constitutions were promulgated. We do not know their text or number. In Mueller’s opinion, what happened was this: the constitutions, with the exception of a certain number still to be polished in form and text, were read by the council fathers; Clement V then ordered the constitutions to be corrected and arranged after the pattern of decretal collections. This text, although read in the consistory held in the castle of Monteux near Carpentras on 21 March 1314 was not promulgated, since Clement V died a month later. It was pope John XXII who, after again correcting the constitutions, finally sent them to the universities. It is difficult to decide which constitutions are the work of the council. We adopt Mueller’s opinion that 38 constitutions may be counted as such, but only 20 of these have the words “with the approval of the sacred council”.
Not a big point, maybe. But if Cross is going to be so presuppositional — I mean, paradigmatic — about the ways that divide western Christians, he might want to check his theories against historical reality every once in a while.
72 Comments
Jason,
I think you missed my point. Of course there is a difference between the Scriptures and the tradition handed down — but the difference is in form, not content. For Irenaeus, the content of the tradition and the content of the Scriptures are one and the same.
This is very different from a church that appeals to Scripture up to the point of plausibility, and then appeals to tradition to do the heavy lifting of proof.
CTC (represented by Fletch) gives Old Life (represented by Dr. Jellyfinger) the straight truth about the Christ that Christ Himself Founded (TM) as represented by The Great Pope…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-zf2UBp7fY
Ahh, I blew it! “The CHURCH that Christ Himself Founded”…
Sean says: “You can find the gospel in Rome if you can manage to not get distracted by all the show, and if and when you do stumble upon Christ in his saving office, the more you grow in your faith, and the more word-based you become, the less compliant a roman catholic you become(you become a bad catholic or jack-catholic if you will).-see the fight the magisterium is having with it’s biblical scholars to this day.”
John Y: What you said about the Gospel and Rome has been passing through my Walter-like mind a lot lately and I fail to see where the Gospel is in the RC church. I am speaking as an outsider to the Catholic faith who has never been to a Catholic Mass. I have talked to many Catholics though and find that they have almost no knowledge of the scriptures and fail to see why it is important to pursue that knowledge. A few of them were concerned about living admirable lives, going to Mass regularly and praying at Church as much as possible before performing their vocational and familial duties each day. Can you explain to me where and how one “might stumble upon Christ in his saving office there.” I do realize that the sovereign grace of God can overcome doctrinal error and create faith in Christ’s work for someone but I do not see the Gospel as defined by the scriptures and the historical Protestant church in the church at Rome. It is a Gospel defined by those who believe they are holding the true deposit of the faith passed on from generation to generation. It is contrary to the Gospel as found in the scriptures. That is why the Reformers went all out in trying to refute their beliefs. I fail to see how someone can grow in the faith when a false Gospel is taught to them. They must be getting their Gospel from other sources besides what comes out of the Catholic Church. I also realize there are a lot of smart people involved in the Catholic faith who keep the false Gospel alive and well there. To say that you can find the Gospel there would lean towards making them a legitimate church. Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t think you call the Catholic church a legitimate church that teaches a true scriptural Gospel.
John,
I think Sean is correct in that the RC church hierarchy can be compared to the Scribes and Pharisees in the time of Christ. The Pharisees had buried the gospel under a mound of works righteousness, and were condemned for it, but OT believing Jews in the time of Christ (Simeon, etc…) were able to hear about the coming deliverer from the Scribes and believe by faith and be saved. So if there is any teaching about Jesus dying for sinners, no matter how many layers of ceremonies and works are piled on, a few always believe in Christ for salvation. In a similar vein the gospel can still be heard in the liberal mainline churches in their hymnody, and someone could certainly hear the gospel in a hymn and believe it. That doesn’t make these legitimate churches though.
John,
I think Todd has adequately answered your question. As I said, should you stumble upon the Gospel, as you make your calling and election sure and pursue your faith, you will necessarily become a less compliant roman catholic. Jeff C, did a nice job of describing that process, as you read the word and believe it for what it is(2 Tim. 3:16), the priesthood, the mediation of the saints and Mary, purgatory, infused grace via the sacraments, the magisterium, etc. all become difficulties and impediments to your conscience and religious practice as you grow in your faith. Rome is not a legitimate church in that regard. And much like many others left broader evangelicalism for confessional protestantism, so the RC will be compelled to leave Rome for a church in which the doctrine and practice more closely reflects the apostolic witness of scripture.
I would be remiss if I didn’t repeat what I said just a sentence ago however, I think many in broader evangelicalism are in the same boat as the RC, in fact having experienced both sides of that coin, I would tell you that the committed broader evangelical reminds me a LOT of the more serious(in regards to devotion) RC. It’s all about what’s going on WITHIN me. In very concrete ways , because of the priesthood and sacraments,however, the RC is forced outside of himself to engage his faith. You see very little of that opportunity in broader evangelicalism. Having made that claim, I would follow that up with that the more NOMINAL you become as an RC and pulled away from ‘navel gazing’ and taking the ‘deposit’ seriously and primarily become a sacramentalist, if you will, at least the human experience becomes much more balanced and neurotic than the evangelical navel-gazer.
But, in short, I don’t consider RC a legitimate church, and as a christian, you’ll be leaving as you grow in your faith.
sb; ‘much more balanced and less neurotic than the evangelical navel-gazer’.
It would be fascinating to know what kind of Reformed Christians/Elders/Pastors the CTC guys were vs. what kind of Catholics they are. Also what kind of evangelicals they were (if applicable) before they were Reformed. I maintain my contention that psychology & sociology were as much factors in these conversions as theology.
I know a ton of evangelicals (I used to be an evangelical) who can not/will not give Reformed theology consideration because their faith is primarily an emotional/feeling-centered/burning in the bosom/social kind of thing as opposed to a theological/rational kind of thing. Some of us read books and change our theology but it is a rare thing — maybe 10% of the population.
Erik,
From a psychological experience it’s pretty straightforward. Depending on the evangelical church, you still had a perfection of the law preached, but the gospel remedy is now largely transformative and internal. This is can be a very neurotic prayer closet, walk the aisle for the umpteenth time, because you sinned that week and maybe your not sincerely converted type of experience, think being trapped in Edward’s preparationism with no escape clause. So, no comfort anywhere or very transitory at best. So you get to Rome and their’s is not a perfection of the law required and you get absolution, sacraments and a priestcraft to look out to and at least get a consistent, though ongoing, ritual of relief and then a further blunting of the perfection of the law requirement by a mediated purgatory to finish off your less than Mother Teresa type of piety and inner transformation.
In Rome, their is some comfort. Problem is it’s a FALSE comfort. Evangellyfish, if perfection of the law is still preached, there is no comfort and because the gospel is primarily about transformation and change, no hope for comfort, if you’re honest with yourself. Of course, that’s just my opinion.
Sean and Todd, bingo. Now for revisions to confessional Reformed standards that are as explicitly opposed to broad evangelicalism as they are to Roman Catholicism and Anabaptism.
I know a lot of people who now think they are Reformed (which means to them that they think they are smarter than Arminians) who seem to have no category for something called “effectual call”,. They think that they grew into the truth (as opposed to “growing in the truth”) They think they “developed” from being Mormons into being “more orthodox” on the fine technical precise points of the gospel. In other words, they have never repented of their former idolatry.
Why is that so many people look down into the toilet bowls of their past and fish around looking for something good worth keeping? Surely there are mixed motives. One, since we believe in God’s sovereign providence, we don’t want to despise what happened in our previous lives. Yes, I was a prostitute but that was a good thing since it later helped me to see myself and the reality of the law. Yes, I was an Arminian but that was a good thing since I still have the same basic gospel, except now I know some other stuff (not antithetical stuff) which you can hear about if you watch the RC Sproul videos in one of our elective Sunday School classes.
Why instead of “counting it all loss” (like the apostle Paul in Philippians 3), do we reach into the toilet instead of simply flushing it? Two, we don’t want to be sectarians. All covenants are one covenant. All churches are one church. And even the sacraments of churches which are not churches nevertheless are part of the one church? Three, we flatter ourselves. We don’t want to take sides against ourselves, or oppose our former selves. and so we attempt to explain that we were always on God’s side, but not then as epistemologically conscious of how God works….
I am sure there are many more reasons we don’t want to “cut our losses”. If I had to come up with the most plausible to me right now it would be somebody who is anti-revivalist, who doesn’t put much stock in personal conversion narratives (not even of the Pauline Philippians 3 variety). This person would point out that, when you replace your own “testimony” with another story in which now at long last you have flushed the toilet, now that you confess shame and regret for your Arminian or Roman Catholic past, that nevertheless you are still talking about yourself instead of about Christ and redemptive history.
I wonder if I know anybody like this on this list! I wonder if those on this list who warn against a focus on the “application of the benefits” instead of on redemptive-history are also caught in a narrative in which before they were fundies who only worried about individual salvation and now they are focused on the one church (which of course they say has basically never changed no matter what happened in RH).
Also there is another before and after story—-first I was into saving the one culture so much that I identified society and state, but now I don’t do that, because now I am into the church (and to identify, one gospel, one church).
And having flushed the former fundy me, I emerge with no past, or at least with no past I need to talk about…..
Zrim,
You’d probably find more of an audience for revision of the standards in the PCA, but for all the wrong reasons-wanting to be less ‘sectarian’ and more broadly evangelical, not to mention Keller’s warming up of liberal protestantism’s leftovers to add to the mix. In my pond, I’d be hoping for sectarianism and just holding on to the WCF as written, and maybe some catechetical training Maybe in the OPC or URC or other such more ‘militant’(a good thing, the URC is militant right?) denomination you can get it done for the right reasons.
Eh, I’m probably a little too cynical about the PCA. Depends on the day.
Mark: They think they “developed” from being Mormons into being “more orthodox” on the fine technical precise points of the gospel. In other words, they have never repented of their former idolatry.
As always, I enjoy reading your thoughts.
I was probably 25 or so when I realized that I subtly believed that I was a Christian because I was smarter than my atheist friends. Bleagh.
http://news.yahoo.com/final-interview-cardinal-says-church-200-years-date-190009537.html
Not necessarily a knock against Rome, but further proof of how big a tent Rome can be. BTW, it can get a lot more liberal than Maria. Also, points to the idea of how political rome is, and that rome’s conservatism is more about social conservatism than anything we would talk about as protestants and theological conservatism. Again broader evangellyfish tracks along the same lines as rome in that the gospel is by a large a political message(anti-abortion, conservative voting guides, school vouchers, how to raise your kids and be a ‘biblical’ man or woman, etc..) and social conservatism.
I maintain my contention that psychology & sociology were as much factors in these conversions as theology.
Erik do you have a post where you expanded on your theory?
I know a ton of evangelicals (I used to be an evangelical) who can not/will not give Reformed theology consideration because their faith is primarily an emotional/feeling-centered/burning in the bosom/social kind of thing as opposed to a theological/rational kind of thing. Some of us read books and change our theology but it is a rare thing — maybe 10% of the population.
True. But let me just point out to you that Reformed theology in several critical places makes use of feeling as well. For example on the question of Canon Westminster I.V reads:
Or
This is going to be a controversial statement but what I would say is true of the Reformed faith is not that it is particular rational, but rather it aims to be intellectual consistent which is a necessary but not sufficient condition of a rational faith. I’d say faiths like Atheism, Theosophy or Buddhism are faiths that push for or at least allow for rationality. That is if one aims to be rational those are faiths that are purely accommodating. Faiths like Pentecostalism or Mormonism just say that if one is going to derive doctrines that ultimately depend on emotion, bosom burning, be honest about it and enjoy it. Evangelicalism mostly aims for a middle road believing doctrines need to be as consistent as they can be without offending moral sensibilities.
“Evangellyfish, if perfection of the law is still preached, there is no comfort and because the gospel is primarily about transformation and change, no hope for comfort, if you’re honest with yourself. Of course, that’s just my opinion.”
In my experience most evangelicals aren’t looking for much comfort or assurance of salvation because they’re pretty comfortable in this world to begin with. They’re pretty good people and are just looking to finish that off with a little church. Nothing they will hear at church will shake this notion. The gospel is preached, but it’s mostly for the benefit of any unchurched who might be there that day. Most evangelicals won’t experience any kind of crisis of faith unless their marriage falls apart or their economic situation worsens. Until then all is good, man. There is a reason most of these churches are in affluent, white, suburban places.
CD – I have written a few snotty pieces on my blog, but nothing terribly scholarly.
The big difference between Reformed churches and everyone else, in my experience and opinion, is the theology begins and ends with what God has done and is doing. Everyone else within Christianity seems to want to focus on what I, the Christian, do. God can get by just fine without me, thanks. In his grace he has saved me & is working in me, though, and it is right that I respond with thankfulness.
One thing that evangelicalism and Catholicism have in common is the leadership is pretty comfortable with keeping the attendees as theological midgets. “We don’t want people reading too much or thinking for themselves or they might start asking uncomfortable questions”. Everybody just getting along, focuing on the “main thing” is pretty important if you are going to have a big tent religion.
Evangelicals have always had a way easier product to sell than Reformed Churches have. They never stop and ask if it is a better product, though. It’s easier to sell a candy bar than a spinach salad, but the spinich salad is way better for you. They just gloat and say “look how many people are buying our candy bar. It must be better than that spinich salad that no one is eating.”
Evangelicals have always had a way easier product to sell than Reformed Churches have. They never stop and ask if it is a better product, though. It’s easier to sell a candy bar than a spinach salad, but the spinich salad is way better for you. They just gloat and say “look how many people are buying our candy bar. It must be better than that spinich salad that no one is eating.”
In Europe this doesn’t apply. But in America I actually see them as cyclic.
1) There is a generation of a great awakening. Huge swarms of people become evangelicals based on emotional intensity and charismatic leaders who meet their needs.
2) This leads to the construction of churches that are bound to the circumstances, theology and tastes of one generation of believers.
3) The next generation emerges and some become more interested in traditional, meatier Protestantism. Reformed apologetics while not particularly appealing to non believers is very effective on evangelicals and helps them redirect their spiritual life. So the reformed churches grow rapidly from the infusion of 2nd generation evangelicals.
4) Reformed christianity has a very serious problem with what to do with grandchildren of believers whose parents are marginal Christians. This necessitates the creation of a liberal Christianity 2 generations to house these grandchildren.
5) At the same time the old evangelical churches are collapsing and losing members into disbelief at a rapid pace. They are a laboratory for theological innovation and find a winning formula that appeals to the x-evangelicals and other non believers as well as the disgruntled members of the other churches. Repeat step 1.
Everyone else within Christianity seems to want to focus on what I, the Christian, do. God can get by just fine without me, thanks
I agree with you. I find the idea of a being attributed with creating and maintaining the entire universe focused on, oh I really hope CD-Host says the right prayer ridiculous. I agree with you the typical evangelical theology is offensive to the sovereignty of God. That’s why I kinda like imagery of Arianism. God is abstract, unapproachable and unknowable. The Logos is his word and acts as an intermediate form. From the Logos emerges the Christ spirit which inhabited Jesus…. The extra layers I find more believable. It allow for a sovereign God at the top, and just loving God down lower.
I’ve often wondered as the CBMW introduces Arian doctrines, like eternal subordination combined with Lordship Salvation into the Reformed mainstream what’s the reaction is going to be. The original authors of this Arian combo just wanted girls to have cooties, to fight off the push for female ministers. But we’ll have to see how this doctrine plays out over the next century. The 19th century Arian movement was quite powerful and mostly died because of Ellen White being a trinitarian. Imagine if the Ellen White of 2100 goes the other way.