While looking through the blogs today I came across a couple worthy of highlight.
In keeping with the theme of the realities of contemporary Roman Catholicism, Samuel Gregg’s piece on Vatican II and modernity might be of interest (especially to CTCer’s who whitewash dilemmas from church history). He seconds a point I often make that Rome’s decision to open itself to the modern world came at one of the worst points in modern history. Do you really want to open yourself to feminism, deconstruction, the Beatles, and suburbia? Here’s an excerpt:
Vatican II is often portrayed, with some accuracy, as the Church opening itself to “the world.” This expression embraces several meanings in Scripture. God loves “the world” (Jn 3:16). Yet “the world” can also mean that which opposes God (Jn 14:17). At Vatican II, however, the world took on yet another connotation: that of the “modern world.”
Curiously, you won’t find a definition of the modern world in any Vatican II text. But modernity is usually a way of describing the various Enlightenments that emerged in the West from the late seventeenth-century onwards. Among other things, these movements emphasized applying instrumental and scientific rationality to all spheres of life in the hope of emancipating humanity from ignorance, suffering, and oppression.
Given the often-vicious treatment inflicted upon the Church by many self-identified moderns—including Jacobins and Bolsheviks—Catholics were often wary of anything asserting to be modern. It’s untrue, however, that the pre-1962 Church was somehow closed to modernity’s genuine achievements. This quickly becomes evident from cursory reading of encyclicals written by popes ranging from Leo XIII to Pius XII.
Nonetheless, many Catholics during the 1950s and 60s were tremendously optimistic about possible rapprochements between the Church and modernity. And that includes the present pope. In a 1998 autobiographical essay, Joseph Ratzinger recalled his hopes at the time for overcoming the gaps between Catholicism and the modern mind. A similar confidence pervades Gaudium et Spes, the Vatican II document that specifically attempted to approach modernity in a non-antagonistic manner. Yet even in 1965, many bishops and theologians (including some associated with efforts for renewal) were warning that Gaudium et Spes’ view of modernity was excessively hopeful, even a little naive.
Of course the modern world has witnessed tremendous achievements since 1965. Its technological successes are the most obvious. Even diehard traditionalists find it awkward to be uncompromisingly anti-modern when needing dental-care. Likewise the spread of the economic modernity associated with Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations has lifted millions out of poverty at a historically unprecedented speed.
The warnings, however, about undue optimism concerning modernity turned out to be quite justified. The cultural and intellectual chaos that erupted in the late-1960s should have been proof enough. Since then, we’ve witnessed what might be considered an ongoing crack-up on modernity’s part.
Then on a different subject, prayer, Paul Helm registers reservations about the amount of detail that we put into our petitions. I have wondered about this for a long time, especially in those small group gatherings where you almost faint from the descriptions of medical conditions and procedures. Helm is addressing public worship but his point about prayer works just as well for the prayer closet (does any reader actually have such space?). Here he goes:
I don’t know how it is with you, but I cannot cope with times in services of worship when the minister or leader invites the congregation to ‘spend a few moments of quiet praying for someone in special need’. My mind starts to think about anything or nothing except a person I know of who’s in need. It’s rather like someone who says ‘Don’t think of a white horse’, an invitation that it’s impossible to accept.
We could spend a few moments reflecting on the view of public worship that it is implied by the ‘periods of silence’ invitation, of whether it is appropriate to think of public worship as involving the sum of the private devotions of the people who are present. Ought we not rather to think of public worship (as a general rule) as common worship, as in ‘The Book of Common Prayer’, as expressing in public the common, communal needs and aspirations of Christian people? But instead of thinking out loud along these lines I would rather spend these few minutes thinking out loud with you about what I shall call The Affliction of a Failure of Concentration.
Here’s my suggestion – not a novel one, but still, I think, worth airing and emphasizing – that praying, and particularly that branch of praying that is called petitioning or asking, including of course interceding for others, is not primarily, or even, a matter of acquiring and processing information, and then presenting it in bite-sized pieces to Almighty God. It is not a condition of responsible and genuine Christian prayer that it is ‘intelligent’ i.e. well-informed.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not against the provision of information. I have spent much of my adult life as a teacher and writer, engrossed in the world of ideas and arguments. I expect the students I teach to be able to absorb, understand, weigh and produce information. The more the merrier. But the point is that not all speech is primarily informative, and most certainly Christian petitionary and intercessory prayer is not primarily informative. Fellow-prayers in the prayer meeting may learn all sorts of things about Mr Smith when he prays publicly. But the living God is in a rather different position from our fellow worshippers in the pew. Does he need educating? Is he ignorant of any detail? Has he overlooked any of the needs of his people?
Selah.
Old Life 
D.G.
Which dilemmas have we “whitewashed” from Church history?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, I have more to say about this, but your view of history is free of dilemma. For you to have the certainty of infallibility, you need to assert it going all the way back to Jesus and Peter. But that is an interpretation. Later claimants to the papal office cannot simply make history say what they want it to say. Remember the Donation of Constantine? You need to find the infallibility at the get go. I say it is impossible to do so simply on the basis of texts available. You may want to claim an oral tradition to get around the problem. But that sets you up to believe someone in whose interest it is to have you believe him.
LikeLike
D.G.
So, exactly which dilemmas have we “whitewashed” from Church history? Or is that too more “hyperbole”?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, what I just said about your quest for infallibility.
LikeLike
D.G.
A quest is not a dilemma.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, it may be a dilemma to those unaware of the difficulties inherent in the quest.
LikeLike
Bryan,
I think what Darryl is saying is that your approach doesn’t allow for dilemmas. Infallible certainty doesn’t permit dilemmas – which history, nonetheless, does inconveniently present.
LikeLike
D.G.
So now it is not that we have whitewashed “dilemmas” from history, but that we have whitewashed from history what “may be a dilemma.”
Well is it or isn’t it? It seems like that would be important to determine before making the accusation.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
D.G.,
So you’ve claimed in your post that CTCers “whitewash dilemmas from church history,” but when asked to specify, you apparently can’t spell out a single dilemma we have whitewashed from church history.
It seems to me that if truthfulness about Church history is important to you, then truthfulness about what we have or haven’t said should also be important to you.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
As his royal highness, Humpty Dumpty said, a word means just what I want it to mean.
IOW Mr. Cross, welcome to that damnable hall of mirrors that you call private judgement.
Rather than remain outside and holler (respectfully to be sure) for the protestants to come out and join you on holy ground of presupposing Rome’s infallibility, you have ventured within in order to smoke the heretics out of the very bosom of their lair.
Well, good luck with that.
Yet the real dilemma in all this is how can one so blithely condemn what one so egregiously uses when it suits them. The hint of a thread by which Theseus might extract himself is that all men have a reasonable soul. And while all men suppress that truth in unrighteousness, the truth will out though men deny it. So too, Mr. Cross needs to deal with the rank fideism of Rome before he starts quarreling over protestant infelicities in defining or not, dilemmas, much more requesting definitions to begin with. But then one might have to give up that infallible sacrosanct and sanctimonious Romanism and therein lies the true dilemma.
Pray God he delivers Mr. Cross in Christ instead of letting him trust in his own works of righteousness, if not listless/listkeeping agape to find his way out.
I know. Romanists are not lost.
But then again, there are none so blind as those that claim they can see Jn 9:41.
Welcome again to the dilemma.
LikeLike
Bryan – Would the clergy abuse scandal count as something from recent history that you guys whitewash? Maybe you don’t, but I don’t hear any of you mentioning it here. Keep in mind this is “the divine society on earth, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that Christ founded, to which not only his interpretation but his whole life must submit and conform.” Such a Church could be expected to have really high standards.
LikeLike
Couldn’t the Donation of Constantine count as something of a dilemma for those who wish to promote magisterial infallibility? DGH did mention that.
LikeLike
RE Helm, the Lord’s Prayer is a model of this simplicity.
It also doesn’t ask for a lot that we could easily say “see, God failed to deliver.”
Also, just to muddy the list-agape issue a bit, the NT has a similar move from specificity of OT law, to simplicity of NT law imperatives. “Love” is enough (to condemn, to lead to Christ, and to guide) Law for NT purposes (and for those who have the spirit, and the Law on their heart).
LikeLike
Bryan, perhaps you have heard of the word “implication.” What you say or don’t say is one thing. But the implications of what you say are relevant. It seems that in the computer brain of yours, one word has one meaning and that’s all there is to it. Hence your not seeming to notice that I have raised a number of issues in my recent posts that are problems for the perfection of your position. I’m not sure what I can do but continue to point out where your assertions may lead.
But for now I’m sticking with the dilemma which is history. It can be interpreted a number of ways but you think it admits of only one interpretation — the infallible one to boot. At risk of opening myself to another ad hominem remark by you, that’s not white washing — it’s denial.
LikeLike
Erik,
You don’t really expect Bryan to respond to you, do you? As someone else has pointed out, he only responds here to Darryl, and that very selectively.
Has anyone else noticed his selective m.o.? Darryl posts something, written in a way a normal flesh-and-blood human would, and Bryan swoops in from the planet Vulcan (BTW, DG, while I like the HAL analogy, Bryan always struck me more as Mr. Spock—minus Spock’s warmth and charm, of course) and applies the nerve pinch to one iota of what Darryl said, while ignoring the real argument (and ignoring every other argument from everyone else on here).
He plays semantic and logical games, so as to avoid the hard questions.
LikeLike
BTW, Darryl, to echo John Bugay, I appreciate your work here of late in response to CTC, Stellman, etc. And Jeff Cagle, you too. Good work. And Sean (not Patrick), John Yeazel, McMark, The Viking (where ya been, Vike): I love you guys, man! Not to leave anyone out …
Okay. Back to lurking now …
LikeLike
D.G.
The problem is that none of us has claimed that history admits of only one interpretation or anything semantically equivalent. So, here again you’re criticizing a strawman.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Erik,
True, true, true. Some perverted priest did horrible things to children and some in positions of authority over these priests could have done more. Nobody is denying or whitewashing that reality. It makes me sick to think about. The sad truth of the sex scandal, however, does not change whether or not the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is the sole infallible interpreter of Scripture. Would you disagree? Can a handful of corrupt judges nullify the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court?
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Bryan,
I think I remember Darryl daring you to have a go on the early church fathers/history, I believe, and you bailed on the conversation saying it wasn’t suitable for a combox. Not an unwise choice, in my book but I’d a like to have seen that. So, it’s a just a tad disingenuous of you to now claim he won’t produce the ‘goods’. If you don’t like ‘whitewashing’ how about overly and overtly pious reflections which run the risk and have in fact done so, of failing to openly and honestly deal with historical account and hard evidence in favor of not bringing shame upon the church visible and rather assigning it to individual members, including the magisterium, who ‘unfortunately’ are/were wolves amongst the sheep. So, when it’s a ‘positive’ development it’s ‘proof’ of the divine work and stamp upon the magisterium or church visible rightly navigating and providing contour to dogma historically, but when it’s scandalous or negative, including mandates(ex-cathedra or not), it’s rogue members who either fell out or never were. Maybe Pollyanna is better than whitewashing. It’s a pre-commitment to an ideal and further a pre-commitment to interpret historical events in a certain light
LikeLike
Wikipedia: The Donation of Constantine (Latin, Donatio Constantini)[1] is a forged Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine I supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope. During the Middle Ages, the document was often cited in support of the Roman Church’s claims to spiritual[2] and temporal authority. Italian Catholic priest and humanist Lorenzo Valla is credited with first exposing the forgery with solid philological arguments in 1439-1440,[3] although doubts on the document’s authenticity had already been cast by this time. Scholars have since dated the forgery between the eighth and ninth centuries.
LikeLike
Read Bryan’s piece on “The Tu Quoque” sometime:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/05/the-tu-quoque/
He takes thousands of words to basically say that Protestants can’t accuse Catholics of making the same kind of choices that Protestants do because Catholics choose the truth and Protestants don’t.
If I like vanilla ice cream and you like chocolate and you tell me that you’re correct that chocolate is better because it’s better am I just supposed to agree with you that we haven’t made our choices in the same way?
LikeLike
Bryan actually seems to interact like a human being at Greenbaggins (I don’t go there much, though). D.G. must get under his skin.
LikeLike
Jeremy – I would disagree for this reason: The great heights to which people like Bryan raise the visible Roman Catholic Church.
“the divine society on earth, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that Christ founded, to which not only his interpretation but his whole life must submit and conform.” is Bryan’s quote.
We in the URC have a former Pastor on trial for rape as we speak. We can deal with that, though, because our view of the visible church as an institution is not as high as yours.
If I was a Catholic the clergy sex abuse scandal would shake my faith mightily.
LikeLike
Erik,
My first impression when debating some of the CtC guys was that they argue from foregone conclusions, reading back into history and Scripture the position they espouse.
Circular…
Sometimes I feel like John Lennon: “I’m just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round…”
LikeLike
Bryan, you have claimed that Christ’s words to Peter admit of only one interpretation. That’s what your entire claim about certainty rests on. Or are you really saying that that historical moment can be interpreted in a variety of ways with my Protestant interpretation having validity?
LikeLike
The movie to watch to learn how to deal with Roman Cathlolic apologists is “My Cousin Vinny”. Great movie.
LikeLike
Jack: but more often like everybody’s talking and no one says a word, there’s always something happening and nothing going on, always something cooking and nothing in the pot (they’re starving back in China, so finish what you got).
LikeLike
Erik,
Here’s an oldie but goodie from R.Scott Clark, of the defunct “Heidelblog,” on the disappointment of Jesus and the visible church:
“For moderns, who will let Jesus be Jesus it is only a matter of time before discontent sets in. Jesus is most resistant to being re-made or remodeled. He was and is what he has always been: the Holy, Holy, Holy one of Israel and a disappointment. He seems to have disappointed his mother, at least initially, at Cana. He certainly disappointed the disciples (hence Peter’s sword) and the disappointment among the mob in Jerusalem led them to clamor for another and a new new hero: Bar-Abbas.
Jesus is just a Savior. He established a kingdom manifested in his (visible, institutional) church populated by Peters and Pauls and Judases and lots of other disappointing sinners. He did not give it great outward power or pomp. He gave it a fairly incredible message (a crucified rabbi was raised from the dead and will return in glory) and two rather unimpressive sacraments. It’s understandable why people would be disillusioned. At hear the root of disappointment is eschatology. Americans and moderns have an over-realized eschatology (yet another way in which evangelicals are thoroughly American and modern; “Shine, Jesus Shine”).
Jesus is also Lord, however, and he is returning. All the glory folk seek now will be then. When the Crucified Disappointment comes in glory every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Messiah and the Lord of Glory. There will be no question. The empirical evidence will be overwhelming. The noumenal will become the phenomenal. What the pietists regard as private will become public. All social ills will be cured. All institutions will be perfected. The civil state will be no more. Of course, as I wish I had thought to tell my uncle decades ago, when he declared that he would believe the resurrection when it could be reproduced in a laboratory, they will have then what they want now but it will be too late. To have Jesus now (and then) is to have his disappointing visible church now. One cannot have Jesus without his little, ineffectual church. He called us “the least of these” for a reason.
LikeLike
D.G.
I assume that you know that the Catholic approach to Scripture sees it as typically rich with many layers of interpretation, because the Holy Spirit is its primary Author. And that applies to Mt. 16 as well. The quest to find the Church does not take as its foundational point a particular interpretation of Mt. 16, or a particular specific interpretation of any passage of Scripture. It examines as much of the available evidence from Scripture and Tradition as possible to locate and trace the Church through history, allowing the entirety of the available evidence to shape and inform the paradigm by which we understand and interpret the data, rather than forcing the paradigm to conform to one prior determination of the meaning of any single piece of evidence.
If you want to bring in the concept of “validity,” then I’ll have to ask you what exactly you mean by the term. What may be a valid interpretation of Scripture from an extra-ecclesial view informed only by historical and intra-textual evidence is not necessarily a valid interpretation when internal ecclesial teaching and tradition are included. So the answer to your validity question is “it depends.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
After doing some nosing around on the CtC website, here is how the debate looks to me:
P: Scripture is the only infallible rule for faith and life.
C: But your rule is actually your interpretation of Scripture; whereas I rely on the Magisterium.
P: Okay, but it’s your interpretation of Scripture (and history and tradition) that leads you to submit to the Magisterium.
C: I acknowledge that.
P: Well then, if it’s legitimate for you to rely on your interpretation to lead you to Rome, then why is it illegitimate for me to rely on my interpretation of Scripture?
C: Because it results in 30,000 denominations.
P: Okay, but there are also 30,000 interpretations of church history and only one of them leads to Rome.
C: Well our interpretation must be the correct one because it’s the only one that results in visible unity.
P: But your visible unity is at the expense of the apostolic gospel.
C: That’s just your interpretation.
And so it goes….
LikeLike
Brian says;
“allowing the entirety of the available evidence to shape and inform the paradigm by which we understand and interpret the data, rather than forcing the paradigm to conform to one prior determination of the meaning of any single piece of evidence.
If you want to bring in the concept of “validity,” then I’ll have to ask you what exactly you mean by the term. What may be a valid interpretation of Scripture from an extra-ecclesial view informed only by historical and intra-textual evidence is not necessarily a valid interpretation when internal ecclesial teaching and tradition are included.”
Sean says:
Here’s the overtly and overly pious reflection that’s pre-conditioned/subjugated to a prior ecclesial commitment
LikeLike
30,000 denominations isn’t such a big deal when you realize that they all welcome individuals to communion and all recognize one baptism. Those who rebaptize (credobaptists) are not baptizing for conversion but as a recognition of right practice. As someone who was baptized as an adult I look at all the denominations as fundamentally unified because I can join them without having to be rebsptized.
LikeLike
Will,
Do you really believe this? How do denominations reflect upon God’s love for us as our Father? (How would you look as a parent if you’re kids were divided?) Look at this atheist billboard which laughs at “30,000 versions of truth” and seriously ask yourself whether or not denominationalism isn’t a big deal.
http://www.examiner.com/article/atheist-billboards-target-the-religions-of-the-presidential-candidates
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy,
It brings more derision when the one visible and catholic unity acts fraudulently or equivocates. So, to the extent we are all still sinners and on a ‘journey’ to holiness, I think there are many times division, even razing carries a lot more integrity with the world, then the ; “yea but, we’re still the ONE church” And even after we’re done with this dance, it still doesn’t establish succession, so that a solitary visible body can claim it.
LikeLike
Erik,
Having watched My Cousin Vinny again the other day I am intrigued in how you came to the conclusion that the way to deal with Roman Catholic apologists is the way that Vinny dealt with the accusers of Vinny’s cousin. When the accusers fail to look at the evidence or say that the Holy Spirit is the author of the scriptures and the scriptures can be interpreted in a myriad of different ways the evidence does nothing. It’s like the man who believed he was dead but when pricked in the finger with a needle by someone who was trying to prove he was not dead stated, my God, dead men do bleed. Or, it’s like the Catholic Cardinals and Bishops in Luther’s time who ended up refusing to listen to the debates and refutations of Catholic dogma by the Reformers. Put them to death was the answer from the Catholic authorities. Unfortunately, many of the Protestants dealt with heretics of their positions the same way when they started getting more authority and power.
So, I am saying I am not getting your analogy.
LikeLike
Vinny Gambini: Look, maybe I could have handled the preliminary a little better, okay? I admit it. But what’s most important is winning the case. I could do it. I really could. Let me tell you how, okay? The D.A.’s got to build a case. Building a case is like building a house. Each piece of evidence is just another building block. He wants to make a brick bunker of a building. He wants to use serious, solid-looking bricks, like, like these, right?
[puts his hand on the wall]
Bill: Right.
Vinny Gambini: Let me show you something.
[he holds up a playing card, with the face toward Billy]
Vinny Gambini: He’s going to show you the bricks. He’ll show you they got straight sides. He’ll show you how they got the right shape. He’ll show them to you in a very special way, so that they appear to have everything a brick should have. But there’s one thing he’s not gonna show you.
[turns the card, so that its edge is toward Billy]
Vinny Gambini: When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they’re as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick. It has to be an illusion, ’cause you’re innocent. Nobody – I mean nobody – pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini, especially this one. Give me a chance, one chance. Let me question the first witness. If after that point, you don’t think that I’m the best man for the job, fire me then and there. I’ll leave quietly, no grudges. All I ask is for that one chance. I think you should give it to me.
LikeLike
Erik says,
“If I like vanilla ice cream and you like chocolate and you tell me that you’re correct that chocolate is better because it’s better am I just supposed to agree with you that we haven’t made our choices in the same way?”
Sean;
It’s not quite that simple, I mean yes that’s what he’s saying, but he’s gonna argue he ‘came upon’ that truth in the same way the WCF would talk about the Holy Spirit ‘illumining’ the word of God. So his conviction became ‘effectual’ by divine grace, and once that ‘move’ is made, it’s an unassailable ‘ecclesial’ commitment to ALL religious truth or truth within the deposit. It’s Thomas Aquinas’ idea of ‘becoming’, if you will, being brought to fruition(on a journey) by divine grace.
LikeLike
I guess I don’t see how the existence of another group of people saying the Jesus is Lord is supposed to cause me to doubt that Jesus is Lord. If there are athiests that think that way, it’s really not a very good reason.
In heaven I’m confident that denominational lines will be erased and we’ll figure out who was right and who was wrong but we’re not in heaven yet.
In the meantime we shouldn’t be surprised that we disagree. In my short life I’ve been in 4 different denominations. I’ve never heard any of them say that people in other denominations aren’t Christians.
I’d like to see more unity in Christianity but historically the tools used to force unity have created greater obstacles to faith than diversity. It’s a lot easier to defend 30,000 denominations than it is to defend the Inquisition or the Calvin-Severtus incident.
LikeLike
“It’s a lot easier to defend 30,000 denominations than it is to defend the Inquisition or the Calvin-Severtus incident.”
Don’t defend them. Just argue for 2K.
Where does this 30,000 number come from, anyway?
LikeLike
Sean – I hear you, but it’s kind of silly for him to refer Protestants to his essay, as if that’s going to clear things up for us. It’s like me saying, “Bryan; here’s a link to the Three Forms of Unity. Read it and you will see the error of your ways.”
LikeLike
Erik,
What number of denominations would you say is acceptable before you’d be willing to consider that there might a real problem inherent to Protestantism?
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
The problem in the case of the Roman Catholics vrs. the Protestants is that no one is innocent. The Catholics deal with this issue by constructing an infallible church with an infallible magisterium that has the authority to infuse grace and salvation into its congregants. The Protestants rejected that belief and stated that sovereign grace is imputed to the elect by God Himself which causes the elect to believe the Gospel. They also believe that no human authority is capable of doling out salvation and grace. What being given the keys to the Kingdom means to Ordained minsters of the Gospel in Protestantism has a different meaning in the Catholic church. Among Protestants this meaning of the keys is debated by differing denominations. Some get nervous with the ideas of the sacraments holding salvific power and sanctification meaning infusion of grace and how this infusion takes place. The thin wall is the problem but the Catholics think the Protestants have the thin wall and vice versa.
LikeLike
You never know Erik, that’s how he’s gonna describe his ‘conversion’ or ‘coming upon’ the one true church. Remember their blog is an extension of magisterial permission/direction to reach out to seperated brethren, even recalcitrant prodigals like myself. It’s all about coming home.
LikeLike
Jeremy – I don’t think it’s really a problem, especially in light of the fact that no one is killing anyone over being in a different denomination. It’s better to split off then to tolerate error and nonsense in a “big tent” — whether it’s a Catholic big tent or a Protestant big tent (like the PC-USA in Machen’s day).
You have to ask yourself which came first in your conversion – a desire for unity or a desire for the truth?
LikeLike
Jeremy,
The 30,000 number is bogus. You know that. That whole line of argumentation is an empty one. Unity of institutional organization doesn’t translate into a proof of what constitutes a true church. And unity of organization means little if the Gospel has been corrupted with works, even if they are works of love.
LikeLike
John Y.,
Indeed. If one wants a mediator between them and the Mediator – Christ Jesus, then Rome fits the bill.
LikeLike
The keys of the kingdom given to the church is the Gospel. That is what opens the door to heaven for sinful man. Whoever receives it enters in. Whoever rejects it cannot enter.
LikeLike
Erik,
What is so sad to me right now is that some in the Reformed community have forgotten that denominatinoalism is in fact a tradgedy. This amnesia is very new. Am I wrong in suggesting this D.G.? Are you also o.k. with denominationalism?
In John Frame’s “Evangelical Reunion” he lists 15 reasons denominations are wrong in a chapter titled “What’s Really so Wrong about Denominationalism?”
To those who say “What’s so wrong about denominations, I don’t think they’re so bad?” Frame has this to say;
P. 46 Evangelical Reunion
Frame’s 15 reasons;
1. Denominationalism has greatly weakened church discipline.
2. Because of denominations…church membership means very little
3. …an imbalance in spiritual gifts.
4. …a lack of a common court to resolve disputes
5. …hardens existing divisions
6…makes reconciliation more difficult
7….unholy alliances
8. ….compromises the church’s witness to the world.
9. …leads to credal stagnation
10. …distorted priorities
11. …superficiality
12. …parochialism
13. …weakening of worldwide solidarity of Christians
14. …unhealthy competition among denominational groups
15. ….ungodly pride and snobbery
So here we have a leader at a major Reformed Seminary teaching the exact opposite of what you and Will assert. Would you reject all of Frame’s 15 problems with denominationalism or just some of them?
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy – I don’t think you’ll find a lot of sympathy for John Frame here. The problem with “evangelical reunion” is that in practice the more liberal theological views somehow have a way of winning out whenever mergers take place. Thank goodness the OPC didn’t merge with the CRC (the CRC is the one that backed out).
Your church would probably do well to kick a lot of your own liberals out.
Why do you assume Jesus guaranteed or desired unity among everyone who claimed to be his followers? Didn’t he tell us the tares would exist alongside the wheat until he returned?
LikeLike
Off-topic but here is today’s video from Patrick Edouard’s rape trial:
http://literatecomments.com/
I think he’s going to be convicted of something but it won’t be rape.
LikeLike
Bryan, what the church does is one thing, what you do is another. Here are a couple of samples of your assumptions guiding your reading of history. But you continue to insist that your assumptions are correct, hence you don’t engage in circular reasoning:
In both cases you assume apostolic succession and infallibility without ever considering whether those ideas are historically true. I stand by my assertion. It is whitewashing history. It may be philosophically cogent. But the claims that you make for the church, ones that are the basis for Rome’s alleged superiority to Protestantism, are historical claims. To be true, they better line up with history. Remember the Donation of Constantine?
LikeLike
David R., pretty good. You get a ding ding.
LikeLike
Erik,
The yute exchange between Herman munster the judge and Vinny the lawyer is still a classic in my book. But you have to consider the source- this is coming from a guy who wants to hang a fathead picture of Danny, Walter and the Dude up in his bedroom.
LikeLike
Jeremy, have you ever considered the term denomination? You use it as if it meant separation. A ten dollar bill and a one dollar bill are both representing the same currency as in denominations of it. Denomination is actually an effort to claim the unity of the church in a mixed up world not to mention a spread out one.
As for denominations, have you ever considered that each Jesuit represents a different denomination of Roman Catholicism?
LikeLike
D.G.
In this case, you are asserting something *you* don’t know, namely, that I never “[considered] whether those ideas are historically true.” On the contrary, I spent years investigating it.
The argument from silence is a fallacy. Just because I make use of an assumption in an argument, without there providing substantiating evidence for the truth of that assumption, does not mean, imply or entail that I never investigated whether that assumption is historically true.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Jeremy, when will you acknowledge that the papacy and magisterium are not wonder cures for the alleged errors of denomninationalism. If Frame’s list also applies to Rome, what value is your assertion of unity? I know, just keep your eyes on the Vatican.org homepage and don’t look too carefully at what’s happening the the “perfect” community.
BTW, I’m still curious about your answer to David R.’s question about the gospel you found when you became Roman Catholic.
LikeLike
John Y: The problem in the case of the Roman Catholics vrs. the Protestants is that no one is innocent.
mark: 1. Some credobaptists say they were never Protestants. They do this not only to disagree with the continuity in gradual “Reform{ from Rome (accepting Rome’s water and/or ordination), but also to claim that they were always the victims and never the persecutors. But in standard Reformed church-history texts, these credobaptists are identified with the minority group at Munster who killed their enemies. This serves not only as a distraction from the persecutions done by Protestants but also as an incentive for some credobaptists to discover their Protestant roots. (We always supported the magistrate, whoever he was, they claim).
2. But to be Protestant is to continue the protest, and thus Constantinianism was revised out of the confessions. But some Protestants today (Leithart) protest a need for a better and renewed Constantinianism.
3. None of us is innocent. And since sinner’s only hope is justification by an imputed righteousness, our mother is not a visible church and certainly not “the” visible church. And since God has not only predestined for the elect all the blessings of salvation, but has revealed the gospel as the means and power of salvation, ultimately the most important questions about “also the churches” has to do with the gospel confessed and taught by those churches.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
I don’t buy Frames’s assumptions or his list, but here’s some quick thoughts:
1. Denominationalism has greatly weakened church discipline.
-Rome practices little if any discipline.
2. Because of denominations…church membership means very little
-Because of the lack of the Gospel, being Roman Catholic means very little.
3. …an imbalance in spiritual gifts.
-That, coming from a Roman Catholic? Can you say sacerdotal, priesthood, and Pope.
4. …a lack of a common court to resolve disputes
-No disputes over doctrine as long as you stay nominally RC.
5. …hardens existing divisions
-Can you say Trent?
6…makes reconciliation more difficult
-Reconciliation to God comes through the Gospel.
7….unholy alliances
-As a Papal supporter, do you really want to go there?
8. ….compromises the church’s witness to the world.
-As a Roman Catholic, in light of her history past and present, do you really want to go there?
9. …leads to credal stagnation
T-hat might not be too bad when compared with continuing development of doctrine in the RCC.
10. …distorted priorities
-Really? How about the latest list of sins?
11. …superficiality
-See last comment.
12. …parochialism
-RCC – tunnel vision.
13. …weakening of worldwide solidarity of Christians
-Unity of organization doesn’t equate unity around truth. The truth of the Gospel is the witness to the world, not the Church and all her warts.
14. …unhealthy competition among denominational groups
-Right. If only there were more competition regarding true doctrine. Praise bands ala Frame really is a poor way to compete.
15. ….ungodly pride and snobbery
-See – CtC?
Really is this necessary?
LikeLike
Some good snippets from Gregg’s piece:
“One symptom is the ever-increasing hyper-specialization and subsequent fragmentation of knowledge. Leading contemporary scholars turn out to have an adolescent’s understanding of anything falling outside their immediate areas of expertise. An accomplished biologist like Richard Dawkins thus resorts to ad hominem arguments when debating God’s existence and displays a rather inadequate command of basic logic. Nor does he even seem to understand why ad hominem arguments are invalid!”
and
“And herein may be one of Catholicism’s biggest challenges in the post-Vatican II era. It’s not simply that some moderns just aren’t interested in revisiting issues that, frankly, might imply significant lifestyle-changes on their part. Unwilling to acknowledge the Logos as the ultimate foundation for everything, many moderns seem stuck in an iron cage of their own making, unable to provide conclusive reasons (beyond question-begging appeals to “change” and “progress”) why they want what they want and do what they do.”
LikeLike
“3. …weakening of worldwide solidarity of Christians
-Unity of organization doesn’t equate unity around truth. The truth of the Gospel is the witness to the world, not the Church and all her warts.”
Galatians 1:8
English Standard Version (ESV)
8 But even if we(apostle with a direct encounter with the glory-theophany-apostolic authority par excellence) or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
LikeLike
In case anyone might be taking the 30,000 denominations thing seriously, I’d point out this: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2218
LikeLike
McMark,
Was that a correction of some things I have said or an affirmation of what I have said? The Catholics avoid talking about elements of the Gospel or defining the Gospel from the scriptures. They decide what the Gospel is amongst the magisterium and then tell their faithful to submit. And the magisterium hold the keys. Am I missing something?
LikeLike
John, no, then yes. Actually, as I tend to do, I was using your remarks as an occasion to sin. I mean…as an occasion to talk about stuff I want to talk about. But overlooking my anabaptist agenda, we agree that the first mark of a true church is gospel. No need to name (denominate) other marks until we get that first one….
LikeLike
D.G., David,
The gospel I found when I became Roman Catholic? I’ll be short. The good news of the gospel is Jesus Christ himself. Reformed Christianity offered me a rich education in knowing about Christ, but only Catholicism, in the Eucharist, offered me an actual encounter with Christ. The gospel I found in Catholicism is one that had broken out of the school house, out of academia if you will, and offered me a way to kneel before the Christ of whom I’d learned so much about from the Reformed faith.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Bryan, I don’t think DGH is saying that you didn’t actually do your homework; just that you are keeping it in your backpack.
It’s a provocative invitation to lay your cards on the table. How *did* you get from history and tradition to the conclusions that
(a) The RCC and not the EO or the Copts are the Church that Christ founded,
(b) And that God has preserved that Church from doctrinal error, such that
(c) “I believe whatsoever the Church teaches”
?
LikeLike
Jeremy – Reformed churches embrace the real presence of Christ in the supper.
Tell Bryan to get out of the school house. He apparently didn’t get the memo.
LikeLike
Totally off-topic again but You Tube is getting ridiculous in terms of what you can find there. I’ve listened to “Can’t Buy a Thrill”, “Aja” and “The Royal Scam” complete tonight. In a group like this there has to be some fellow Steely Dan fans.
LikeLike
Erik,
I would still argue that the best theologians in the world are still Catholic (the current Pope comes to mind), but that Catholicism hasn’t made the fatal mistake of turning the parish Mass into a University lecture hall (how some describe a Reformed worship service).
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
But McMark, you are missing the “encounter” of Christ by the transubstantiation of the elements in the supper. That sounds like an offshoot of existentialism to me. Didn’t Kierkegaard say something similar to that? I don’t think he believed in transubstantiation though.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Nice straight white teeth and a pleasant smile. Taking a picture like that may make others believe that you have repented from your contrarian and curmudgeonly ways. You look liberated and alive.
LikeLike
You certainly don’t look like the Lutheran Walther in his older age.
LikeLike
Or, for that matter, the aging Luther and his puffed out face and weight problems. By his late 50’s Luther might have been a highly productive yet functional alcholic and food addict. He used to go ballistic on those who drank too much or were gluttons too- imagine that.
LikeLike
It’s interesting that Bryan is criticized for not carefully laying out in detail each element of his arguments, but when he does go into greater detail, he gets made fun of for his long posts.
LikeLike
Jeremy, once you account for non-Catholics who are paedobaptist the 30K figure goes way, way down.
LikeLike
Jeremy:
I agree with your comment about the university lecture hall. Any Reformed service can be and is that apart from the work of the Holy Spirit.
The problem with Rome is that the Eucharist is not a means of grace whereby Christ is communicated to and received by the faithful through the work of the Holy Spirit. It has become an end in itself. The sacrament itself is adored. The dominical sacraments that we enjoy are not meant as ends in themselves but signs and seals of the grace of God, made efficacious by the work of the Holy Spirit.
I am sorry that you experienced Reformed preaching in the way that you did, but Baptism and the Supper applied by God’s Spirit are true means of grace, whereby we are drawn up into the life of the Blessed Holy Undivided Trinity, seated in heavenly places, and enjoy in the Word, sacraments, and prayer, all the blessings and benefits of the merits and mediation of Christ.
You need not bring faith to the Eucharist to receive the grace offered. It’s ex opere operato, unless positively refused. Can we compete with that? No, we cannot compete with that demand for “sight.” Rather we come in the Spirit, in faith, and find the means that God has appointed more than soul-satisfying. How could it be otherwise when God Himself by His Spirit enlivens His Word so that it is not merely a “lecture” but the living and active Word of God. Now I grant that much that passes for preaching is poor, but we so believe in the work of the Spirit in preaching that even weak and poor preaching, as long as it faithfully holds forth God’s Word, enjoys efficacy in our needy hearts.
It seems to me, as I’ve said to a very dear former student of mine, and have written elsewhere, both in print (in several places) and on blogs, that, for Rome, the Church replaces the Spirit, the true vicar of Christ. This plays out in church history with an underdevelopment of the doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit until the Reformation. There was some development in the East, but the person of the Spirit was not as closely tied to Christ as in the West (filioque), and otherwise rather mystical. It was in the West as part of its Trinitarian theological development but the primary emphasis was theology proper, anthropology, and Christology (with the work of Christ not receiving greater attention until Anselm). After Christology, in the Middle Ages in the West, the accent fell upon ecclesiology, especially sacramentology. We ended up with the sacerdotalism that we did, evident at Lateran IV (1215), because we under-developed the doctrine of the Spirit, particularly, as I said, His work, which does not receive the kind of attention that it warranted until Calvin in Book III of his Institutes. I could say a lot here but let it suffice to say that it’s a world of difference to get to our doctrine of the church after and through our doctrine of the Spirit than it is to get a doctrine of the work of the Spirit as a consequence of our doctrine of the church and sacramentology. Church becomes the lens through which we view everything rather than the Spirit speaking in an through the Word that He inspires and illumines.
I did not intend a history lecture here; sorry about that. I only wanted to address the reality that Sunday services are what they are in a Presbyterian church because of the work of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace. Yes, we may be saying something about the preacher when his sermon is “like the lecture hall.” To be sure, preachers have an obligation to be faithful to the Word of God, to preach in the power of the Spirit. But it may be saying even more about me as a listener when I go away from church claiming only to have heard a lecture. Perhaps that is my response because there was no corresponding work of the Spirit.
LikeLike
This is why the demon said, “I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” (Acts 19:15) The demon is speaking about authority (and the lack thereof), not about his depth of social knowledge.
Which is precisely the question the devil will ask you, Bryan. Where is your authority to pontificate about Romanism and appeal to our private judgement all the while you condemn it when you are not even a member of holy orders, much more the church has not dogmatically pronounced on any number of passages in Scripture, if not the majority ? To ask is to answer. In the negative. You don’t have any authority to do what you do.
JJS. Nope. Rather Mr. Cross gets faulted for his long and irrelevant posts.
Of course one of the shorter ones most recently was that agape doesn’t rule out the making of lists.
IOW when you lead with your chin in the real – not the Roman – world, you better expect somebody is going to take a shot. As in if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, much more stop stirring the pot.
Of course, another question would be why do I have to explain this in the first place.
But then Scripture tells me that:
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness 2 Thess. 2:9-12.
Maybe they didn’t teach you that in seminary (unfortunately), but it used to be the prooftext for WCF 25:6 that the pope was AntiChrist. Yet from what I have seen of the CtC I am not impressed with the honesty of their arguments, but that is again, only my stupid private judgement kicking in.
LikeLike
Thanks for your clarification, Dr. Strange.
That in part, is the error of something like Bryan’s Ecclesial Deism. Sola Ecclesia, if not Sola Sacramenta rules all. The Word of God is a dead letter and the Holy Spirit is constrained to operate only through the Roman sacraments, which are converting ordinances, not confirming ones. Thus the idolatry of the Mass is at the center for Romanism, versus the Scripture and the preaching of it for the Reformed along with the proper administration of the sacraments..
LikeLike
JJS – I seem to remember Goldilocks having the same problem initially…
Jeremy – My Reformed pastor’s sermons are great: http://www.providencerc.org
He was a classmate of Stellman’s at Westminster.
LikeLike
Jeremy Tate is actually a good example of how a Catholic can interact effectively with people on this site. He’s polite and makes brief, relevant posts.
LikeLike
Bryan, your historical awareness doesn’t show through one of your favorite words — “paradigm.” So are you saying that everyone who converts to Rome has to see if the history is true? Isn’t that a little Cartesian?
LikeLike
Joel, I actually believe many denominations is a plus and that organizational unity is not only overrated but dangerous. Lots of Americans don’t like the idea of the United Nations (one world government). Why should we turn around and love a one world church. The Tower or Babel episode would suggest God’s reservations about human efforts at unity.
LikeLike
Jeremy, so Reformed Protestants haven’t encountered Christ? Have you heard of his Spirit?
LikeLike
John Y., you should see me weep.
LikeLike
Jason, if you read the criticisms of Bryan, they involve his lack of attention to the ambiguities of history. I understand why he might do that. If you are going to say that history is more objective than the Bible — a line you once said — you have a very naive view of history, as if the doctrine of papal infallibility is any easier to defend than biblical inerrancy. If you can turn historical transmission (apostolic succession) into a dictation theory of providence, then I guess you get an infallible pope. But if you reject such simplicities as dictation theories, your view of an infallible pope and its historical premises becomes a lot more complicated. Bryan chooses paradigms, not history. That’s his call. But since Rome’s claims to superiority rest so much on how to regard history, paradigms only go so far.
LikeLike
Erik – “In a group like this there has to be some fellow Steely Dan fans.”
“They got a name for the winners in the world. I wanna name when I lose…call me Deacon Blues.” And wouldn’t that be a great name for a blog?
LikeLike
The CTC guys are starting to remind me of evangelicals in one respect. We’ve seen evangelicals who will actually use tricks of various kinds to evangelize with the idea that, well, if the goal is good and someone might get saved it’s all good. Now the CTC guys are smart enough to know that their arguments are lacking, but they’ll proclaim them in hopes that, while the music is softly playing, people will receive The Church into their hearts. And if that happens, the next convert steps in line to argue the same way, like Finney’s hearers would be saved and then immediately evangelize.
LikeLike
D.G.
You seem to think that if a person recognizes the role of paradigms, then he must not have historical awareness. Do you really think that? If so, that seems to be at odds with your earlier [false] accusation that I believe that history admits of only one interpretation.
No, I wasn’t saying that.
It is not an either/or, of course.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
MikelMann – “Deacon Blues” may be my #1 Steely Dan Favorite. Next time D.G. Blogs on What the Cats Missed I may have to find a way to sneak my Dan top 10 in somehow…
I’ll rise when the sun goes down
Cover every game in town
A world of my own
I’ll make it my home sweet home
The DVD/VHS of the making of “Aja” is great if you are interested. Available on Netflix.
LikeLike
…and, then, as someone else has noted, the CTC guys seem a little grim, afflicted with 24 * 7 seriousity. I can call a couple Catholic colleagues this morning and be laughing within 60 seconds, so that’s not an inherently Catholic trait. Maybe it’s depressing to be a former Presbyterian.
(Yes, I just made up “seriousity.” I like it.)
LikeLike
Erik, the family had some fun with another Steely Dan tune – “Well I did not think my Dad could be so cruuuuuel / And I’m never going back to my home schoooool…”
LikeLike
Mikel, my son (not home schooled) came up with a great band name — “Homeschool bomb threat”.
LikeLike
I like it, Brad. Our first child was homeschooled and went on to get a summa from Hillsdale. Of course, we take partial credit for her success but she thinks she could have gotten a 4.2 GPA instead of a 3.9 if she had been better educated. We started homeschooling our others, but then we got tired. That’s half serious.
LikeLike
Jeremy Tate wrote: “The gospel I found when I became Roman Catholic? I’ll be short. The good news of the gospel is Jesus Christ himself. Reformed Christianity offered me a rich education in knowing about Christ, but only Catholicism, in the Eucharist, offered me an actual encounter with Christ.”
GW: As has been pointed out by others, Reformed Christianity does not deny the real (Spiritual) presence of Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist. We do, in fact, “encounter” Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist through the work of the Holy Spirit and by our (God-given) faith in the crucified and risen Christ. But what I find interesting about Mr. Tate’s comments is that they seem to indicate his desire for a powerful, personal, experiential “encounter” with Christ which he felt he did not experience as a Protestant. May I suggest that this hankering after religious experience (“encounter”) sounds very “evangelical” and pietistic to me. (I.E., an evangelical pietist still seems to lurk in the heart of this former Protestant turned Romanist.) It also strikes me as evidencing a theology of glory rather than a theology of the cross.
LikeLike
Fagen & Becker’s “Old School” is Bard College (thus the mention of “Annandale”). I believe they played in a band there briefly with fellow student Chevy Chase (a drummer). I think Chevy quickly realized they were out of his league, though.
LikeLike
Geoff,
I’m inclined to think it sounds fideistic more than evangelistic- but that may be similar. It may be Barthian and Moltmanian too. And perhaps throw in some Pannenberg. Who is this magisterium anyways? The super-spiritual ones? Are they in perpetual contact and do they have a direct beeline to the Almighty? They might have a bit of a Messiah complex.
LikeLike
May I suggest a good counselor- Gabriel Byrne!!
LikeLike
Bryan, why do you think the doctrine of papal infallibility was not articulated until 1870? And what’s your explanation for why folks like John Henry Newman and Lord Acton opposed the articulation of the doctrine? In other words, how do you possibly find the idea of the pope, or the concomitant idea of papal infallibility, taught in the New Testament or early church without entering into materials that could be interpreted variously, thus raising real questions about your assertions that papal infallibility is there from the beginning of the church?
LikeLike
emenem, seriosity is a keeper even if we have enough blogs with blues in the title.
LikeLike
Just finished watching Gabriel Byrne in “Miller’s Crossing” yesterday. I was kind of disappointed. Does John Turturro play a bigger creep in “Miller” or “Lebowski”?
LikeLike
JY,
I figure the only explination for his posts the last few weeks is that Bryan himself must be the magisterium.
LikeLike
D.G.
For a similar reason why homoousious wasn’t articulated until 325, and “one Person, two natures” wasn’t articulated until 451, and dyothelitism wasn’t articulated until 681. Through theological controversy and the challenge of heresy, the Holy Spirit deepens the Church’s understanding of the deposit, allowing her to articulate and define more precisely the faith she has received from the Lord through the Apostles.
The same explanation they provided for their opposition.
I neither avoid entering materials “that could be interpreted variously,” nor fear “real questions;” rather, I seek the answers to “real questions.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
DGH:, why do you think the doctrine of papal infallibility was not articulated until 1870?
Bryan: For a similar reason why homoousious wasn’t articulated until 325, and “one Person, two natures” wasn’t articulated until 451,
Those reasons are not very similar at all. Since Newman first articulated his “theory” of development, Roman Catholics have confused two different forms of development in precisely the same Bryan has done so here.
As has been noted elsewhere:
J.B. Mozley argues that Newman commits a logical fallacy of amphiboly by not distinguishing between two different kinds of development. Newman is correct that there is genuine development in the early church….the “development” of incarnational and Trinitarian doctrine that takes place at Nicea, Chalcedon, etc., is really simply the necessary logical unfolding of what is already clearly present in the New Testament.
This is called “Development 1.” Development 1 adds nothing to the original content of faith, but rather brings out its necessary implications. Mozley says that Aquinas is doing precisely this kind of development in his discussion of the incarnation in the Summa Theologiae.
There is another kind of development, however, which I will call “Development 2.” Development 2 is genuinely new development that is not simply the necessary articulation of what is said explicitly in the Scriptures.
As persnickety as he is about words and concepts, I’m sure Bryan was going to be forthright enough get around to explaining all this.
LikeLike
Geoff, bingo. Which is why some see a parallel between the Roman Mass and (one form or another of) the revivalist altar call–a powerful, personal, experiential encounter with the risen Christ.
And as Scott Clark once wrote:
If “evangelical” is defined solely by “a personal encounter with the risen Christ” then why not become Roman? The Roman communion has always embraced this idea. Roman Christians routinely invite Jesus into their heart. Many Roman Christians also want to take back America for Christ. They want to transform the culture. They read their bibles privately and pray. Indeed, they invented the “still, small voice” and the quiet time (they call it “spiritual discipline”). Most evangelicals are pragmatists when it comes to church polity. Well, Rome is, as they say, “already there.” Rome invented the hierarchical/episcopal organizational structure that many evangelicals think of as efficient and effective. The real question may not be, “Oh my, why did Francis Beckwith become Roman Catholic?” but rather, “Why don’t more evangelicals become Roman Catholic?” For what good reasons do they resist? Half-way houses are meant to be places of temporary refuge…
…One other note concerning the rhetoric in the discussion that will surely ensue. Please, let us speak of Roman Catholics. The confessional Reformed Churches do not cede the term “catholic” to Rome. We have always insisted that the great sin of the Council of Trent was that it wasn’t truly catholic (universal) at all. Indeed, many of the decisions taken at Trent were sectarian. Chief among those sectarian decisions was their condemnation of the gospel of justification sola gratia, sola fide.
In the past I’ve said, “I’m not an evangelical.” Students have rightly challenged me about this. How can I contend for the adjective “catholic” and give up the adjective “evangelical”? Fair enough. Okay. Confessional Reformed folk are both catholic and evangelical properly understood. Henceforth I won’t concede the adjective “catholic” to Rome or the adjective “evangelical” to Cane Ridge/Northampton. Reformed folk are, properly understood, catholic and evangelical. We’re not Roman and we’re not “evangelicals” in the modern (from 1700) sense, but we are catholic and evangelical.
LikeLike
Bryan – What was the “theological controversy and the challenge of heresy” that led to the doctrine of papal infallibility being articulated in 1870? Isn’t this a long time to wait for “the Holy Spirit to deepen the Church’s undertanding” of such a key doctrine?
I do appreciate that you gave an answer.
Am I right to be suspicious of key theological developments arising 1800 years after Christ? Here is another one I am suspicious of:
“In the winter of 1816-17, Smith moved with his family from Vermont to the burned-over district of western New York, an area repeatedly swept by religious revivals during the Second Great Awakening. As was typical of their era, the Smiths believed in visions, prophecies, and folk magic, and Smith was hired as a scryer. According to Smith, beginning in the early 1820s he had visions, in one of which an angel directed him to a buried book of golden plates inscribed with a Christian history of ancient American civilizations. In 1830, he published what he said was an English translation of these plates as the Book of Mormon, and organized the Church of Christ as a restoration of the early Christian church. Church members were later called Latter Day Saints, Saints, or Mormons.” (Wikipedia)
LikeLike
Erik,
Are you suggesting that Rome may be a cult?
LikeLike
Geoff: “his desire for a powerful, personal, experiential “encounter” with Christ which he felt he did not experience as a Protestant. May I suggest that this hankering after religious experience (“encounter”) sounds very “evangelical” and pietistic to me. It also strikes me as evidencing a theology of glory rather than a theology of the cross.”
mcmark: amen to that, but as I have argued before, perhaps the thirst in our throats for the “nourishment” of high-church sacramentalism (minus ex operato, plus faith) of Nevin is but a sublimation of pietistic desires. If it takes a shaman to stand between us and the Mediator to give us a worship experience in which we feel Jesus sitting along side of us, so be it. And all the better if we don’t have to feel the presence to know He’s there in a special way in which He wouldn’t be without the mark of “ordination”.
I tend to agree with Luther and Calvin that faith is assurance. Reflex faith based on our church attendance gets a little more problematic. To say it simply, I think assurance is a good thing. But I also think it’s a good idea for people who should not have assurance to not have assurance.
This by no means that I advocate that we bring into the church the Arminian appeals of the false gospel which distort the message of John 3:1-18. Arminianism should never be brought into our churches. But it is not inherently “revivalism” to point out that those who are not yet justified are being addressed from a Bible which makes gospel promises only to as many as believe them.
LikeLike
With references to Nevin’s “Answer to Dorner” (Nichols, Mercersburg Theology, p186) , B. A. Gerrish writes: “Nevin had no qualms about describing the ‘altar feeling’ that pervaded the liturgy, in which the people present to God Christ’s passion and their own selves on the eucharistic altar.” (Thinking With The Church, p213).
Zwingli pointed mainly to the past, to the crucified flesh alone. Calvin pointed also to a participation in Christ, not only in “sacrament” and through believing but also (more, extra) by means of a non-rational mysterious influence from Christ’s resurrected and glorified body.
Nevin didn’t think Calvin’s sacramentology (“extraordinary power”) was consistent with Calvin’s ideas about God’s sovereign independence and predestination. I think Nevin was correct about the inconsistency. But I take sides with Hodge against the part of Calvin I want to leave behind. Always a partisan…naming, denominating the differences…
LikeLike
DGH,
“I actually believe many denominations is a plus and that organizational unity is not only overrated but dangerous. Lots of Americans don’t like the idea of the United Nations (one world government). Why should we turn around and love a one world church. The Tower or Babel episode would suggest God’s reservations about human efforts at unity.”
I see the benefits of what I believe you’ve called “pluriformity,” yet I couldn’t say that it was a good thing that while Paul stuck with the exclusive Psalm-singing that Barnabas went off to introduce hymns with liturgical dance. (Maybe there’s the evidence for early church hymn-singing!) Regional churches with regional confessions, especially with less organizational unity, sounds great, even while they are in large measure in conformity of beliefs with each other, but it’s still a shame that I can’t in good conscience worship at the PCA that’s next door and have to go to the RPC quite a few more miles out. No, I don’t want a centralized Church government entity to fix that problem. I’m just pointing it out that it is still a problem.
Further, from the article that I linked, at least 2/3rds of those “denominations” are no churches at all. It seems as though if we want to use the term denomination, we ought to be careful to determine if their confession actually represents Christianity in some degree.
LikeLike
Bryan, what did you have for breakfast?
LikeLike
Two quotations from Nevin’s The Mystical Presence.
“We deceive ourselves if we imagine that we have faith in his salvation, while we refuse to recognize the actual historical presence of it in his own institution. Without faith in the Church, there can be no proper faith in Christ.”, p66
“External imputation rests at last on an internal real unity of life.”, p34
Charles Hodge: “The life of the believer is not a corporate life, conditioned on union with any outward organization called the Church….” (ST:2:397)
LikeLike
Geoff,
I was asked what gospel I found in the Catholic Church, not why I became Catholic. I became Catholic because I realized that the main doctrines of the Reformation (Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide) were theological inventions of the 16th century that have now caused untold damage to millions of believers in causing divisions and often a false sense of assurance. I became Catholic because I realized that the Church that appears in the NT had a divine Creator (Jesus himself) and therefore mere men can never remake the Church as they think it ought to look. For something to truly be a Church it must truly be built (even at the organizational level) by Christ and the Apostles.
As for experience, yeah sure; Biblically, Christian worship is different than a lecture hall. Protestantism, as an expression of renaissance humanism, pushed back the alter and pushed forward the pulpit. The Christian attune to Scripture should see something problematic here. As a Catholic I go to Mass preparing my heart to receive Christ in the Eucharist. As a Reformed person I use to bring my note pad ready to hear an academic discourse. I understand the Reformed beleif of Christ present in the Lord’s Supper, but how is this presence different from the Holy Spirit being present in your car as you drive to Church? I’m not sure the Reformed have an answer here.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy – If I may ask, what do you do for a living? I am trying to figure out what your basic temperment is.
“have now caused untold damage to millions of believers”. Careful – the Priest Sex Abuse Scandal is still fresh.
LikeLike
This is just like the old cartoons with Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog…
LikeLike
Erik,
The priest scandal was caused by sinful men not false doctrine. This is a critical difference. I am a teacher and a high school football coach, so this is usually the time of year I stop engaging in theological discourse because I’m just too busy. You’ve always seemed to a fair guy, I apologize if I came off gruff.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy,
The priest scandal was caused by sinful men not false doctrine.
Can you be sure that there is no connection between Rome’s doctrines (infallibility, succession, celibacy, one true church, etc.) and the subsequent sinful sexual misbehavior of too many priests (not to mention the financial and political scandals both past and recent)? And what value is Rome’s supposed true doctrine if from the Vatican down, through bishops and priests, discipline of doctrine is ignored? I think Rome’s elevation of herself as the visible proof and manifestation of Christ on the earth creates an impossible tension of dissonance for sinful men (even the good ones) to negotiate. It ends up that it is more important to protect the “witness” for the sake of Rome’s witness to the world… a sad dilemma.
This is the inevitable result of elevating the Church above the Gospel.
LikeLike
You didn’t come off gruff. What areas do you teach? Interesting that you coach football. If I didn’t do what I do I would love to be a high school English teacher and coach. I would also love to be a used bookstore owner but that would require taking a vow of poverty.
LikeLike
What do the guys at CTC who used to be ministers do for a living now that they are Catholics? Would it be an option for them to become Anglicans and remain in the ministry under the deal the Pope has offered to Anglican ministers (if I’m understanding that deal correctly)?
LikeLike
Jeremy,
You guys can’t keep crediting the magisterium for positive development of the deposit and inspiring pious behavior among the faithful, and then besmirch INDIVIDUALS as rogue and tares among the wheat when both erroneous doctrine, lets talk vatican II doctrinal developments, and criminal behavior amongst it’s pew-sitters and clergy come to light. It’s a lot more credible to let the one visible holy roman catholic church takes it’s bows and take it’s lumps. Of course, that means you look just like the other “30k” denominations claiming to represent Christ, at least we know better than to claim the sole or only infallible representation of the apostolic faith.
LikeLike
Part of the point in my last comment is that it’s pretty evident that CtCers want to build a firewall between Rome’s doctrines (infallibility / the one true Church / etc.) and its sins, deceptions, failures, scandals, and worldly alliances of both past and present. That doesn’t wash.
You shall know a tree by its fruit? That’s a tough question to handle if your Church is the infallible manifestation of Christ on earth.
LikeLike
Jack,
Yep.
LikeLike
Jack,
Yes it does. You already believe that Peter was a sinner and was still used by God to write infallible Scripture. Explain the difference to me.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy,
The Reformed answer to how Christ is present in the Eucharist differently than “the Holy Spirit is present in your car” is simple: the Eucharist is where Christ has promised to be present. It is the Word of God, and the promises contained therein, that proclaim the presence of the crucified and risen Lord in the Supper.
Of course, this is an ironic objection coming from a communion which practically excluded the laity from the Supper for hundreds of years of its history, save an annual or semi-annual celebration, as well as excluding them from the participation of the cup ever, directly in violation of Christ’s command to “Drink of it, all of you.” It is perhaps a result of Luther, Calvin, and the Reformation (and counter-Reformation) that you enjoy the Supper weekly. You’re welcome.
The loss of frequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper is lamentable, but is not a matter of false doctrine (either of Calvin or our churchly confessions). Likewise, treating worship like an academic lecture is lamentable, but is a matter of poor practice, not poor doctrine. If you haven’t already, perhaps you could read Hart / Muether’s “With Reverence and Awe.”
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Yes it does. You already believe that Peter was a sinner and was still used by God to write infallible Scripture. Explain the difference to me.
My point above concerns the lack of connection between “infallible” Rome’s doctrine and the lack of Rome’s discipline of that doctrine. That is where there’s a disconnect and the convenient firewall comes in.
LikeLike
Dr. Lee,
Christ promised to be present wherever two or more are gathered in his name (Matt 18:20). How is Christ’s presence in the Eucharist different from this?
BTW – I don’t deny in any way that the counter reformation benefited the Catholic Church, ended abuses, and led to a resurgance in catechesis.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Bryan wrote:
“For a similar reason why homoousious wasn’t articulated until 325, and “one Person, two natures” wasn’t articulated until 451, and dyothelitism wasn’t articulated until 681. Through theological controversy and the challenge of heresy, the Holy Spirit deepens the Church’s understanding of the deposit, allowing her to articulate and define more precisely the faith she has received from the Lord through the Apostles.”
YES! I have tried to use this line concerning the Protestant doctrine of justification and all I receive is naysay! I will have to quote you on this in future discussions, if you do not mind.
Did the church finally mature enough beyond Paul’s lament to willingly accept and keep in good standing the likes of Schillebeeckx? Inasmuch as one can confess papal infallibility and brag of real unity, without useful practice, the doctrine has little value. Schillebeeckx can have all the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection while devaluing the historicity thereof, and I am more separated from Christ than he?
LikeLike
Jeremy…
And, I might add, the consideration of the possibility that it is some of Rome’s unique doctrines that may create an atmosphere and mindset that undermines Rome’s ownership of its inconsistencies, as well as its sins.
LikeLike
Jack,
Could it also be that Protestantism unintentionally unleashed a radical secularism into the world that has influenced some in the Catholic Church as well? My agnostic western civ Professor in college viewed the Reformation as a giant step towards belief in the autonomy of man…his ability to “do it on his own” if you will. What do you see as the cause of the secularism which now dominates the west? Do you totally disconnect it from the Reformation?
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy,
So the sins or deficiencies of Rome are now the fault of the Reformation? Sounds too much like Obama’s administration blaming its failures on Bush’s. Why not at least consider the possibility that there may be something inherent in Rome’s approach to truth Church which contributes to some of its problems? It seems more logical.
LikeLike
correction: truth Church
should be truth and Church
LikeLike
Jack,
Must run back to practice in a minute. A constant complaint I’m hearing from bloggers at Old Life is that CtC doesn’t reflect real Catholicism and that all the normal person in the Catholic pew doesn’t listen to the Magisterium. It’s a natural question to ask where this secularism comes from. Many non-religious historians see the Reformation as a step towards individualism and secularism. Since they don’t really have a stake in the Catholic/Protestant question maybe they are on to something.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Setting slaves free does not ensure that those now free, and the children of those free will live as saints. Some may in fact become very murderous. That does not illegitimate the need for captives to be set free.
That the Reformation may have played a role in the geneology of modernity is not significant to whether it was important – people use just about anything as avatars for their personal sin.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
I’m saying that it’s too many of the normal bishops and priests (popes?) who don’t seem to listen to their own teachings as evidenced by a history of doing wrong and looking the other way or simply ignoring all that CtC emphasizes, except for certain nominal outward practices related to the Mass and the priesthood. And that failure just may be connected to an unbearable burden of being in an infallible RCC and a logical result of Rome’s many questionable doctrines.
LikeLike
Jeremy, the difference between Peter the sinner and the pope the sinner is that Peter was inspired by the Holy Spirit and his writings were included in the canon. Papal writings have yet to be included in a canon of papal infallibility. In fact, RCs still debate which teachings of the magisterium are infallible. For instance, whenever the church teaches about faith and morals, it’s authoritative. But when Trent anathematizes Protestants 39 (thanks McMark) times for doctrinal defections, we are told that those anathemas were not infallible.
It is this drive to preserve the infallibility and perfection of the church that makes it difficult for the church to deal with sin and error. Protestants also have trouble dealing with error when it comes to the Bible. But that’s as far as it goes. Rome has a whole lot more territory to protect. And yet CTCers make it seem as if it’s all covered, ‘s’all good.
LikeLike
Jeremy, I have heard this point alot about how logocentric Calvinists allegedly are. And yet I hear a lot from RC’s about the incarnation — the word made flesh. The way you talk about the Mass sounds almost like a version of flesh made flesh. If Christ is the eternal word, which he is, why wouldn’t preaching from the Word’s word be a form of meeting Christ in worship. Instead of mocking long sermons, maybe we should be grateful that the portions of Christ there are so much bigger than those in the Supper.
LikeLike
Once people start complaining about long sermons it’s not long until they’re headed someplace they probably shouldn’t go. We had an elder who started complaining about long sermons. Within a year he was at a church where they have officers who wear heels.
LikeLike
Darryl said: “Jeremy, I have heard this point alot about how logocentric Calvinists allegedly are. And yet I hear a lot from RC’s about the incarnation — the word made flesh. The way you talk about the Mass sounds almost like a version of flesh made flesh. If Christ is the eternal word, which he is, why wouldn’t preaching from the Word’s word be a form of meeting Christ in worship. Instead of mocking long sermons, maybe we should be grateful that the portions of Christ there are so much bigger than those in the Supper.”
John Y: It is not easy to find a church where the Pastor and the congregants really want to dig into the word of God and learn more about what the Gospel actually is and how it is the ongoing theme which gets progressively revealed with more clarity throughout the pages of the scriptures. I wish there was more logocentricism in churches. We need to hear the Gospel with increasing understanding and clarity throughout our lives. It feeds our faith and helps us work out the trials and tribulations that are bound to come our way in this life. May logocentricism abound and be revived and reformed in our churches throughout the states in America. Thank you Darryl for saying that.
LikeLike
To resurrect a quote from Luther:
“I simply taught, preached and wrote about God’s Word; otherwise I did nothing. And while I slept , or drank Wittenberg beer with my friends Philip and Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy (or mainstream evangelicalism and postmodern spirituality-to make it relevant to today) that no prince or emperor ever inflicted such loses upon it. I did nothing, the Word did everything.”
LikeLike
Dr. Lee,
I would still love to hear your response to this question;
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Funny anecdote about complaints over long sermons. The very, very small PCA Chruch I’m in had a part-time stated supply from the OPC for a couple of years. Some of the congregants, including at least one elder, began complaining about the length of the sermons/not getting out of church “on time.” So the OPC pastor gets up in the pulpit one day and addresses the complaints head on. He said something like, So I’ve heard that some here would like my sermons to be shorter, but we have to remember that we are in the business of making Christians. Sermons produce Christians; sermonettes produce Christianettes. Now, the level of courage it took to do that is minimized to some degree because he was a part-time, stated supply with a wife who had a good job and he had another job as well. But still, for the rural South, where I live, that was uber-hardcore. I wanted to stand up and clap. He also had a good sense of humor about the OPC. He told me one time that the OPC was the best denomination in the world…if you can stand it.
LikeLike
Ash – Great story. I have a similar one.
A man in our URC congregation died 5-6 years ago. The funeral was in his hometown and was conducted by my pastor. He was a fairly new pastor (Westminster CA grad) and didn’t really know the man’s family that well. A handful of of us from church attended the funeral. The deceased had a pretty large family and roots in this small community and there were probably a couple of hundred people at the funeral. There was a time of eulogizing that went on for quite some time. After that our pastor gets up and says something to the effect of, “I know we’ve been here for some time giving everyone a chance to speak, but if you think that will cut down on the length of my sermon you are mistaken.” It was great and the deceased would have appreciated it.
The other thing I remember from that sermon is that they had an open mike during lunch and some dude got up and started doing some kind of Native American chant. Everyone kind of ignored him.
My wife does give me a hard time whenever I talk about the virtues of long sermons by reminding me that I am not the one in the nursery with the babies. She has a way of taking me off of my high horse!
LikeLike
Erik,
Everytime my wife ‘checks’ me I always retort with; ‘you got my sammich done yet? No, well maybe a little more time spent on what needs doing and a little less on what you think I don’t know’
Anyway, give that a go and make sure to link the video to oldlife.
LikeLike
Jeremy, I’m not coopting Brian, but Reformed Protestants believe that with the invocation we enter the holy of holies where Christ is really spiritually present. You don’t need to go to Rome to have a high view of worship. Reformed Protestants also save money by not having all the bells and whistles. But if you look with eyes of faith, you can see you are at Mt. Zion, with all the saints and angels.
LikeLike
But there is a lot to be said for the virtues of simplicity and succinctness. I’m not so sure long winded Protestant pastors are much different from Bryan Crossity. Is more always better or just American?
LikeLike
“Eyes of faith,” as our host said. That’s what makes the difference. And, after all, we walk not by sight but by faith. The same can not be said be for Rome.
This is not gnosticism or anything of the sort but simply the biblical faith once for all delivered to the saints. This is the beauty of our faith and of the implications for worship set forth in WCF 7.5-6:
5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.
6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.
LikeLike
I’m not really a long or short sermon advocate; I think the text that’s being preached to some degree dicatates and I’ve heard the good and not-so-good of both varieties. But I guess the reason I liked what that pastor said so much–and in full disclosure, there was probably some “see there, take that, you old crumudgeons” sinful taint to my reaction–was that the supreme value of those complaining seemed to be that church must end at noon on the dot because that’s the way it’s always been, and the way it shall be, world without end, Amen, and besides, how else will we beat the Baptists to lunch if not? (not much strict Sabbath observance going on obviously).
LikeLike
I guess the point of all this is that as we rely on God and His Word and Spirit to do the work of what He wants accomplished, we and all our efforts in the dark, get out of the way and can enjoy watching God do the work. That is a huge burden off our backs. Let us dig into the Word of God together and really “get” what the Gospel is.
LikeLike