Further discussion of Protestant conversions to Rome and Jason Stellman’s views over at Green Baggins have set me thinking about a curious feature of the Called To Communion paradigm (how do you like them apples?). Jason is trying to give a biblical account for Bryan Cross’ understanding of agape and he has challenged Reformed Protestants to show where Calvinism’s idea of imputation is found in the gospels or Christ’s own teaching. His point is that if Paul’s teaching on justification were so basic, you’d expect to see it in the accounts of Christ’s teaching and ministry.
My counter to this is that if Paul’s teaching is consistent with Christ’s, then Paul’s views of justification may very well be what he learned from Christ. Doctrinal development being what it is, you surely wouldn’t want to imply that Paul was making this stuff up. Jason says he’s not positing a red-letter edition of the Bible, or Jesus against Paul, but the tensions are there in his view. He can read Jesus through the lens of Paul or he can read Paul through the lens of Jesus. (Or you try to harmonize.)
Either way, this discussion has made me wonder if CTCers are guilty of their own form of deism. According to Cross’ idea of ecclesiastical deism, Protestants have no way to explain convincingly how the true church popped up after 1,000 years. So to counter the Protestant and Mormon view of church history, he doubles down and insists that the church was there all along. And to do this, CTCers put great emphasis on the early church fathers as a body of teaching that reflects what the apostles handed down to the church from Christ. Hence the continuity, authority, and infallibility of Rome’s teaching in the CTC paradigm.
But there is a gap here that is quite startling when you think about it. Consider three important Roman Catholics beliefs, the primacy of Peter, the status of the virgin Mary, and the authority of the papacy. You may be able to find biblical support for these in the gospels. But where do you find in Acts or the epistles a stress upon Peter, belief in the import of Mary, or signs of the bishop of Rome? The New Testament after the gospels is virtually silent on these matters.
So how do CTCer’s account for the gap between Christ and the Early Church Fathers? Do they suffer from a deism of their own? Did the Early Church Fathers all of a sudden pop up with the teachings found in the gospels after the New Testament epistle writers neglected them? Of course, CTCers will deny any gap exists. But two can play this game.
Old Life 
D.G.
In the Catholic paradigm, unlike the Protestant paradigm, the entirety of the deposit of faith is not presupposed to be formally set down in the New Testament canon, let alone some subset of the NT canon. So your “where’s that doctrine in these particular books of the NT?” question/challenge presupposes a Protestant way of thinking about the role and sufficiency of Scripture, and in that respect begs the question.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
DGH, Great post! The more these dialogues go on with the CtCers the more plainly they show to be in conflict with the Word of God.
Interesting personal experience on a different variation but related to “the gap”. I had an occasion several years ago to read Scripture at a close relative’s funeral. Being at a RCC I had reservations but I was convinced by the advice of a pastor that reading Scripture while not participating in any elements of the mass could be a good representation of the truth to family members. I planned to bring my KJV up to podium but a priest told me not to as they had an NIV and asked that I use it instead. I am not a fan of the NIV but I thought if it were an OP church and I were asked to do that in Sunday School or some other occasion I would likely comply, so I went along with it.
Long story short, it was not an NIV, nor was it what you and I would typically consider a standard Bible. Instead, the whole “Bible” was broken up and separated “topically”. So instead of the whole book of I Corinthians, of which I was going to read chapter 15 in its entirety (not just the 8 vs. I was asked) I couldn’t find I Corinthians. One of the priests had to come open to the topic of “funerals” and there were about 8 verses of I Corinthians 15. Frustrated that I had been duped by the priest I finished reading, closed the topical only Bible, and recited from Isaiah 40…”The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the Word of our God abideth forever!”.
I thought the priest was going to throw unholy water on me but he held his peace for the moment and let me walk away. After being told to clap to wake up St. Peter and let my relative into heaven (before being told she wasn’t there yet and needed our good works), being told to pray to my dead great-grandmother for blessing, being told my good works would save me and help my dead relative, and specifically hearing of the re-sacrifice of Christ (none of which I took part in), I escaped far more grieved than I had been before enterring. Not grieved out of sadness for my deceased relative as much as out of sadness for my living relatives and friends who have been bound in the darkness of Rome their entire lives and many of whom will likely die in its grasp.
The purpose of this story is to ask a question: with so few RCs reading the Bible and with at least some pulpit Bibles not even being a chronological orderly read of the Bible, do any of them know there is a gap between their theology and Scripture? Are they able to see this gap when their eyes are blind?
LikeLike
Hello Dr. Hart, I thought you might be interested in this review that I published with Credo Magazine last year that deals with themes you mention in this post.
http://www.credomag.com/book-reviews/2011/09/26/why-catholics-are-right/
LikeLike
Machen’s own ‘The Origin of Paul’s Religion’ (1921 & reprinted) is quite germane to Mr. Stellman’s musings. It is well worth reading.
LikeLike
Let me get this straight:
Jason trys to cast doubt on Reformed theology by setting Paul and Jesus against each other (or, to be generous, contrasting their emphases).
D.G. replies that Catholics also cast Paul & Jesus against each other re. the primacy of Peter, the status of the virgin Mary, and the authority of the papacy.
Bryan replies that it is not necessary to reconcile Paul & Jesus because that is a Protestant preoccupation, not a Catholic preoccupation.
So why does Jason, a Catholic, think it’s a problem?
Also Jason, does every part of the NT have to speak on the same subject in the same way?
If Jesus’ work was not imputed to Christians why did he have to die? Why not just give us some work to do to earn our way to God? Is imputation not implicit in his self-sacrifice?
LikeLike
Do Catholics also get out of doing household chores?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Here’s a link for you
http://liturgyandlager.blogspot.com/2010/03/sacred-scripture-and-catholic-church.html
LikeLike
Erik,
Yep! You swerved into that inconvenient core issue: the nature of the Gospel…
If Jesus’ work was not imputed to Christians why did he have to die? Why not just give us some work to do to earn our way to God? Is imputation not implicit in his self-sacrifice?
The nature of our differences ultimately gets back to the understanding of the Gospel. To paraphrase another commenter at Green Baggins:
The Reformed teach that whomever Christ justifies, those He sanctifies. Whereas Rome argues that whomever he sanctifies those he justifies (well, maybe)…
Not a small difference.
LikeLike
DGH – anyone who’s recently read George Smeaton’s classic volume, Christ’s Doctrine of the Atonement would be able to give ample exegetical support from the gospels to your point about Paul’s teaching matching what Christ himself taught.
(Actually, it’s available online here, I’ve just realised.)
LikeLike
Which Reformation theologian or confession taught that the true church popped up after 1000 years? Arguing that Trent marks a profound deformation of the church is not the same thing as arguing that there was no true church before the Reformation. As far as I know the Protestants, held (and hold) that the true church was always present. Belgic Confession Art 9 says, in part:
See also BC Art 29 and WCF 25.4 where this question is addressed:
The truly catholic church has always been. That it has not always been visible as it was in the Reformation does not mean that there has not always been a remnant or that the church has not at times been profoundly corrupted. There is an developmental understanding of the church that avoids both the trail of blood historiography and its Romanist alternative.
LikeLike
“According to Cross’ idea of ecclesiastical deism, Protestants have no way to explain convincingly how the true church popped up after 1,000 years. So to counter the Protestant and Mormon view of church history, he doubles down and insists that the church was there all along. And to do this, CTCers put great emphasis on the early church fathers as a body of teaching that reflects what the apostles handed down to the church from Christ. Hence the continuity, authority, and infallibility of Rome’s teaching in the CTC paradigm.”
GW: Of course, historic Protestants have never taught that Christ’s church somehow went out of existence after the church fathers and during the middle ages, only to “pop up” again a millenium later with the Protestant Reformation. Historic Protestants are not Restorationists (like Mormons or Church of Christ folk) looking to restore the true church which has all but ceased to exist; rather, we are “Reformationists,” believing that the true, “catholic” (i.e., “universal”, not Roman) church must always be “reformed and ever reforming according to the Word of God.” True, we Prots. believe that the medieval Roman expression of the church had seriously degenerated and was in great need of a mighty reformation of both faith and morals. And, true, we Prots. also believe that the Reformation was a mighty work of God. But the magisterial Reformers (Luther and Calvin in particular) were not looking to destroy the Roman church. Rather, they sought her reformation (hence, they are called “Reformers” instead of “Restorationists”). But the unreformed Romish church in her arrogance and schism refused their calls to repentance, anathematized their biblical clarifications of the gospel, and thus cut herself off from the true catholic church, the church which has continued to this day in the historic communions of the confessional Reformation.
To our former Protestant friends who have converted (or, in some cases, reverted) to the Roman Catholic Church, we confessional Prots. say: Repent of your schism. Turn from your allegiance to the schismatic Romanist church, from her false doctrines and idolatrous practices. Turn in faith (and faith alone!) to Christ alone. And demonstrate your faith and repentance by joining (or, as the case may be, re-joining) a local expression of the true visible catholic church, namely a confessional historic Protestant church. Don’t stay in the unreformed church with its false gospel and impure worship; come instead into a Reformed (or Reformational) church. And if you decide to come back (and I hope that you will), I for one will say to you, “Welcome back home!”
LikeLike
Fwiw, For a systematic, exegetical comparison of Paul’s epistles and the Gospels, New Testament scholar and evangelical Anglican David Wenham’s (Trinity College, Bristol) Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? is pretty good. Huge bibliography as well. Written for scholars but also for informed laymen. Makes a good cumulative case in my view for the coherence and consistency between Jesus and Paul, some parts of which would be relevant to the debate here, in advancing the Protestant side at least. He delves more deeply into some of the issues in some of his more scholarly work where he offers much more detail on the original languages. You’d probably want to have proficiency in the Greek for these, something I learned when trying to read some of them.
LikeLike
Geoff,
Any Pastors like you in the Chicago area?
LikeLike
John – What part of Chicago?
LikeLike
Erik,
I am in the northwest suburbs but am willing to drive a 20 to 25 mile radius to find a good church. I have too many problems with Lutheran theology to continue to go where I have been going although I like the Pastor a lot. He is more into liturgy than theology and so are the congregants. I want to talk and dialog about the Gospel more. He suggested that it would be better if I went where my theological beliefs were leading me. We have a respect for each other and it was not a disgruntled departure.
LikeLike
A couple from my church in Des Moines just moved to Chicago and is going to the OPC in Wheaton. There are several solid URC churches in the area but I believe most are South of Chicago. Mid America Reformed Seminary (MARS) is in Dyer, Indiana (South of Chicago) and a lot of good Reformed pastors are trained there. Alan Strange, who posts here, works at MARS, I believe. He may have some other good suggestions for you. If I ever move I think I would find the closest OPC or URC and make a go of it there.
LikeLike
This quote from Johnny Caspar in “Miller’s Crossing” reminds me of our Catholic brothers:
“It’s gettin’ so a businessman can’t expect no return from a fixed fight. Now if you can’t trust a fixed fight, what can you trust? For a good return, you gotta go bettin’ on chance, and then you’re back with anarchy. Right back in the jungle.”
“The Magisterium” and “The Deposit” kind of seem like a fixed fight. The Bible can’t assail them, logic can’t assail them, history can’t assail them. Catholics cling to them because without them they think all that is left is anarchy (or what they call Protestantism with it’s alleged “30,000 denominations”).
LikeLike
The problem is not gospels vs Paul, but reading the gospels. The Lord Jesus came to save sinners by His death and resurrection. But many in our day want to read the book of Acts in a way that rules out talking about the meaning and purpose of Christ’s death. It’s as if Paul merely commanded the jailer to confess Jesus as Lord, when in fact the apostle taught him who Jesus Christ was and what Jesus Christ did “according to the Scriptures”.
But there are many Protestants who thank their god’s grace for making them more sincere in their motives and different from the prodigal. They even think that,when Christ speaks of “a righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees”,(Matthew 5), this means their imperfect obedience to the commands which follow . Their hope is based on the evidence of their doing, even though Christ taught in Matthew 7 that the doers would be rejected.
John Robbins: Do not the Scriptures say that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord? And do not the Scriptures say that some people will not be saved? It therefore follows that confessing Jesus as Lord is insufficient for salvation; one must also confess him as
Saviour.
Now, consider the irony of the exegetical situation. Proponents of assurance by works appeal to this passage in Matthew 7 to support their view that belief alone in the Lord Jesus Christ is not enough
for salvation, that we must also faithfully perform works in order to show ourselves that we are saved. Yet this passage clearly teaches that some of those who confess Jesus as Lord and perform amazing works will be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven.
Therefore, one may acknowledge the Lordship of Christ, perform many wonderful works, and still perish. The passage is not a contrast between mere believers (who are lost) and workers (who are saved), for Jesus himself says that the workers are lost.
Now here is the question: If none of us has done or will do anything like the works these men will have done, and if these men are lost, then what hope is there for us? If Jesus himself turns these men out of the Kingdom of Heaven,what hope have we?
The answer is, We have no hope, if, like these men, our assurance of our faith depends on our works. We will have no hope, no matter how faithful our obedience, regardless of whether we act in the name of Jesus, or whether we confess Jesus as Lord. When these church leaders give their defense at the Judgment, they will offer their works as Exhibits A, B, and C. Their plea to Jesus will be works done in the name of Jesus. And far from lessening their guilt, doing these works in order to gain blessings increases their guilt before God. They are dead works, done by dead workers.
Far from teaching a message of works, Jesus warns us that anyone who comes before Him at the Judgment and offers his covenant faithfulness as his evidence will die the second death.
LikeLike
Bryan, maybe it does. But it’s a superior paradigm.
LikeLike
Erik, you are the man, quoting Johnny Caspar like that. What a character! What a movie. Coens’ best.
LikeLike
D.G.
Superior according to what standard?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Mark – Very nice post. My works aren’t going to be what I offer up on judgment day.
LikeLike
Erik,
I used to live in Northwest Indiana (Merrillville, Crown Point and Schererville) and took a few classes at MARS. I did attend a few of the Reformed churches in the area around there but never got settled in and the Pastors were not what I was looking for at the time. I have to sense that I can bring up anything with a Pastor of a Church I attend and I would not have been comfortable doing that at the places I went. So, it never worked there. Thanks for the suggestions though.
LikeLike
Geoff Wilbur wrote (eloquently):
“And demonstrate your faith and repentance by joining (or, as the case may be, re-joining) a local expression of the true visible catholic church, namely a confessional historic Protestant church.”
Geoff, as a Christian man submitted to Scripture, could you please explain how the your “confessional historic Protestant church” is the “true visible catholic church?”
LikeLike
John – You might feel more at home in an OPC church than a URC. There is a bit of a distinction in the URC between those who grew up CRC/URC and those that didn’t. This distinction could carry over to the pastors. In my observation those who grew up in the CRC/URC don’t ask some of the kinds of questions that those who didn’t ask. They have a firm faith, but they maybe haven’t examind it from all the “angles” like a “convert” to Reformed theology has. My pastor, Rev. Jody Lucero, grew up in charismatic/evangelical churches and went to a Church of Christ college (Pepperdine), before going to Westminster Seminary California. I believe he became Reformed in high school & college when he started attending Christ Reformed in Anaheim. Because of his background he is very capable of fielding about any question one might ask (he’s also brilliant). I myself didn’t become fully Reformed until my 30’s so I definitely know exactly where evangelicals (especially Baptists) are coming from. Sometimes that different perspective helps to answer questions from people who didn’t grow up in Reformed churches. I could make some of these same types of comments about people who went to Christian school and public school but I’ll save that for another day.
LikeLike
MARS is a pretty funny acronym. I’m sure there are plenty of secularists who think we’re all from Mars…
LikeLike
Bryan, according to the standard of Christ’s Word.
LikeLike
First, thanks, Darryl, for continuing to jab at the CTC shenanigans.
Second, John, if you’re ever back in NW IN, be sure to make a visit to Faith Community PCA in La Porte.
LikeLike
Ted Bigelow wrote: “Geoff, as a Christian man submitted to Scripture, could you please explain how the your “confessional historic Protestant church” is the “true visible catholic church?””
GW: Thanks, Ted, for this good question. My statement about confessional historic protestant churches being expressions of the “true visible catholic church” is based upon the historic reformed-biblical understanding of the so-called “marks” of a true visible church (i.e., those external marks or signs that a religious body is a manifestation of the true visible church of Christ, as opposed to a false or schismatic or cultic church). Historically those marks have been recognized to be:
(1) The faithful preaching and teaching of God’s Word (especially of the gospel message in its essential purity) (Acts 2:42; Rom. 10:14-17; 1 Cor. 1:20-24; 15:1-8; Col. 1:28; Heb. 4:2; 2 Tim. 4:1-2; Jms. 1:21; etc.)
(2) The right administration of the sacraments according to Christ’s institution (Matt. 26:26-29; 28:18-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26; Acts 2:38-42; etc.)
(3) The faithful exercise of church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5, especially vv. 4-5; etc.)
Insofar as confessional Protestant churches manifest these marks, they are regarded as being part of the true visible catholic church. From a historic confessional Protestant perspective, denominational distinctives do not destroy the essential spiritual unity of the true visible catholic church (though such distinctives do, admittedly, obscure the visible unity of the catholic church; the “messiness” of life in this present age impacts Christ’s visible catholic church as well).
Furthermore, my statement about confessional historic Protestant chuches being manifestations of the true visible catholic church is based upon the biblically-confessional definition of the visible catholic church as it is found summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith (to which I subscribe as an OPC Minister):
“The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.” (WCF 25.2)
“Unto this catholic visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world; and doth, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.” (WCF 25.3)
“This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.” (WCF 25.4)
“The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will.” (WCF 25.5)
“There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.” (WCF 25.6)
“The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.” (WCF 30.1)
“To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.” (WCF 30.2)
“Church censures are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren, for deterring of others from the like offenses, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the church, if they should suffer his covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.” (WCF 30.3)
LikeLike
“I have to sense that I can bring up anything with a Pastor of a Church I attend and I would not have been comfortable doing that at the places I went.”
John, that’s a pretty Yeazelcentric way of choosing a church. My pastor and I don’t get along like peas and carrots on a number of extraconfessional issues but it’s enough that he is a diligent pastor and a faithful expositor of the Word. Given your Gonzo past, I’m sure there’s a lot you could say that would make another person squirm. You’ll always be a character and that’s fine, but what’s with bringing up “anything”? The church is bigger than you or I – maybe we need to conform a little to the church rather than the other way around.
LikeLike
Mikel,
Fair enough- I think what I brought up is an important issue that does not get talked about enough though. You are right, the church is bigger than you or I and your or my sins and our struggle with it. I guess I was questioning what kind of paradigm (I’m being sarcastic Yeazelcentric again) and atmosphere pervades most churches, ie., for what purpose are they there in this life? Is the church a place where sinners and the sick go to hear the gospel and get their sin covered, forgiven and dealt with; or, is it a haven that breeds the self-righteous and cloaked semi self-righteous? Is it a place where we can really hear the Gospel, discuss it with those who really know what the Gospel is and have residing leadership in the church who know what the Gospel is and not preach to the congregation a cloaked false gospel which breeds those self-righteous and semi self-righteous? Is there an environment produced that allows for open discussion and the sense where one is not scared S….less to confess their sins to the Pastor. If the Gospel (not a cloaked false gospel) is truly being preached I think this fear to discuss and confess goes away. That is a rare environment to find in churches. That is what I was trying to say Mikel. Not that it depends upon me but I would rather not go to church than go to one where I was nervous to bring up honest questions and nervous to confess any sin I might be dealing with or struggling with. And above all that is preaching a false or cloaked gospel.
LikeLike
I appreciate the invitation Jonathan- actually I have a few friends who still live in the NW Indiana area and I have been thinking of applying for some jobs around there again. I will keep that in mind and if I am in the area I would enjoy stopping in and talking with you. I need others who know what they are talking about to dialog theological issues with. Not that I don’t get enough of it here but it is always good to find others to have more one-on-one conversations with. Keep in touch.
LikeLike
Erik,
It sounds like you have a good thing going at the church you are at. That was the point of my bringing the church issue up. Maybe others know of certain same type churches in the Chicago area. I know the church is full of warts and sin in this life but we as congregants can demand that we hear the true and pure gospel and not be afraid to confess our sins and get it dealt with over time. That is about the only thing we can and should demand.
LikeLike
Geofff: ” Historically those marks have been recognized to be….”
Thanks for such a robust answer.
Would someone like myself, who holds memorial view of the Lord’s supper – and leads a group of professing Christians in that understanding – not be a true servant of Christ/church?
Would that be true of those who refuse to baptize their children?
Also, if one is not connectionally submitted to a presbytery, is that also a mark of a not-true church?
LikeLike
Yeazel –
I can vouch for positive comments that others have made about Bethel OPC in Wheaton. We’ve visited there a few times and I wouldn’t mind attending services there regularly, myself. My wife didn’t like it, however. She comes from a Baptist background and claimed that their worship lacked exuberance and “joy” (whatever that means – typical Methobapticostal style, I guess). I, on the other hand, had a confessional Lutheran upbringing and I thought it was just fine.
The interior of the sanctuary is very unadorned, in keeping with the P/R practice of keeping would-be idols away from a place of worship. Other than a pulpit, the front has only a communion table and a plain brick wall. Along the lines of traditional Lutheran worship, the choir, piano, and any other instrumentation is in loft in the rear, not in the front as evangelicals do (so they look like entertainers).
And Troxel is a good pastor and preacher; I think you’d like him.
I have heard from a few people that the OPC, at least the Midwest Presbytery, is very legalistic in many respects. But you can’t always trust what you hear from disgruntled people. One thing that does concern me a bit, though, is the close proximity to South Holland and Shepherd. I’m not sure how much influence he’s had in this area. I know that Armstrong likes him and has had him at Act III conferences. And I did attend one Sunday when Kloosertman was a substitute preacher, but he’s not around at MARS and longer, either. (although I must say that he’s a decent preacher)
LikeLike
George,
I know a few who think Armstrong a bit snobbish (a bit is an understatement). Whether they are disgruntled or not I do not know. So, I am not sure if Armstrong is a good reference. I used to live in Glendale Heights which is right near where Armstrongs office is located and did go to a few of his conferences at a Baptist church he went to in Wheaton. I never talked to him or got to know him at all.
Plus the legalistic label makes me nervous. With MikelMann’s response to me I am not sure the OPC would embrace me with open arms. Nor do I know whether I would have run ins with those I would label cloaked semi self-righteous. I am of the opinion that the cloaked semi self-righteous do more damage in a church than the obvious strugglers with their sin. The ones who everyone in the church knows are going through a hard time and thus they shun and stay away from, ie., those who are having marital difficulties, those who have been drinking a bit too much, those who are having employment problems and difficulties with finances, or those who struggle with addictive behaviors. They usually end up disappearing for lack of acceptance and help through their struggles. Or, they are so ashamed they just wander away and no one seems to care. They were kind of a problem anyways. I think there are lots of people like that who don’t go to church anymore because the Gospel is not there anymore and they thought they could not live up to the standards. However, what is more important, the Gospel or the standards that the church wants to put on the struggling people? Enough said for now I guess.
LikeLike
And is conforming to the church a good thing if the pure Gospel is not really there? What does conforming to the church mean? Conforming to what might be a false gospel, false doctrine and false practices? Conforming to what the semi self righteous are telling you to conform to? This is where abuse of authority gets ugly and kind really screw up peoples lives. Kind of like what goes on in the Catholic church?
LikeLike
Ted Bigelow wrote:
“Would someone like myself, who holds memorial view of the Lord’s supper – and leads a group of professing Christians in that understanding – not be a true servant of Christ/church?”
GW: No, I would not take such a narrow view. As long as you preach the biblical gospel and have been lawfully called & ordained to serve as a minister of Christ’s church, I would regard you as a fellow servant of Christ and His church. Of course, the issue of the Real (Spiritual) Presence of Christ View (Calvin’s view) vs. the Memorialist View (which has historically been associated with Zwingli) is indeed a very important issue in sacramentology; and obviously we would differ on that important issue (since I hold to Calvin’s view and you don’t). However, if you were to visit our church you would be invited to partake with us of the holy supper even though we disagree about the issue of the mode of Christ’s presence in the Supper, just as long as your faith is in Christ alone for salvation and you are a communing member in good standing of a church that preaches the biblical gospel. (BTW, even in the OPC I suspect that there are many members, and perhaps even some church officers, who are practical Zwinglians or who lean in the mere-memorialist direction.)
TB: “Would that be true of those who refuse to baptize their children?”
GW: As a reformed paedobaptist I view the refusal to apply the sign of the covenant to the children of professing believers to be a serious error. But at the same time I recognize my Baptist friends who adhere to the biblical gospel as genuine brothers and sisters in Christ, and I know that many of them hold to their view of “believers only baptism” because they are sincerely convinced in their consciences that the Scriptures teach it. In the OPC we recognize the validity of baptism received by immersion in a Baptist church, just so long as water is used and the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is invoked. (Sadly, our Baptist brethren do not return the favor, since most Baptists will not recognize the validity of baptism administered to the children of professing believers; and, in that regard, we would regard the Baptist insistence that those who were baptized in infancy be re-baptized as adults to be a sectarian practice.) I would view “believers only” baptism by full immersion as an irregular and sectarian administration of the sacrament, but a valid one nonetheless. And I would regard confessional Reformed Baptist ministers to be true servants of Christ (though in error on the question of the proper subjects of baptism).
TB: “Also, if one is not connectionally submitted to a presbytery, is that also a mark of a not-true church?”
GW: Most of us confessional Presbyterians regard the presbyterian form of church government to be the one prescribed by Christ in the Scriptures, and thus of Divine command. But at the same time, most of us would view the presbyterian form of church government to be necessary for the proper (biblical) order of the church, but not essential to the existence of a true church. I.E., faithful gospel preaching churches that follow a congregational or episcopalian form of church government are also regarded by most of us confessional Presbyterians as true visible churches of Christ, in spite of being (from our perspective) in error on the matter of proper church government.
Thanks, Ted, for your excellent questions. I’ve enjoyed the exchange.
LikeLike
John, I’m going to push a little more on this. Any church you enter will have someone who is self-righteous. Then, pastors are three-dimensional men with whom you may not be perfectly in synch. These don’t deprive any particular congregation of being a church, and a sound church at that. Anyone entering a church has to make personal accomodations, learn how to deal with offenses, and generally deal with the condition of men. Do you have a theology of glory when it comes to your church expectations? It’s hazardous to not be in a church.
George, just so you know, the Midwest Presbytery no longer extends to Michigan. Reverend Strange, who has commented here recently, is a tremendous asset to the Presbytery as are a number of other men. And you know “legalistic” is sometimes shorthand for those who strive to maintain sound theological distinctives.
LikeLike
John Y –
Poor phrasing on my part. I did not mean to imply that Armstrong likes Troxel, but that he likes Shepherd – a totally different can of worms. What I was trying to say was that because of the likes of Armstrong and Shepherd in this area I get a little nervous about P/R and any association they may have or have had with either of them. I often hear undercurrent scuttlebutt in my own congregation endorsing one or the other and wanting them to come and speak. And I have no evidence of any kind to indicate that this is the case at Bethel.
What Robert Johnson Mikelmann said is true. Worse yet, I’m getting my info about legalism from some people who probably have an axe to grind. That’s why I said that you can’t trust what you hear from disgruntled people.
I also agree with him that you can’t always feel welcome or pre-judge a church by your first few experiences there. I will say that I felt nothing negative at Bethel and was welcomed when we attended there.
LikeLike
I’ve just read the last 10 comments or so & think they are all solid. Geoff is obviously a very sound OPC minister. I think both John & Mikkel are saying a lot of good things and they really don’t disagree that much. I think John needs solid preaching plus some people who will just reach out to him and be a friend. Hopefully we can all find some of that in our churches. If people will just be friends to each other that will go a long way. It’s always sad to me when people leave a church and then you never see each other again. That doesn’t seem right. We should agree on doctrine as much as possible but even when we can’t we should still try to remain friends.
LikeLike
Well Mikel you did not answer my questions. You’re not pushing that hard either I always sense some condescension and patronizing in your posts. LIke you are always right and the gall to question you. Have you been an elder too long or what? My main gripe was that a church should be continuing to be worried whether it is preaching the pure Gospel or not and allowing for open discussion of the matter. It seems that is what should be its primary concern. When a church starts telling its congregants to be quiet or pointing to a fallible confession and then telling them to shut up I would begin to worry whether it was losing its Gospel. Besides, fallible confessions should be constantly questioned and reformed if necessary from further study and discussion. Confessions can be problematic when errors are not corrected in them- like the magistrate problem. And do you join a church when you have problems with some of its confessional statements? Do you make that known to the Pastor or do you just sit on it and conform?
I know there is not a perfect church in this life Mike. But we should not be afraid to question some doctrine if we have good reasons to have problems with it or to confess and deal with our sins without fear. I am not really sure if it is necessary to confess the stuff we have either fallen into or are struggling with. Especially when fallen and sinful ordained pastors have the keys to bind and loose in this life. That seems like an awful lot of delegated authority that can be easily abused too.
But I do hear your point. A lot of times when we don’t understand or have questions about some doctrines it is probably better to try to conform to what your local church is teaching while seeking to come to further clarity and understanding.
LikeLike
A further question I have always had is what is the best way to deal with those who are having obvious problems and what is the best way to deal with those who have a cloaked self-righteousness and are oblivious to it? I think it is best to pour more gospel on those who are having the obvious problems and know it and pour more law on the cloaked self-righteous types. A lot of times it does work out that way in churches. It might be helpful to do a study of how Paul and the church dealt with problematic cases in the scriptures. Ones where obvious discipline was applied. A lot of times I think we misinterpret those passages of scripture too.
LikeLike
I meant to say that a lot of times it does not work out that way in our churches, ie., the strugglers get disciplined and the self-righteous get off scot free.
LikeLike
John, if you want to discuss further let me know over at PB and we can do it by email. Really, you’re in a good area to find a good church.
LikeLike
George,
I hear you now. I did not realize that Armstrong was into Shephard and I did interpret what you said wrongly. Thanks for your comments- they were helpful.
LikeLike
A OK MM
LikeLike
When John Armstrong went over to Shepherd, he went over also to the paedobaptists. Not that he’s your fault. Let’s blame it on Wheaton College. But the false doctrine taught in Armstrong’s The Faith which Is Never Alone is not merely an “inadequate expression” of the gospel.
from his news letter, Armstrong: “The greatest mystery of all has been revealed, namely God’s loving plan to save the world in and through Jesus Christ. Dr. Piper goes too far in using proof texts to argue for God’s direct involvement in disasters. The human mind cannot grasp such things
thus we should understand that the human mind is grasped by the divine majesty in revealing the love of Christ to us by the Spirit. In attempting to make God very big Dr. Piper time and time again teaches an extreme form of Calvinism. (John Calvin himself was extreme at some points, especially when he taught double-predestination!) The Catholic Karl Rahner got this right in the
20th century by stressing the role of mystery. Piper’s teaching detracts us from the gospel itself.”
Armstrong’s mind sure sounds like it’s claiming to know what the gospel is. Armstrong writes with extreme certainty and self-righteousness. His mask of humility is exposed by his antithesis to God’s sovereignty in providence.
LikeLike
This whole discussion(canonical deism), much like the Keller movement(social implications of the gospel) in the PCA, is all rehash of protestant liberalism in a current context. The Paul vs. Jesus move is itself a liberal standard that’s now resurfacing in the proto-catholic discussion at GB, and further verification of the Vat II embrace, even among traditionalist within Rome, of an indebtedness to protestant liberalism’s treatment of scripture. What’s fascinating is how quickly we’re repeating history now, we aren’t 2, 3 or 4 generations removed from the cycle of repetition, but we’re now repeating historical trends within the same generation. Theological trends are now starting to track along the same lines of repetition(frequency) as fashion trends, this really reads like Nietzsche’s hollow men.
LikeLike
In the Catholic paradigm, unlike the Protestant paradigm, the entirety of the deposit of faith is not presupposed to be formally set down in the New Testament canon, let alone some subset of the NT canon. So your “where’s that doctrine in these particular books of the NT?” question/challenge presupposes a Protestant way of thinking about the role and sufficiency of Scripture, and in that respect begs the question.
No, Bryan. The problem rather is when a normal person reads something like 2 Tim. 3:15-17 the immediate inference is that Scripture is sufficient to determine the good work of identifying the deposit of faith, if not that it is the only infallible deposit of faith. But what would be an immediate inference in this instance is to those wearing Roman goggles, presupposing the protestant paradigm and thereby off limits. IOW there is shell game going on here and the flim flam man doesn’t like being knocked off his patter.
Still if you want to make a case from Scripture for your side of the question, you and Jason and the rest are welcome to do that. But so far all we have heard is rhetoric, propaganda and assertions, mixed in with some squawking and complaining. Yet you only have yourselves to blame if you can’t come up with a legitimate argument, instead of the rote accusation.
Further while you and the rest begged off of arguing for the papacy from Scripture – because this was to presuppose protestantism – over at the Green Bilbo, now in regard to imputation contra infusion, the tactic has switched to arguing from the the less clear passages of Scripture over and against the clearer; for egs. the parables or James instead of Romans. Yeah, it’s an improvement of sorts, but with the gospel, a miss is as good as a mile.
B.
It’s called a missal or missalette if I remember correctly. You can check with the liturgical experts over at CtC, but the OT, gospels, epistles and apocrypha are chopped up into sections for the four daily readings in the Roman mass following a calendar of sorts for holy days and saints.
IOW a taste, but no real continuity or connection, much more complete Bible, with the homily in the mass usually being on the gospels with the good news being Jesus was good example, now go and do likewise, i.e. moralism.
LikeLike